New £135,000-a-year People Director unveiled by council

Daily Echo: Alison Elliott Alison Elliott

THIS is the face of the new leader of a controversial new post created after children’s and adults services were merged.

Alison Elliott, currently working in a London borough overseeing disabled children’s services, is expected to take up her £135,000 role as People Director in April.

But as she takes up the position, the Daily Echo understands the city’s much praised head of children’s services, Clive Webster, will be made redundant or redeployed.

Under Mr Webster, more 11- year-olds are passing vital tests in English and maths than ever before and GSCE results have gone from rock bottom to close to the national average.

Yet his job will now disappear and be merged with the adult services role to create the new position which he lost out to Ms Elliot.

But, as previously reported, the recruitment process came under fire for not mentioning the role of education in the job description.

Critics were concerned that the successful candidate would lack experience in running schools and colleges.

Last night city bosses announced the appointment of Ms Elliott and detailed her wealth of social work experience – although no mention was made of any experience in education.

But city leader Cllr Richard Williams insisted the right candidate had been hired to perform the dual role.

He said: “Alison has a wealth of knowledge and experience and will, I am sure, be an asset to the city council and the city. We look forward to Alison leading and delivering the transformation required for the delivery of sustainable services to our residents.

“We are in discussions with Alison about her start date but Alison is keen to attend key meetings b e f o r e then and to familiarise herself with Southampton.”

Clive Webster said last night: “Clearly I am very disappointed but I would like to thank everyone for the tremendous progress we have made. The future of all Southampton’s children and young people is much brighter as a result and I wish my successor every success in taking the progress forward.”

Dawn Baxendale, Interim Chief Executive said: “We look forward to Alison being part of the council’s senior management team and working together to transform services and establish the new directorate.”

Ms Elliott said: “I am excited about the opportunity to bring a wide range of services together and transform them in order to improve outcomes for children, adults and families in greatest need.”

But questionmarks remain over whether the scope of the role was made clear when the job was advertised.

Conservative group education Cllr Jeremy Moulton said: “My criticism of the situation was that it was not clear that education was part of the job before we went out to market to recruit.

“I think the whole thing has been a shambles.”

Comments (177)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:04am Fri 1 Feb 13

SotonGreen says...

This will be a piece of New Labour nonsense replacing a hard working popular man with a less suitable women for the sake of meeting some notion of a gender /sexuality balance.
This will be a piece of New Labour nonsense replacing a hard working popular man with a less suitable women for the sake of meeting some notion of a gender /sexuality balance. SotonGreen
  • Score: -1

8:07am Fri 1 Feb 13

Miguel Raton says...

Another parasite moves from one overpaid non job to another overpaid non job while outside the gilded cage of the 'senior public sector' standards of living are in decline.
Another parasite moves from one overpaid non job to another overpaid non job while outside the gilded cage of the 'senior public sector' standards of living are in decline. Miguel Raton
  • Score: 1

8:11am Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

I wonder if she's a card holding member
of the Labour Party?
is this a case of a job for a comrade?
I wonder if she's a card holding member of the Labour Party? is this a case of a job for a comrade? loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:13am Fri 1 Feb 13

jimbos says...

So £7k less than the Prime Minister then. Stop wasting my money.
So £7k less than the Prime Minister then. Stop wasting my money. jimbos
  • Score: 0

8:18am Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Amalgamated with the Island & no need for Southampton to fill this post as the island manager could have looked after both the Island & our City so well done Williams in scrapping the deal
Amalgamated with the Island & no need for Southampton to fill this post as the island manager could have looked after both the Island & our City so well done Williams in scrapping the deal loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:23am Fri 1 Feb 13

SaintAsh1964 says...

ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS A YEAR!
Jesus H Christ, no wonder all the bl00dy taxes go up every year, god these inflated salaries make me so angry :(
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS A YEAR! Jesus H Christ, no wonder all the bl00dy taxes go up every year, god these inflated salaries make me so angry :( SaintAsh1964
  • Score: 1

8:32am Fri 1 Feb 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

This is a little bit rich, coming from Jeremy Moulton.

When his party was in power in Southampton he was responsible for overseeing a restructure of the Council's directorates which would have seen the amalgamation of the Council's adult social care services with education. Jeremy was then personally responsible for children's services.

The cunning plan was to give the new job to the former director of adult social care and send Clive Webster down the road. Conservative leaders were hell-bent on getting rid of two Executive Directors and Clive's face clearly didn't fit.

Sadly, the plan spectacularly back-fired when the Director of adult social services - only in post for 18 months and with very limited knowledge of education - refused to play ball and opted instead for early retirement (costing the local taxpayers a small fortune).

Clive Webster would then have been the only internal applicant for the new combined director's post but this did not comply with the conservative strategy.

Their response was to resort to the former arrangement (i.e. two £100k + directors instead of one) and leave the mess for the new Labour council to sort out.

This is a shabby state of affairs inherited from an administration whose mistakes with its senior appointments has cost the City over a million pounds.

We don't need lectures from people like Jeremy Moulton who was largely responsible for this particular 'omnishambles'
This is a little bit rich, coming from Jeremy Moulton. When his party was in power in Southampton he was responsible for overseeing a restructure of the Council's directorates which would have seen the amalgamation of the Council's adult social care services with education. Jeremy was then personally responsible for children's services. The cunning plan was to give the new job to the former director of adult social care and send Clive Webster down the road. Conservative leaders were hell-bent on getting rid of two Executive Directors and Clive's face clearly didn't fit. Sadly, the plan spectacularly back-fired when the Director of adult social services - only in post for 18 months and with very limited knowledge of education - refused to play ball and opted instead for early retirement (costing the local taxpayers a small fortune). Clive Webster would then have been the only internal applicant for the new combined director's post but this did not comply with the conservative strategy. Their response was to resort to the former arrangement (i.e. two £100k + directors instead of one) and leave the mess for the new Labour council to sort out. This is a shabby state of affairs inherited from an administration whose mistakes with its senior appointments has cost the City over a million pounds. We don't need lectures from people like Jeremy Moulton who was largely responsible for this particular 'omnishambles' FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

8:32am Fri 1 Feb 13

hulla baloo says...

I think that by the time you add in 'expenses' and 'allowances' plus the pension payments, this figure may well be double, or more.
I think that by the time you add in 'expenses' and 'allowances' plus the pension payments, this figure may well be double, or more. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

8:36am Fri 1 Feb 13

Vix1 says...

So, the government can afford wages like these and yet my terminally ill friend is having to fight to keep her incapacity benefit!!!! What a load of morons running this country!!!!!!!!!!! MAKES ME SOOOOOOOOOOO MAD!!!!
So, the government can afford wages like these and yet my terminally ill friend is having to fight to keep her incapacity benefit!!!! What a load of morons running this country!!!!!!!!!!! MAKES ME SOOOOOOOOOOO MAD!!!! Vix1
  • Score: 0

9:12am Fri 1 Feb 13

arthur dalyrimple says...

council tax is unlawful , wheres the contract ?
council tax is unlawful , wheres the contract ? arthur dalyrimple
  • Score: 0

9:18am Fri 1 Feb 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

How many of those moaning on here actually voted in the Council elections? If you didn't you can hardly complain as you haven't given anyone a mandate to speak for you, if you want change, get involved yourself.
How many of those moaning on here actually voted in the Council elections? If you didn't you can hardly complain as you haven't given anyone a mandate to speak for you, if you want change, get involved yourself. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

9:42am Fri 1 Feb 13

S Pance says...

Is this the same lady who worked for Brent council?

Wasn't it Brent Council Children's Services who failed to protect Victoria Climbe?

I'm not suggesting she was involved in the case, because she wasn't (She was in adult services and children's services were responsible for Victoria Climbie). Nor am I questioning her abilities.

However, most of her experience will have come from a council that failed the public drastically and resulted in a fatality.

I do hope none of this bad practice rubbed off on her and that she uses this as an example of what not to do when running services in Southampton!
Is this the same lady who worked for Brent council? Wasn't it Brent Council Children's Services who failed to protect Victoria Climbe? I'm not suggesting she was involved in the case, because she wasn't (She was in adult services and children's services were responsible for Victoria Climbie). Nor am I questioning her abilities. However, most of her experience will have come from a council that failed the public drastically and resulted in a fatality. I do hope none of this bad practice rubbed off on her and that she uses this as an example of what not to do when running services in Southampton! S Pance
  • Score: 0

9:56am Fri 1 Feb 13

misbehaving says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
This is a little bit rich, coming from Jeremy Moulton.

When his party was in power in Southampton he was responsible for overseeing a restructure of the Council's directorates which would have seen the amalgamation of the Council's adult social care services with education. Jeremy was then personally responsible for children's services.

The cunning plan was to give the new job to the former director of adult social care and send Clive Webster down the road. Conservative leaders were hell-bent on getting rid of two Executive Directors and Clive's face clearly didn't fit.

Sadly, the plan spectacularly back-fired when the Director of adult social services - only in post for 18 months and with very limited knowledge of education - refused to play ball and opted instead for early retirement (costing the local taxpayers a small fortune).

Clive Webster would then have been the only internal applicant for the new combined director's post but this did not comply with the conservative strategy.

Their response was to resort to the former arrangement (i.e. two £100k + directors instead of one) and leave the mess for the new Labour council to sort out.

This is a shabby state of affairs inherited from an administration whose mistakes with its senior appointments has cost the City over a million pounds.

We don't need lectures from people like Jeremy Moulton who was largely responsible for this particular 'omnishambles'
I think you find labour have done this. the tories got rid of the directors but Labour made jobs for their friends. Noon furnel Thomas Pope Morell. Of course morel and Thomas have left now but the cabinet and committee positions were given by williams to pay his cronies.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: This is a little bit rich, coming from Jeremy Moulton. When his party was in power in Southampton he was responsible for overseeing a restructure of the Council's directorates which would have seen the amalgamation of the Council's adult social care services with education. Jeremy was then personally responsible for children's services. The cunning plan was to give the new job to the former director of adult social care and send Clive Webster down the road. Conservative leaders were hell-bent on getting rid of two Executive Directors and Clive's face clearly didn't fit. Sadly, the plan spectacularly back-fired when the Director of adult social services - only in post for 18 months and with very limited knowledge of education - refused to play ball and opted instead for early retirement (costing the local taxpayers a small fortune). Clive Webster would then have been the only internal applicant for the new combined director's post but this did not comply with the conservative strategy. Their response was to resort to the former arrangement (i.e. two £100k + directors instead of one) and leave the mess for the new Labour council to sort out. This is a shabby state of affairs inherited from an administration whose mistakes with its senior appointments has cost the City over a million pounds. We don't need lectures from people like Jeremy Moulton who was largely responsible for this particular 'omnishambles'[/p][/quote]I think you find labour have done this. the tories got rid of the directors but Labour made jobs for their friends. Noon furnel Thomas Pope Morell. Of course morel and Thomas have left now but the cabinet and committee positions were given by williams to pay his cronies. misbehaving
  • Score: 0

10:09am Fri 1 Feb 13

George4th says...

SaintAsh1964 wrote:
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS A YEAR!
Jesus H Christ, no wonder all the bl00dy taxes go up every year, god these inflated salaries make me so angry :(
A year or so ago she was on £108,084 per year..............
[quote][p][bold]SaintAsh1964[/bold] wrote: ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS A YEAR! Jesus H Christ, no wonder all the bl00dy taxes go up every year, god these inflated salaries make me so angry :([/p][/quote]A year or so ago she was on £108,084 per year.............. George4th
  • Score: 0

10:12am Fri 1 Feb 13

Vix1 says...

Just goes to show that money can't buy you a decent haircut or taste in clothes!!! lol!!
Just goes to show that money can't buy you a decent haircut or taste in clothes!!! lol!! Vix1
  • Score: 0

10:18am Fri 1 Feb 13

Beer Monster says...

Vix1 wrote:
Just goes to show that money can't buy you a decent haircut or taste in clothes!!! lol!!
Hehe, exactly what I was thinking :-)
[quote][p][bold]Vix1[/bold] wrote: Just goes to show that money can't buy you a decent haircut or taste in clothes!!! lol!![/p][/quote]Hehe, exactly what I was thinking :-) Beer Monster
  • Score: 0

10:18am Fri 1 Feb 13

SaintAsh1964 says...

George4th wrote:
SaintAsh1964 wrote:
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS A YEAR!
Jesus H Christ, no wonder all the bl00dy taxes go up every year, god these inflated salaries make me so angry :(
A year or so ago she was on £108,084 per year..............
Cheers George, just as well she took the job this year and not next year!
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SaintAsh1964[/bold] wrote: ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS A YEAR! Jesus H Christ, no wonder all the bl00dy taxes go up every year, god these inflated salaries make me so angry :([/p][/quote]A year or so ago she was on £108,084 per year..............[/p][/quote]Cheers George, just as well she took the job this year and not next year! SaintAsh1964
  • Score: 0

10:21am Fri 1 Feb 13

Outside of the Box says...

Vix1 wrote:
Just goes to show that money can't buy you a decent haircut or taste in clothes!!! lol!!
Meow
[quote][p][bold]Vix1[/bold] wrote: Just goes to show that money can't buy you a decent haircut or taste in clothes!!! lol!![/p][/quote]Meow Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

10:24am Fri 1 Feb 13

Sovietobserver says...

Yes, S Pance, Alison is indeed at present Director of Adult Social Services of the London Borough of Brent, a position she has held since April 2011. Her salary there is on pay scale HAY 3, at £108,084 per annum. Brent has been controlled by the Labour group since 2010.
In her profile there is no mention of her having any positions held in the educational fields.
She describes herself as a mad Liverpool FC fan.
Yes, S Pance, Alison is indeed at present Director of Adult Social Services of the London Borough of Brent, a position she has held since April 2011. Her salary there is on pay scale HAY 3, at £108,084 per annum. Brent has been controlled by the Labour group since 2010. In her profile there is no mention of her having any positions held in the educational fields. She describes herself as a mad Liverpool FC fan. Sovietobserver
  • Score: 0

10:36am Fri 1 Feb 13

WOOLSTONCHAP says...

What the hell is going on £135,000 plus ???? its the 1st of Febuary not April, Southampton council this is disgusting, why are they cutting services and wasting our money this must STOP, anyone can see this is wrong but im sure they will try and convince us we are getting value for money, well even £35,000 would be generous this is a disgrace.
What the hell is going on £135,000 plus ???? its the 1st of Febuary not April, Southampton council this is disgusting, why are they cutting services and wasting our money this must STOP, anyone can see this is wrong but im sure they will try and convince us we are getting value for money, well even £35,000 would be generous this is a disgrace. WOOLSTONCHAP
  • Score: 0

10:38am Fri 1 Feb 13

Outside of the Box says...

S Pance wrote:
Is this the same lady who worked for Brent council?

Wasn't it Brent Council Children's Services who failed to protect Victoria Climbe?

I'm not suggesting she was involved in the case, because she wasn't (She was in adult services and children's services were responsible for Victoria Climbie). Nor am I questioning her abilities.

However, most of her experience will have come from a council that failed the public drastically and resulted in a fatality.

I do hope none of this bad practice rubbed off on her and that she uses this as an example of what not to do when running services in Southampton!
Appointed Director Adult Social Services for Brent council in 2011, Alison’s pay before tax is £108,084 per annum she received no
performance related pay, bonus or lease car. and she joined the Local
Government Pension Scheme.

Her current pay at Brent before tax is £118,893 per annum, She still didn't receive performance related pay, any bonus or lease car a

New job at SCC in 2013/14 pay £135k per annum and probably remains in Local Government Pension Scheme.

I would say that's meteoritic rise in salary, by coming here, to do the same job for roughly the same number of people (population of Brent 263,464) the question is does she warrant such as rise in salary for coming here,,,,,,costs of living is much here as well, no wonder she's grinning like the proverbial cat from Cheshire
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: Is this the same lady who worked for Brent council? Wasn't it Brent Council Children's Services who failed to protect Victoria Climbe? I'm not suggesting she was involved in the case, because she wasn't (She was in adult services and children's services were responsible for Victoria Climbie). Nor am I questioning her abilities. However, most of her experience will have come from a council that failed the public drastically and resulted in a fatality. I do hope none of this bad practice rubbed off on her and that she uses this as an example of what not to do when running services in Southampton![/p][/quote]Appointed Director Adult Social Services for Brent council in 2011, Alison’s pay before tax is £108,084 per annum she received no performance related pay, bonus or lease car. and she joined the Local Government Pension Scheme. Her current pay at Brent before tax is £118,893 per annum, She still didn't receive performance related pay, any bonus or lease car a New job at SCC in 2013/14 pay £135k per annum and probably remains in Local Government Pension Scheme. I would say that's meteoritic rise in salary, by coming here, to do the same job for roughly the same number of people (population of Brent 263,464) the question is does she warrant such as rise in salary for coming here,,,,,,costs of living is much here as well, no wonder she's grinning like the proverbial cat from Cheshire Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

10:41am Fri 1 Feb 13

aldermoorboy says...

Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

10:44am Fri 1 Feb 13

Vix1 says...

aldermoorboy, at the end of the day they are all the same. They tell you what they think you want to hear, then get in power and do exactly as they please (usually not what they promise!!). Show me an honest politician and I will vote for them, but sadly "honest" and "politician" never seem to appear in the same sentence!
aldermoorboy, at the end of the day they are all the same. They tell you what they think you want to hear, then get in power and do exactly as they please (usually not what they promise!!). Show me an honest politician and I will vote for them, but sadly "honest" and "politician" never seem to appear in the same sentence! Vix1
  • Score: 0

10:51am Fri 1 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
council tax is unlawful , wheres the contract ?
Stop paying it if you believe that to be the case, and let us know how you get on.
[quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote: council tax is unlawful , wheres the contract ?[/p][/quote]Stop paying it if you believe that to be the case, and let us know how you get on. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

11:21am Fri 1 Feb 13

Outside of the Box says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to more expensive.

A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it would cost the council tax payer a penny.

A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial dispute in living memory.

A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat.

A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing

A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk.

You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that
's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council[/p][/quote]A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to more expensive. A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it would cost the council tax payer a penny. A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial dispute in living memory. A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat. A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk. You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that 's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

11:22am Fri 1 Feb 13

Outside of the Box says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive.

A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny.

A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory.

A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat.

A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing

A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk.

You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that

's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council[/p][/quote]A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive. A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny. A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory. A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat. A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk. You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that 's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

11:34am Fri 1 Feb 13

one in a million says...

How can councils bleat about cuts when paying this sort of salary!
How can councils bleat about cuts when paying this sort of salary! one in a million
  • Score: 0

11:40am Fri 1 Feb 13

VictorMeldrew says...

Southampton has not had a decent council for years. Labour and Conservative have both failed. Portsmouth has done much better.
Southampton has not had a decent council for years. Labour and Conservative have both failed. Portsmouth has done much better. VictorMeldrew
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Might SS says...

What a shame the Echo are unable to give an unbiased report.....and cannot get their facts right. Still what can you expect of the press.
What a shame the Echo are unable to give an unbiased report.....and cannot get their facts right. Still what can you expect of the press. Might SS
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

SaintAsh1964 wrote:
ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS A YEAR!
Jesus H Christ, no wonder all the bl00dy taxes go up every year, god these inflated salaries make me so angry :(
Come on what do you expect, its a capitalist world we live in, where the rich just keep getting richer and the poor poorer
[quote][p][bold]SaintAsh1964[/bold] wrote: ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS A YEAR! Jesus H Christ, no wonder all the bl00dy taxes go up every year, god these inflated salaries make me so angry :([/p][/quote]Come on what do you expect, its a capitalist world we live in, where the rich just keep getting richer and the poor poorer southy
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

Outside of the Box wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive.

A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny.

A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory.

A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat.

A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing

A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk.

You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that


's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.
He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.
[quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council[/p][/quote]A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive. A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny. A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory. A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat. A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk. You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that 's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.[/p][/quote]He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour. southy
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Fri 1 Feb 13

George4th says...

VictorMeldrew wrote:
Southampton has not had a decent council for years. Labour and Conservative have both failed. Portsmouth has done much better.
True!
Nearly all of it under Labour which explains why Portsmouth has done so much better!!!


>
Southampton is a Southern oasis for Labour!

The rest of the South doesn't want them!

Labour will use every trick in the book to maintain their presence here in Southampton and that means being permanently in bed with the Unions to achieve it!

Who in Southampton wins? Nobody except the Labour councillors and the Union!

Who loses? Every citizen of Southampton City!

The Labour councillors are not interested in you, they are only interested in themselves and holding onto their single solitary Southern council.............
.........
[quote][p][bold]VictorMeldrew[/bold] wrote: Southampton has not had a decent council for years. Labour and Conservative have both failed. Portsmouth has done much better.[/p][/quote]True! Nearly all of it under Labour which explains why Portsmouth has done so much better!!! > Southampton is a Southern oasis for Labour! The rest of the South doesn't want them! Labour will use every trick in the book to maintain their presence here in Southampton and that means being permanently in bed with the Unions to achieve it! Who in Southampton wins? Nobody except the Labour councillors and the Union! Who loses? Every citizen of Southampton City! The Labour councillors are not interested in you, they are only interested in themselves and holding onto their single solitary Southern council............. ......... George4th
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

It would be better and it would save a lot of money to bring people up though the ranks in that dept, you could cut the cost of this post down to £50,000 a year.
It would be better and it would save a lot of money to bring people up though the ranks in that dept, you could cut the cost of this post down to £50,000 a year. southy
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Fri 1 Feb 13

sarfhamton says...

If you don't like it then do something about it
If you don't like it then do something about it sarfhamton
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

George4th wrote:
VictorMeldrew wrote:
Southampton has not had a decent council for years. Labour and Conservative have both failed. Portsmouth has done much better.
True!
Nearly all of it under Labour which explains why Portsmouth has done so much better!!!


>
Southampton is a Southern oasis for Labour!

The rest of the South doesn't want them!

Labour will use every trick in the book to maintain their presence here in Southampton and that means being permanently in bed with the Unions to achieve it!

Who in Southampton wins? Nobody except the Labour councillors and the Union!

Who loses? Every citizen of Southampton City!

The Labour councillors are not interested in you, they are only interested in themselves and holding onto their single solitary Southern council.............

.........
And the difference is, none you vote in Labour, Torys, Lib/dems, Greens, UKIP, BNP, First party, you going to get the same they are all Right Wing Partys and the only diffence between them is how the cuts will be delivered to the public
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VictorMeldrew[/bold] wrote: Southampton has not had a decent council for years. Labour and Conservative have both failed. Portsmouth has done much better.[/p][/quote]True! Nearly all of it under Labour which explains why Portsmouth has done so much better!!! > Southampton is a Southern oasis for Labour! The rest of the South doesn't want them! Labour will use every trick in the book to maintain their presence here in Southampton and that means being permanently in bed with the Unions to achieve it! Who in Southampton wins? Nobody except the Labour councillors and the Union! Who loses? Every citizen of Southampton City! The Labour councillors are not interested in you, they are only interested in themselves and holding onto their single solitary Southern council............. .........[/p][/quote]And the difference is, none you vote in Labour, Torys, Lib/dems, Greens, UKIP, BNP, First party, you going to get the same they are all Right Wing Partys and the only diffence between them is how the cuts will be delivered to the public southy
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

sarfhamton wrote:
If you don't like it then do something about it
And thats what people should be doing Sarthamton, I choise to get involved and not moan about it.
Politics is not boring like the politicians would like you to think, just to keep you away from being in politics
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: If you don't like it then do something about it[/p][/quote]And thats what people should be doing Sarthamton, I choise to get involved and not moan about it. Politics is not boring like the politicians would like you to think, just to keep you away from being in politics southy
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Outside of the Box wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to more expensive.

A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it would cost the council tax payer a penny.

A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial dispute in living memory.

A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat.

A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing

A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk.

You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that

's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.
What ! you are blaming the Industrial dispute on the Tories?
we all now know it was nothing but a political dispute with one aim to get rid of the then council to replace it with a Labour council.
once again did you listen to Clegg?
he quite clearly put the first years cuts at the door of the Labour Government saying they were implemented before the Election so I guess you can blame Labour for those cuts.
As for the budget the Tories had set out it was with a cut of £45million with no grant for bin collection & no extra 5million.
the cut to pay saved between £3-7million,the joint venture with the Island would have meant this post would not have been filled & the Islands person would have run this department & the Islands department so saving us £135,000 a year
so come on why did Williams restore pay straight away & why did he scrap several million pounds saving deal with the island?
so millions saved by joint ventures, millions saved by cutting pay, millions saved with an £8million grant which the tories applied for( increased by Labour) so about approx. £19million more than they would now have.
then take away exactly what the cut was £36million from the 45 & you saved another 9million so all in all the actual deficit was £28million less until Williams went out to discredit the government.
Make cuts make huge job losses & blame the government so he broke deals he restored pay when we couldn't afford to so yes comparing the two councils we were far better off with a Tory council
[quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council[/p][/quote]A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to more expensive. A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it would cost the council tax payer a penny. A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial dispute in living memory. A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat. A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk. You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that 's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.[/p][/quote]What ! you are blaming the Industrial dispute on the Tories? we all now know it was nothing but a political dispute with one aim to get rid of the then council to replace it with a Labour council. once again did you listen to Clegg? he quite clearly put the first years cuts at the door of the Labour Government saying they were implemented before the Election so I guess you can blame Labour for those cuts. As for the budget the Tories had set out it was with a cut of £45million with no grant for bin collection & no extra 5million. the cut to pay saved between £3-7million,the joint venture with the Island would have meant this post would not have been filled & the Islands person would have run this department & the Islands department so saving us £135,000 a year so come on why did Williams restore pay straight away & why did he scrap several million pounds saving deal with the island? so millions saved by joint ventures, millions saved by cutting pay, millions saved with an £8million grant which the tories applied for( increased by Labour) so about approx. £19million more than they would now have. then take away exactly what the cut was £36million from the 45 & you saved another 9million so all in all the actual deficit was £28million less until Williams went out to discredit the government. Make cuts make huge job losses & blame the government so he broke deals he restored pay when we couldn't afford to so yes comparing the two councils we were far better off with a Tory council loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive.

A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny.

A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory.

A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat.

A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing

A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk.

You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that



's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.
He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.
is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council[/p][/quote]A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive. A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny. A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory. A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat. A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk. You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that 's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.[/p][/quote]He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.[/p][/quote]is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
sarfhamton wrote:
If you don't like it then do something about it
And thats what people should be doing Sarthamton, I choise to get involved and not moan about it.
Politics is not boring like the politicians would like you to think, just to keep you away from being in politics
Southy people want to hear both sides & make up their minds.
If I'm proven to be wrong I will admit it & change my point of view as with the Bio Mass.
but many Labour/Union/TuSC supporters on here blame it on the Tories or the Government.
Can't you & the others on here see this is just a continuation of the Unions tactics to get rid of a Tory council?
Williams & Labour are making cuts blaming the government then surprise,surprise they find a bit of money to save a few but not all & it's not their fault is it?
why oh why did they scrap the deal with the Island?
this post would not be there & that saving could have saved at least three other jobs couldn't it? so come on prove me wrong & tell me what Williams Labour party are actually trying to do or are you going to blame Maggie again?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: If you don't like it then do something about it[/p][/quote]And thats what people should be doing Sarthamton, I choise to get involved and not moan about it. Politics is not boring like the politicians would like you to think, just to keep you away from being in politics[/p][/quote]Southy people want to hear both sides & make up their minds. If I'm proven to be wrong I will admit it & change my point of view as with the Bio Mass. but many Labour/Union/TuSC supporters on here blame it on the Tories or the Government. Can't you & the others on here see this is just a continuation of the Unions tactics to get rid of a Tory council? Williams & Labour are making cuts blaming the government then surprise,surprise they find a bit of money to save a few but not all & it's not their fault is it? why oh why did they scrap the deal with the Island? this post would not be there & that saving could have saved at least three other jobs couldn't it? so come on prove me wrong & tell me what Williams Labour party are actually trying to do or are you going to blame Maggie again? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive.

A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny.

A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory.

A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat.

A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing

A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk.

You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that




's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.
He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.
is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?
There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also.
The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council[/p][/quote]A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive. A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny. A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory. A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat. A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk. You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that 's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.[/p][/quote]He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.[/p][/quote]is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?[/p][/quote]There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also. The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes. southy
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive.

A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny.

A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory.

A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat.

A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing

A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk.

You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that





's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.
He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.
is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?
There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also.
The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.
Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that.
I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council[/p][/quote]A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive. A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny. A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory. A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat. A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk. You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that 's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.[/p][/quote]He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.[/p][/quote]is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?[/p][/quote]There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also. The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.[/p][/quote]Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that. I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
sarfhamton wrote:
If you don't like it then do something about it
And thats what people should be doing Sarthamton, I choise to get involved and not moan about it.
Politics is not boring like the politicians would like you to think, just to keep you away from being in politics
Southy people want to hear both sides & make up their minds.
If I'm proven to be wrong I will admit it & change my point of view as with the Bio Mass.
but many Labour/Union/TuSC supporters on here blame it on the Tories or the Government.
Can't you & the others on here see this is just a continuation of the Unions tactics to get rid of a Tory council?
Williams & Labour are making cuts blaming the government then surprise,surprise they find a bit of money to save a few but not all & it's not their fault is it?
why oh why did they scrap the deal with the Island?
this post would not be there & that saving could have saved at least three other jobs couldn't it? so come on prove me wrong & tell me what Williams Labour party are actually trying to do or are you going to blame Maggie again?
The torys are at fault theres no getting away from that they started the problems of in the 80's, Labour had its chance to make changes but they did not, they support 100% capitalism now just like Torys so they never cured any problems just made them carry on, and now we have a Tory government again those problems are getting deeper, Labour no longer represents the majority that stop in 1985 and gone the same way as the Torys representing the few.
Scraping the deal with the island made sence, the Island is slowly going down hill also like along the the south coast and it would of only taking us down with them.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: If you don't like it then do something about it[/p][/quote]And thats what people should be doing Sarthamton, I choise to get involved and not moan about it. Politics is not boring like the politicians would like you to think, just to keep you away from being in politics[/p][/quote]Southy people want to hear both sides & make up their minds. If I'm proven to be wrong I will admit it & change my point of view as with the Bio Mass. but many Labour/Union/TuSC supporters on here blame it on the Tories or the Government. Can't you & the others on here see this is just a continuation of the Unions tactics to get rid of a Tory council? Williams & Labour are making cuts blaming the government then surprise,surprise they find a bit of money to save a few but not all & it's not their fault is it? why oh why did they scrap the deal with the Island? this post would not be there & that saving could have saved at least three other jobs couldn't it? so come on prove me wrong & tell me what Williams Labour party are actually trying to do or are you going to blame Maggie again?[/p][/quote]The torys are at fault theres no getting away from that they started the problems of in the 80's, Labour had its chance to make changes but they did not, they support 100% capitalism now just like Torys so they never cured any problems just made them carry on, and now we have a Tory government again those problems are getting deeper, Labour no longer represents the majority that stop in 1985 and gone the same way as the Torys representing the few. Scraping the deal with the island made sence, the Island is slowly going down hill also like along the the south coast and it would of only taking us down with them. southy
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive.

A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny.

A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory.

A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat.

A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing

A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk.

You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that






's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.
He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.
is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?
There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also.
The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.
Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that.
I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win
No UKIP like the BNP have max out and are not going to improve on there lot much more they are to far right wing to be able to, where as the TUSC are still increasing which i can see stopping yet well not till most union rank and file change who they support.
The TUSC can put up more people to stand in elections and all ready have done than what UKIP and BNP can combined together
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council[/p][/quote]A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive. A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny. A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory. A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat. A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk. You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that 's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.[/p][/quote]He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.[/p][/quote]is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?[/p][/quote]There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also. The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.[/p][/quote]Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that. I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win[/p][/quote]No UKIP like the BNP have max out and are not going to improve on there lot much more they are to far right wing to be able to, where as the TUSC are still increasing which i can see stopping yet well not till most union rank and file change who they support. The TUSC can put up more people to stand in elections and all ready have done than what UKIP and BNP can combined together southy
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Outside of the Box says...

Tory paper candidates in the election before last

Neil Fitzgerald Sholing,
David Fuller Bitterne
Ben Foster Millbrook
Paul Holmes Redridge
Matt Jones Freemantler
Edward Daunt Harefield
Tory paper candidates in the election before last Neil Fitzgerald Sholing, David Fuller Bitterne Ben Foster Millbrook Paul Holmes Redridge Matt Jones Freemantler Edward Daunt Harefield Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Aisha1 says...

I'd be smiling more than that if that was my annual wage.
I'd be smiling more than that if that was my annual wage. Aisha1
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Fri 1 Feb 13

bernard7 says...

This is actually insane. So i work pretty hard for my 16,000 a year (barely enough to survive) and out of that quite a lot goes to pay these insane wages! And on top of that i then have to pay my council tax which helps to pay these ridiculous wages even more! I know that not all of my tax pays her wages, but to be honest what does it pay for? It keeps going up and up and i am seeing no benefits from it?

I then pay my car tax (where the chuff does that go) and fuel duty (again what for?) and national insurance for an ever depleting NHS! It is impossible to get a doctors appointment and when i do they are just fantastically useless for someone who has supposedly had years of education and are on a ridiculous wage!

This country is an absolute shambles, the rich just get richer and the poor get poorer and poorer!

I will happily do her job for £25,000 a year. No ones experience is worth £135,000. I could probably do just as good a job, as i am, more than likely, far more in touch with the real world!

They should just sack everyone who is paid more than £30,000 a year and employ real people who know what the people want and are actually in it to make an improvement, and not just to make ridiculous expenses claims for their 17 houses in the south of france!
This is actually insane. So i work pretty hard for my 16,000 a year (barely enough to survive) and out of that quite a lot goes to pay these insane wages! And on top of that i then have to pay my council tax which helps to pay these ridiculous wages even more! I know that not all of my tax pays her wages, but to be honest what does it pay for? It keeps going up and up and i am seeing no benefits from it? I then pay my car tax (where the chuff does that go) and fuel duty (again what for?) and national insurance for an ever depleting NHS! It is impossible to get a doctors appointment and when i do they are just fantastically useless for someone who has supposedly had years of education and are on a ridiculous wage! This country is an absolute shambles, the rich just get richer and the poor get poorer and poorer! I will happily do her job for £25,000 a year. No ones experience is worth £135,000. I could probably do just as good a job, as i am, more than likely, far more in touch with the real world! They should just sack everyone who is paid more than £30,000 a year and employ real people who know what the people want and are actually in it to make an improvement, and not just to make ridiculous expenses claims for their 17 houses in the south of france! bernard7
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Fri 1 Feb 13

soton-mike80 says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
How many of those moaning on here actually voted in the Council elections? If you didn't you can hardly complain as you haven't given anyone a mandate to speak for you, if you want change, get involved yourself.
Here Here!

Voters turned out in record low numbers this year... if you don't like the policies being drawn up by this bunch of lying cheaters - then next time pitch up and VOTE! It is not that difficult to tick a box!
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: How many of those moaning on here actually voted in the Council elections? If you didn't you can hardly complain as you haven't given anyone a mandate to speak for you, if you want change, get involved yourself.[/p][/quote]Here Here! Voters turned out in record low numbers this year... if you don't like the policies being drawn up by this bunch of lying cheaters - then next time pitch up and VOTE! It is not that difficult to tick a box! soton-mike80
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Aisha1 says...

Here here Mr Bernard!
Here here Mr Bernard! Aisha1
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Fri 1 Feb 13

MGRA says...

Lemmings of southampton voted in these stooges and the network of gravy trainers... you have made your bed, now lie in it !! LOL !!!!
Lemmings of southampton voted in these stooges and the network of gravy trainers... you have made your bed, now lie in it !! LOL !!!! MGRA
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

soton-mike80 wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
How many of those moaning on here actually voted in the Council elections? If you didn't you can hardly complain as you haven't given anyone a mandate to speak for you, if you want change, get involved yourself.
Here Here!

Voters turned out in record low numbers this year... if you don't like the policies being drawn up by this bunch of lying cheaters - then next time pitch up and VOTE! It is not that difficult to tick a box!
Or if you don't agree with any off them make a stand and put your self up for standing in a election.
[quote][p][bold]soton-mike80[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: How many of those moaning on here actually voted in the Council elections? If you didn't you can hardly complain as you haven't given anyone a mandate to speak for you, if you want change, get involved yourself.[/p][/quote]Here Here! Voters turned out in record low numbers this year... if you don't like the policies being drawn up by this bunch of lying cheaters - then next time pitch up and VOTE! It is not that difficult to tick a box![/p][/quote]Or if you don't agree with any off them make a stand and put your self up for standing in a election. southy
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Outside of the Box says...

Aisha1 wrote:
I'd be smiling more than that if that was my annual wage.
That's not a smile,,,,that's wind
[quote][p][bold]Aisha1[/bold] wrote: I'd be smiling more than that if that was my annual wage.[/p][/quote]That's not a smile,,,,that's wind Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Fri 1 Feb 13

alan.of.eastleigh says...

What a poor article. I had to get to the 12th paragraph before they mentioned Southampton City Council. And someone at the Echo actually got paid for attempting to criticise someone else??
What a poor article. I had to get to the 12th paragraph before they mentioned Southampton City Council. And someone at the Echo actually got paid for attempting to criticise someone else?? alan.of.eastleigh
  • Score: 0

2:36pm Fri 1 Feb 13

sass says...

Outside of the Box wrote:
Aisha1 wrote: I'd be smiling more than that if that was my annual wage.
That's not a smile,,,,that's wind
It's more of a stifled smirk, don't want to rub the plebs' noses in it.
[quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Aisha1[/bold] wrote: I'd be smiling more than that if that was my annual wage.[/p][/quote]That's not a smile,,,,that's wind[/p][/quote]It's more of a stifled smirk, don't want to rub the plebs' noses in it. sass
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

bernard7 wrote:
This is actually insane. So i work pretty hard for my 16,000 a year (barely enough to survive) and out of that quite a lot goes to pay these insane wages! And on top of that i then have to pay my council tax which helps to pay these ridiculous wages even more! I know that not all of my tax pays her wages, but to be honest what does it pay for? It keeps going up and up and i am seeing no benefits from it?

I then pay my car tax (where the chuff does that go) and fuel duty (again what for?) and national insurance for an ever depleting NHS! It is impossible to get a doctors appointment and when i do they are just fantastically useless for someone who has supposedly had years of education and are on a ridiculous wage!

This country is an absolute shambles, the rich just get richer and the poor get poorer and poorer!

I will happily do her job for £25,000 a year. No ones experience is worth £135,000. I could probably do just as good a job, as i am, more than likely, far more in touch with the real world!

They should just sack everyone who is paid more than £30,000 a year and employ real people who know what the people want and are actually in it to make an improvement, and not just to make ridiculous expenses claims for their 17 houses in the south of france!
Next time a chief officer position comes up at the council, why not apply for it? Such vacancies are open to anyone with the right skills and experience.
[quote][p][bold]bernard7[/bold] wrote: This is actually insane. So i work pretty hard for my 16,000 a year (barely enough to survive) and out of that quite a lot goes to pay these insane wages! And on top of that i then have to pay my council tax which helps to pay these ridiculous wages even more! I know that not all of my tax pays her wages, but to be honest what does it pay for? It keeps going up and up and i am seeing no benefits from it? I then pay my car tax (where the chuff does that go) and fuel duty (again what for?) and national insurance for an ever depleting NHS! It is impossible to get a doctors appointment and when i do they are just fantastically useless for someone who has supposedly had years of education and are on a ridiculous wage! This country is an absolute shambles, the rich just get richer and the poor get poorer and poorer! I will happily do her job for £25,000 a year. No ones experience is worth £135,000. I could probably do just as good a job, as i am, more than likely, far more in touch with the real world! They should just sack everyone who is paid more than £30,000 a year and employ real people who know what the people want and are actually in it to make an improvement, and not just to make ridiculous expenses claims for their 17 houses in the south of france![/p][/quote]Next time a chief officer position comes up at the council, why not apply for it? Such vacancies are open to anyone with the right skills and experience. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
sarfhamton wrote:
If you don't like it then do something about it
And thats what people should be doing Sarthamton, I choise to get involved and not moan about it.
Politics is not boring like the politicians would like you to think, just to keep you away from being in politics
Southy people want to hear both sides & make up their minds.
If I'm proven to be wrong I will admit it & change my point of view as with the Bio Mass.
but many Labour/Union/TuSC supporters on here blame it on the Tories or the Government.
Can't you & the others on here see this is just a continuation of the Unions tactics to get rid of a Tory council?
Williams & Labour are making cuts blaming the government then surprise,surprise they find a bit of money to save a few but not all & it's not their fault is it?
why oh why did they scrap the deal with the Island?
this post would not be there & that saving could have saved at least three other jobs couldn't it? so come on prove me wrong & tell me what Williams Labour party are actually trying to do or are you going to blame Maggie again?
The torys are at fault theres no getting away from that they started the problems of in the 80's, Labour had its chance to make changes but they did not, they support 100% capitalism now just like Torys so they never cured any problems just made them carry on, and now we have a Tory government again those problems are getting deeper, Labour no longer represents the majority that stop in 1985 and gone the same way as the Torys representing the few.
Scraping the deal with the island made sence, the Island is slowly going down hill also like along the the south coast and it would of only taking us down with them.
No point talking to some one so delusioned as you.
saw your joke party outside Sainsburies what right have you to lie & give false hope to people?
you say No to cuts.you say fight to save services?
in times of trouble & hardship some people grab at anything that might help them.
the banks in no way are tied to this country the ones that are owned or part owned by us might not be able to lose but to say hit the banks it's there faults is like saying shoot yourselfs in the foot as we own them or is that to far above your head to understand?
haven't any of the TUSC got jobs or do you think your entitled to live off us?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: If you don't like it then do something about it[/p][/quote]And thats what people should be doing Sarthamton, I choise to get involved and not moan about it. Politics is not boring like the politicians would like you to think, just to keep you away from being in politics[/p][/quote]Southy people want to hear both sides & make up their minds. If I'm proven to be wrong I will admit it & change my point of view as with the Bio Mass. but many Labour/Union/TuSC supporters on here blame it on the Tories or the Government. Can't you & the others on here see this is just a continuation of the Unions tactics to get rid of a Tory council? Williams & Labour are making cuts blaming the government then surprise,surprise they find a bit of money to save a few but not all & it's not their fault is it? why oh why did they scrap the deal with the Island? this post would not be there & that saving could have saved at least three other jobs couldn't it? so come on prove me wrong & tell me what Williams Labour party are actually trying to do or are you going to blame Maggie again?[/p][/quote]The torys are at fault theres no getting away from that they started the problems of in the 80's, Labour had its chance to make changes but they did not, they support 100% capitalism now just like Torys so they never cured any problems just made them carry on, and now we have a Tory government again those problems are getting deeper, Labour no longer represents the majority that stop in 1985 and gone the same way as the Torys representing the few. Scraping the deal with the island made sence, the Island is slowly going down hill also like along the the south coast and it would of only taking us down with them.[/p][/quote]No point talking to some one so delusioned as you. saw your joke party outside Sainsburies what right have you to lie & give false hope to people? you say No to cuts.you say fight to save services? in times of trouble & hardship some people grab at anything that might help them. the banks in no way are tied to this country the ones that are owned or part owned by us might not be able to lose but to say hit the banks it's there faults is like saying shoot yourselfs in the foot as we own them or is that to far above your head to understand? haven't any of the TUSC got jobs or do you think your entitled to live off us? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:05pm Fri 1 Feb 13

aldermoorboy says...

If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices.
Now our council tax will go up, with services cut.
Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper.
Have a good weekend what ever your views.
If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
How many of those moaning on here actually voted in the Council elections? If you didn't you can hardly complain as you haven't given anyone a mandate to speak for you, if you want change, get involved yourself.
I agree I vote no matter what the elections for( police commissioner) as I don't think you have the right to march or complain about the party in power unless you've voted as it's more than likely you & people like you who let that party/person into power ( I don't mean you Osprey)
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: How many of those moaning on here actually voted in the Council elections? If you didn't you can hardly complain as you haven't given anyone a mandate to speak for you, if you want change, get involved yourself.[/p][/quote]I agree I vote no matter what the elections for( police commissioner) as I don't think you have the right to march or complain about the party in power unless you've voted as it's more than likely you & people like you who let that party/person into power ( I don't mean you Osprey) loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices.
Now our council tax will go up, with services cut.
Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper.
Have a good weekend what ever your views.
Why did they restore pay to a portion of the workers if they knew it would mean a cut in services?
Aldermoor are they still going to charge for green waste collection?
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]Why did they restore pay to a portion of the workers if they knew it would mean a cut in services? Aldermoor are they still going to charge for green waste collection? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Fri 1 Feb 13

bigfella777 says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
How many of those moaning on here actually voted in the Council elections? If you didn't you can hardly complain as you haven't given anyone a mandate to speak for you, if you want change, get involved yourself.
For once I actually agree with, I wonder how many of these people who are whinging about cuts , bedroom tax, benefit reductions ect actually bothered to get off their backside at the last election national or local.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: How many of those moaning on here actually voted in the Council elections? If you didn't you can hardly complain as you haven't given anyone a mandate to speak for you, if you want change, get involved yourself.[/p][/quote]For once I actually agree with, I wonder how many of these people who are whinging about cuts , bedroom tax, benefit reductions ect actually bothered to get off their backside at the last election national or local. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
sarfhamton wrote:
If you don't like it then do something about it
And thats what people should be doing Sarthamton, I choise to get involved and not moan about it.
Politics is not boring like the politicians would like you to think, just to keep you away from being in politics
Southy people want to hear both sides & make up their minds.
If I'm proven to be wrong I will admit it & change my point of view as with the Bio Mass.
but many Labour/Union/TuSC supporters on here blame it on the Tories or the Government.
Can't you & the others on here see this is just a continuation of the Unions tactics to get rid of a Tory council?
Williams & Labour are making cuts blaming the government then surprise,surprise they find a bit of money to save a few but not all & it's not their fault is it?
why oh why did they scrap the deal with the Island?
this post would not be there & that saving could have saved at least three other jobs couldn't it? so come on prove me wrong & tell me what Williams Labour party are actually trying to do or are you going to blame Maggie again?
The torys are at fault theres no getting away from that they started the problems of in the 80's, Labour had its chance to make changes but they did not, they support 100% capitalism now just like Torys so they never cured any problems just made them carry on, and now we have a Tory government again those problems are getting deeper, Labour no longer represents the majority that stop in 1985 and gone the same way as the Torys representing the few.
Scraping the deal with the island made sence, the Island is slowly going down hill also like along the the south coast and it would of only taking us down with them.
No point talking to some one so delusioned as you.
saw your joke party outside Sainsburies what right have you to lie & give false hope to people?
you say No to cuts.you say fight to save services?
in times of trouble & hardship some people grab at anything that might help them.
the banks in no way are tied to this country the ones that are owned or part owned by us might not be able to lose but to say hit the banks it's there faults is like saying shoot yourselfs in the foot as we own them or is that to far above your head to understand?
haven't any of the TUSC got jobs or do you think your entitled to live off us?
Not delusioned as much as you loose, your the one who beleives in that the people you support can't do no wrong.
Its a Capitalist world, its capitalist mistakes, who can not take reposnabitly for there own mistakes they push the blame onto others and they expect others to pay for there mistakes and never them selfs, I put the blame where it really belongs.
We don't give any one false hopes unlike the Torys who need to, because if the real truth was learned about them no working class person would vote for them, the Capitalist economics and political policy is not a working class one, its for the rich and powerful and they need to blackmail people into voting for them. if you want to find out more read up on the Icelandic Quiet Revolution, your Capitalist friends do not what this publish in this country or it would mean people will get ideas of there own and start running there own country and not leave it to the elite to run.
The TUSC do not live off any one, most are working class people with jobs, some are in education, others are semi retired and do not need to live off other people.
So less of that false picture your trying to paint.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: If you don't like it then do something about it[/p][/quote]And thats what people should be doing Sarthamton, I choise to get involved and not moan about it. Politics is not boring like the politicians would like you to think, just to keep you away from being in politics[/p][/quote]Southy people want to hear both sides & make up their minds. If I'm proven to be wrong I will admit it & change my point of view as with the Bio Mass. but many Labour/Union/TuSC supporters on here blame it on the Tories or the Government. Can't you & the others on here see this is just a continuation of the Unions tactics to get rid of a Tory council? Williams & Labour are making cuts blaming the government then surprise,surprise they find a bit of money to save a few but not all & it's not their fault is it? why oh why did they scrap the deal with the Island? this post would not be there & that saving could have saved at least three other jobs couldn't it? so come on prove me wrong & tell me what Williams Labour party are actually trying to do or are you going to blame Maggie again?[/p][/quote]The torys are at fault theres no getting away from that they started the problems of in the 80's, Labour had its chance to make changes but they did not, they support 100% capitalism now just like Torys so they never cured any problems just made them carry on, and now we have a Tory government again those problems are getting deeper, Labour no longer represents the majority that stop in 1985 and gone the same way as the Torys representing the few. Scraping the deal with the island made sence, the Island is slowly going down hill also like along the the south coast and it would of only taking us down with them.[/p][/quote]No point talking to some one so delusioned as you. saw your joke party outside Sainsburies what right have you to lie & give false hope to people? you say No to cuts.you say fight to save services? in times of trouble & hardship some people grab at anything that might help them. the banks in no way are tied to this country the ones that are owned or part owned by us might not be able to lose but to say hit the banks it's there faults is like saying shoot yourselfs in the foot as we own them or is that to far above your head to understand? haven't any of the TUSC got jobs or do you think your entitled to live off us?[/p][/quote]Not delusioned as much as you loose, your the one who beleives in that the people you support can't do no wrong. Its a Capitalist world, its capitalist mistakes, who can not take reposnabitly for there own mistakes they push the blame onto others and they expect others to pay for there mistakes and never them selfs, I put the blame where it really belongs. We don't give any one false hopes unlike the Torys who need to, because if the real truth was learned about them no working class person would vote for them, the Capitalist economics and political policy is not a working class one, its for the rich and powerful and they need to blackmail people into voting for them. if you want to find out more read up on the Icelandic Quiet Revolution, your Capitalist friends do not what this publish in this country or it would mean people will get ideas of there own and start running there own country and not leave it to the elite to run. The TUSC do not live off any one, most are working class people with jobs, some are in education, others are semi retired and do not need to live off other people. So less of that false picture your trying to paint. southy
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices.
Now our council tax will go up, with services cut.
Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper.
Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid. southy
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Might SS says...

I see comments which have been critical of the reporting have been removed !!!
I see comments which have been critical of the reporting have been removed !!! Might SS
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Fri 1 Feb 13

st1halo says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive.

A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny.

A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory.

A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat.

A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing

A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk.

You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that







's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.
He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.
is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?
There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also.
The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.
Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that.
I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win
No UKIP like the BNP have max out and are not going to improve on there lot much more they are to far right wing to be able to, where as the TUSC are still increasing which i can see stopping yet well not till most union rank and file change who they support.
The TUSC can put up more people to stand in elections and all ready have done than what UKIP and BNP can combined together
I don't know how old you are mate but I can tell you that putting power into the hands of Unions is the worst possible outcome for any democracy. They are self- serving auto-crats and, instead of safeguarding workers rights, usually have an idealistic political agenda.
They had lots of power in the 60's and 70's. Consequently, we became the laughing stock of the world with strikes all the time, foreign businesses took over most of our major industries, Coal miner strikes, power outages, refuse collection, you couldn't even get your dead buried.
If you think they are the answer to our current woes, trust me, this would seem like a boom time when compared to anything they could deliver.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council[/p][/quote]A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive. A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny. A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory. A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat. A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk. You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that 's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.[/p][/quote]He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.[/p][/quote]is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?[/p][/quote]There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also. The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.[/p][/quote]Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that. I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win[/p][/quote]No UKIP like the BNP have max out and are not going to improve on there lot much more they are to far right wing to be able to, where as the TUSC are still increasing which i can see stopping yet well not till most union rank and file change who they support. The TUSC can put up more people to stand in elections and all ready have done than what UKIP and BNP can combined together[/p][/quote]I don't know how old you are mate but I can tell you that putting power into the hands of Unions is the worst possible outcome for any democracy. They are self- serving auto-crats and, instead of safeguarding workers rights, usually have an idealistic political agenda. They had lots of power in the 60's and 70's. Consequently, we became the laughing stock of the world with strikes all the time, foreign businesses took over most of our major industries, Coal miner strikes, power outages, refuse collection, you couldn't even get your dead buried. If you think they are the answer to our current woes, trust me, this would seem like a boom time when compared to anything they could deliver. st1halo
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

st1halo wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive.

A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny.

A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory.

A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat.

A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing

A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk.

You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that








's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.
He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.
is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?
There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also.
The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.
Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that.
I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win
No UKIP like the BNP have max out and are not going to improve on there lot much more they are to far right wing to be able to, where as the TUSC are still increasing which i can see stopping yet well not till most union rank and file change who they support.
The TUSC can put up more people to stand in elections and all ready have done than what UKIP and BNP can combined together
I don't know how old you are mate but I can tell you that putting power into the hands of Unions is the worst possible outcome for any democracy. They are self- serving auto-crats and, instead of safeguarding workers rights, usually have an idealistic political agenda.
They had lots of power in the 60's and 70's. Consequently, we became the laughing stock of the world with strikes all the time, foreign businesses took over most of our major industries, Coal miner strikes, power outages, refuse collection, you couldn't even get your dead buried.
If you think they are the answer to our current woes, trust me, this would seem like a boom time when compared to anything they could deliver.
We was not the laughting stock of the world that was and is just capitalist propaganda so they could get there hands on state industary, back then the world was buying our private sector goods
(50, 60,and 70;s) a great deal more than our private sector goods who could not sell there goods to well, and look what happen the moment the private sector got our state owned industarys, the asset strip them, sold them on and now no one really wants our goods.
Its been downhill ever since our state industarys been sold off, the world did not care weather if we had strikes or not at the time, because they knew they would get goods that would last and be cheaper.
[quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council[/p][/quote]A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive. A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny. A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory. A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat. A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk. You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that 's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.[/p][/quote]He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.[/p][/quote]is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?[/p][/quote]There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also. The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.[/p][/quote]Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that. I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win[/p][/quote]No UKIP like the BNP have max out and are not going to improve on there lot much more they are to far right wing to be able to, where as the TUSC are still increasing which i can see stopping yet well not till most union rank and file change who they support. The TUSC can put up more people to stand in elections and all ready have done than what UKIP and BNP can combined together[/p][/quote]I don't know how old you are mate but I can tell you that putting power into the hands of Unions is the worst possible outcome for any democracy. They are self- serving auto-crats and, instead of safeguarding workers rights, usually have an idealistic political agenda. They had lots of power in the 60's and 70's. Consequently, we became the laughing stock of the world with strikes all the time, foreign businesses took over most of our major industries, Coal miner strikes, power outages, refuse collection, you couldn't even get your dead buried. If you think they are the answer to our current woes, trust me, this would seem like a boom time when compared to anything they could deliver.[/p][/quote]We was not the laughting stock of the world that was and is just capitalist propaganda so they could get there hands on state industary, back then the world was buying our private sector goods (50, 60,and 70;s) a great deal more than our private sector goods who could not sell there goods to well, and look what happen the moment the private sector got our state owned industarys, the asset strip them, sold them on and now no one really wants our goods. Its been downhill ever since our state industarys been sold off, the world did not care weather if we had strikes or not at the time, because they knew they would get goods that would last and be cheaper. southy
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices.
Now our council tax will go up, with services cut.
Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper.
Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Which party wants to privatise bin collections in Birmingham? Labour. So it's not a question of "if the Tories had their way".
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Which party wants to privatise bin collections in Birmingham? Labour. So it's not a question of "if the Tories had their way". Stephen J
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Fri 1 Feb 13

stuartjebbitt says...

Miguel Raton wrote:
Another parasite moves from one overpaid non job to another overpaid non job while outside the gilded cage of the 'senior public sector' standards of living are in decline.
well said! the gravy train continues while services that actually matter are cut.
[quote][p][bold]Miguel Raton[/bold] wrote: Another parasite moves from one overpaid non job to another overpaid non job while outside the gilded cage of the 'senior public sector' standards of living are in decline.[/p][/quote]well said! the gravy train continues while services that actually matter are cut. stuartjebbitt
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Fri 1 Feb 13

st1halo says...

It's you that is spouting propoganda!
We had to buy candles and sit in darkness half the night because the power workers went on strike!
The streets were filthy and rat infested when the refuse collectors went on strike!
The grave diggers strike meant people had to wait weeks to bury their loved ones.
When the coal miners learned they had the public against the walls, they exploited it for as much as they could get!
These are facts mate, not capitalist propoganda!
The Labour party created the state owned businesses like British Leyland and the Unions totally destoyed them.
The asset stripping you are talking of, I assume is privatisation which was in the 80's.
This was a consequence of what happened. The reason Thatcher rose to power was because of the backlash of the public. We had been used as pawns by the Unions to further their political ambitions.
Go research the facts without political bias and you will see for yourself.
It's you that is spouting propoganda! We had to buy candles and sit in darkness half the night because the power workers went on strike! The streets were filthy and rat infested when the refuse collectors went on strike! The grave diggers strike meant people had to wait weeks to bury their loved ones. When the coal miners learned they had the public against the walls, they exploited it for as much as they could get! These are facts mate, not capitalist propoganda! The Labour party created the state owned businesses like British Leyland and the Unions totally destoyed them. The asset stripping you are talking of, I assume is privatisation which was in the 80's. This was a consequence of what happened. The reason Thatcher rose to power was because of the backlash of the public. We had been used as pawns by the Unions to further their political ambitions. Go research the facts without political bias and you will see for yourself. st1halo
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Fri 1 Feb 13

st1halo says...

southy wrote:
st1halo wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive.

A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny.

A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory.

A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat.

A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing

A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk.

You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that









's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.
He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.
is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?
There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also.
The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.
Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that.
I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win
No UKIP like the BNP have max out and are not going to improve on there lot much more they are to far right wing to be able to, where as the TUSC are still increasing which i can see stopping yet well not till most union rank and file change who they support.
The TUSC can put up more people to stand in elections and all ready have done than what UKIP and BNP can combined together
I don't know how old you are mate but I can tell you that putting power into the hands of Unions is the worst possible outcome for any democracy. They are self- serving auto-crats and, instead of safeguarding workers rights, usually have an idealistic political agenda.
They had lots of power in the 60's and 70's. Consequently, we became the laughing stock of the world with strikes all the time, foreign businesses took over most of our major industries, Coal miner strikes, power outages, refuse collection, you couldn't even get your dead buried.
If you think they are the answer to our current woes, trust me, this would seem like a boom time when compared to anything they could deliver.
We was not the laughting stock of the world that was and is just capitalist propaganda so they could get there hands on state industary, back then the world was buying our private sector goods
(50, 60,and 70;s) a great deal more than our private sector goods who could not sell there goods to well, and look what happen the moment the private sector got our state owned industarys, the asset strip them, sold them on and now no one really wants our goods.
Its been downhill ever since our state industarys been sold off, the world did not care weather if we had strikes or not at the time, because they knew they would get goods that would last and be cheaper.
It's you that is spouting propoganda!
We had to buy candles and sit in darkness half the night because the power workers went on strike!
The streets were filthy and rat infested when the refuse collectors went on strike!
The grave diggers strike meant people had to wait weeks to bury their loved ones.
When the coal miners learned they had the public against the walls, they exploited it for as much as they could get!
These are facts mate, not capitalist propoganda!
The Labour party created the state owned businesses like British Leyland and the Unions totally destoyed them.
The asset stripping you are talking of, I assume is privatisation which was in the 80's.
This was a consequence of what happened. The reason Thatcher rose to power was because of the backlash of the public. We had been used as pawns by the Unions to further their political ambitions.
Go research the facts without political bias and you will see for yourself.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council[/p][/quote]A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive. A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny. A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory. A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat. A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk. You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that 's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.[/p][/quote]He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.[/p][/quote]is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?[/p][/quote]There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also. The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.[/p][/quote]Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that. I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win[/p][/quote]No UKIP like the BNP have max out and are not going to improve on there lot much more they are to far right wing to be able to, where as the TUSC are still increasing which i can see stopping yet well not till most union rank and file change who they support. The TUSC can put up more people to stand in elections and all ready have done than what UKIP and BNP can combined together[/p][/quote]I don't know how old you are mate but I can tell you that putting power into the hands of Unions is the worst possible outcome for any democracy. They are self- serving auto-crats and, instead of safeguarding workers rights, usually have an idealistic political agenda. They had lots of power in the 60's and 70's. Consequently, we became the laughing stock of the world with strikes all the time, foreign businesses took over most of our major industries, Coal miner strikes, power outages, refuse collection, you couldn't even get your dead buried. If you think they are the answer to our current woes, trust me, this would seem like a boom time when compared to anything they could deliver.[/p][/quote]We was not the laughting stock of the world that was and is just capitalist propaganda so they could get there hands on state industary, back then the world was buying our private sector goods (50, 60,and 70;s) a great deal more than our private sector goods who could not sell there goods to well, and look what happen the moment the private sector got our state owned industarys, the asset strip them, sold them on and now no one really wants our goods. Its been downhill ever since our state industarys been sold off, the world did not care weather if we had strikes or not at the time, because they knew they would get goods that would last and be cheaper.[/p][/quote]It's you that is spouting propoganda! We had to buy candles and sit in darkness half the night because the power workers went on strike! The streets were filthy and rat infested when the refuse collectors went on strike! The grave diggers strike meant people had to wait weeks to bury their loved ones. When the coal miners learned they had the public against the walls, they exploited it for as much as they could get! These are facts mate, not capitalist propoganda! The Labour party created the state owned businesses like British Leyland and the Unions totally destoyed them. The asset stripping you are talking of, I assume is privatisation which was in the 80's. This was a consequence of what happened. The reason Thatcher rose to power was because of the backlash of the public. We had been used as pawns by the Unions to further their political ambitions. Go research the facts without political bias and you will see for yourself. st1halo
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

st1halo wrote:
southy wrote:
st1halo wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive.

A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny.

A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory.

A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat.

A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing

A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk.

You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that










's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.
He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.
is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?
There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also.
The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.
Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that.
I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win
No UKIP like the BNP have max out and are not going to improve on there lot much more they are to far right wing to be able to, where as the TUSC are still increasing which i can see stopping yet well not till most union rank and file change who they support.
The TUSC can put up more people to stand in elections and all ready have done than what UKIP and BNP can combined together
I don't know how old you are mate but I can tell you that putting power into the hands of Unions is the worst possible outcome for any democracy. They are self- serving auto-crats and, instead of safeguarding workers rights, usually have an idealistic political agenda.
They had lots of power in the 60's and 70's. Consequently, we became the laughing stock of the world with strikes all the time, foreign businesses took over most of our major industries, Coal miner strikes, power outages, refuse collection, you couldn't even get your dead buried.
If you think they are the answer to our current woes, trust me, this would seem like a boom time when compared to anything they could deliver.
We was not the laughting stock of the world that was and is just capitalist propaganda so they could get there hands on state industary, back then the world was buying our private sector goods
(50, 60,and 70;s) a great deal more than our private sector goods who could not sell there goods to well, and look what happen the moment the private sector got our state owned industarys, the asset strip them, sold them on and now no one really wants our goods.
Its been downhill ever since our state industarys been sold off, the world did not care weather if we had strikes or not at the time, because they knew they would get goods that would last and be cheaper.
It's you that is spouting propoganda!
We had to buy candles and sit in darkness half the night because the power workers went on strike!
The streets were filthy and rat infested when the refuse collectors went on strike!
The grave diggers strike meant people had to wait weeks to bury their loved ones.
When the coal miners learned they had the public against the walls, they exploited it for as much as they could get!
These are facts mate, not capitalist propoganda!
The Labour party created the state owned businesses like British Leyland and the Unions totally destoyed them.
The asset stripping you are talking of, I assume is privatisation which was in the 80's.
This was a consequence of what happened. The reason Thatcher rose to power was because of the backlash of the public. We had been used as pawns by the Unions to further their political ambitions.
Go research the facts without political bias and you will see for yourself.
exactly what happened here
[quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]st1halo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council[/p][/quote]A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive. A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny. A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory. A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat. A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk. You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that 's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.[/p][/quote]He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.[/p][/quote]is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?[/p][/quote]There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also. The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.[/p][/quote]Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that. I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win[/p][/quote]No UKIP like the BNP have max out and are not going to improve on there lot much more they are to far right wing to be able to, where as the TUSC are still increasing which i can see stopping yet well not till most union rank and file change who they support. The TUSC can put up more people to stand in elections and all ready have done than what UKIP and BNP can combined together[/p][/quote]I don't know how old you are mate but I can tell you that putting power into the hands of Unions is the worst possible outcome for any democracy. They are self- serving auto-crats and, instead of safeguarding workers rights, usually have an idealistic political agenda. They had lots of power in the 60's and 70's. Consequently, we became the laughing stock of the world with strikes all the time, foreign businesses took over most of our major industries, Coal miner strikes, power outages, refuse collection, you couldn't even get your dead buried. If you think they are the answer to our current woes, trust me, this would seem like a boom time when compared to anything they could deliver.[/p][/quote]We was not the laughting stock of the world that was and is just capitalist propaganda so they could get there hands on state industary, back then the world was buying our private sector goods (50, 60,and 70;s) a great deal more than our private sector goods who could not sell there goods to well, and look what happen the moment the private sector got our state owned industarys, the asset strip them, sold them on and now no one really wants our goods. Its been downhill ever since our state industarys been sold off, the world did not care weather if we had strikes or not at the time, because they knew they would get goods that would last and be cheaper.[/p][/quote]It's you that is spouting propoganda! We had to buy candles and sit in darkness half the night because the power workers went on strike! The streets were filthy and rat infested when the refuse collectors went on strike! The grave diggers strike meant people had to wait weeks to bury their loved ones. When the coal miners learned they had the public against the walls, they exploited it for as much as they could get! These are facts mate, not capitalist propoganda! The Labour party created the state owned businesses like British Leyland and the Unions totally destoyed them. The asset stripping you are talking of, I assume is privatisation which was in the 80's. This was a consequence of what happened. The reason Thatcher rose to power was because of the backlash of the public. We had been used as pawns by the Unions to further their political ambitions. Go research the facts without political bias and you will see for yourself.[/p][/quote]exactly what happened here loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Fri 1 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
sarfhamton wrote:
If you don't like it then do something about it
And thats what people should be doing Sarthamton, I choise to get involved and not moan about it.
Politics is not boring like the politicians would like you to think, just to keep you away from being in politics
Southy people want to hear both sides & make up their minds.
If I'm proven to be wrong I will admit it & change my point of view as with the Bio Mass.
but many Labour/Union/TuSC supporters on here blame it on the Tories or the Government.
Can't you & the others on here see this is just a continuation of the Unions tactics to get rid of a Tory council?
Williams & Labour are making cuts blaming the government then surprise,surprise they find a bit of money to save a few but not all & it's not their fault is it?
why oh why did they scrap the deal with the Island?
this post would not be there & that saving could have saved at least three other jobs couldn't it? so come on prove me wrong & tell me what Williams Labour party are actually trying to do or are you going to blame Maggie again?
The torys are at fault theres no getting away from that they started the problems of in the 80's, Labour had its chance to make changes but they did not, they support 100% capitalism now just like Torys so they never cured any problems just made them carry on, and now we have a Tory government again those problems are getting deeper, Labour no longer represents the majority that stop in 1985 and gone the same way as the Torys representing the few.
Scraping the deal with the island made sence, the Island is slowly going down hill also like along the the south coast and it would of only taking us down with them.
No point talking to some one so delusioned as you.
saw your joke party outside Sainsburies what right have you to lie & give false hope to people?
you say No to cuts.you say fight to save services?
in times of trouble & hardship some people grab at anything that might help them.
the banks in no way are tied to this country the ones that are owned or part owned by us might not be able to lose but to say hit the banks it's there faults is like saying shoot yourselfs in the foot as we own them or is that to far above your head to understand?
haven't any of the TUSC got jobs or do you think your entitled to live off us?
Not delusioned as much as you loose, your the one who beleives in that the people you support can't do no wrong.
Its a Capitalist world, its capitalist mistakes, who can not take reposnabitly for there own mistakes they push the blame onto others and they expect others to pay for there mistakes and never them selfs, I put the blame where it really belongs.
We don't give any one false hopes unlike the Torys who need to, because if the real truth was learned about them no working class person would vote for them, the Capitalist economics and political policy is not a working class one, its for the rich and powerful and they need to blackmail people into voting for them. if you want to find out more read up on the Icelandic Quiet Revolution, your Capitalist friends do not what this publish in this country or it would mean people will get ideas of there own and start running there own country and not leave it to the elite to run.
The TUSC do not live off any one, most are working class people with jobs, some are in education, others are semi retired and do not need to live off other people.
So less of that false picture your trying to paint.
So your telling me that in the week those people spewing garbage outside Sainsburies are working?
Exactly where do you work?
or where have you worked & when as isn't the SWP part of the TUSC? bit hypocritical s workers p if you don't actually work isn't it?
I like others would pray that one day you & the labour & Unions would remember the union actions under Ted Heath & then how those same Unions brought down a LABOUR government
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: If you don't like it then do something about it[/p][/quote]And thats what people should be doing Sarthamton, I choise to get involved and not moan about it. Politics is not boring like the politicians would like you to think, just to keep you away from being in politics[/p][/quote]Southy people want to hear both sides & make up their minds. If I'm proven to be wrong I will admit it & change my point of view as with the Bio Mass. but many Labour/Union/TuSC supporters on here blame it on the Tories or the Government. Can't you & the others on here see this is just a continuation of the Unions tactics to get rid of a Tory council? Williams & Labour are making cuts blaming the government then surprise,surprise they find a bit of money to save a few but not all & it's not their fault is it? why oh why did they scrap the deal with the Island? this post would not be there & that saving could have saved at least three other jobs couldn't it? so come on prove me wrong & tell me what Williams Labour party are actually trying to do or are you going to blame Maggie again?[/p][/quote]The torys are at fault theres no getting away from that they started the problems of in the 80's, Labour had its chance to make changes but they did not, they support 100% capitalism now just like Torys so they never cured any problems just made them carry on, and now we have a Tory government again those problems are getting deeper, Labour no longer represents the majority that stop in 1985 and gone the same way as the Torys representing the few. Scraping the deal with the island made sence, the Island is slowly going down hill also like along the the south coast and it would of only taking us down with them.[/p][/quote]No point talking to some one so delusioned as you. saw your joke party outside Sainsburies what right have you to lie & give false hope to people? you say No to cuts.you say fight to save services? in times of trouble & hardship some people grab at anything that might help them. the banks in no way are tied to this country the ones that are owned or part owned by us might not be able to lose but to say hit the banks it's there faults is like saying shoot yourselfs in the foot as we own them or is that to far above your head to understand? haven't any of the TUSC got jobs or do you think your entitled to live off us?[/p][/quote]Not delusioned as much as you loose, your the one who beleives in that the people you support can't do no wrong. Its a Capitalist world, its capitalist mistakes, who can not take reposnabitly for there own mistakes they push the blame onto others and they expect others to pay for there mistakes and never them selfs, I put the blame where it really belongs. We don't give any one false hopes unlike the Torys who need to, because if the real truth was learned about them no working class person would vote for them, the Capitalist economics and political policy is not a working class one, its for the rich and powerful and they need to blackmail people into voting for them. if you want to find out more read up on the Icelandic Quiet Revolution, your Capitalist friends do not what this publish in this country or it would mean people will get ideas of there own and start running there own country and not leave it to the elite to run. The TUSC do not live off any one, most are working class people with jobs, some are in education, others are semi retired and do not need to live off other people. So less of that false picture your trying to paint.[/p][/quote]So your telling me that in the week those people spewing garbage outside Sainsburies are working? Exactly where do you work? or where have you worked & when as isn't the SWP part of the TUSC? bit hypocritical s workers p if you don't actually work isn't it? I like others would pray that one day you & the labour & Unions would remember the union actions under Ted Heath & then how those same Unions brought down a LABOUR government loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Fri 1 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council
A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive.

A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny.

A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory.

A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat.

A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing

A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk.

You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that







's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.
He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.
is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?
There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also.
The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.
Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that.
I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win
No UKIP like the BNP have max out and are not going to improve on there lot much more they are to far right wing to be able to, where as the TUSC are still increasing which i can see stopping yet well not till most union rank and file change who they support.
The TUSC can put up more people to stand in elections and all ready have done than what UKIP and BNP can combined together
.. 'where as the TUSC are still increasing'??

Not so, is it?

Southampton local elections: -
2011 TUSC - 1824 votes - 2.9%
2012 TUSC - 1227 votes - 2.1%

In both years TUSC put up candidates in 13 wards - so that can't account for the decrease. Must be they are becoming less popular.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Vote Tory in 2014 for a decent council[/p][/quote]A decent council who sold out workers to Capita telling residents it was cheaper, only to be more expensive. A decent council who borrowed millions for Sea City after telling residents it wouldn't cost the council tax payer a penny. A decent council who oversaw one of the worst industrial disputes in the councils living memory. A decent council who approved financial spend for many years to come, just weeks before an election, knowing they'd get beat. A decent council that thought it was ok for a councillor to live and work in the USA whilst representing the people of Sholing A decent council who cuts services to the quick putting the most vulnerable in our at risk. You go for it Aldermoorboy,,,,that 's if you bring yourself to leave Royston's teet long enough to vote.[/p][/quote]He don't seem to relise the Torys can not gain council control in 2014, best they can do is win seats, it 2016 before they would be able to and that is only if the next 3 local elections go in there favour.[/p][/quote]is that taking out the two councillors who've left the Labour Party?[/p][/quote]There seats would not matter much at the moment it would only matter should they both lose there seats to the Torys, then lose the third seat also. The Torys not only got to keep there seats and not lose any, just go though each ward and remember the Torys only gained control of this Council because it lined up with the back lash to the Labour party and got in with paper candidates like the ones in the Redbridge and Sholing and other aeras where they do not win, but next time theres a back lash against the Labour party the Torys will not get in because of the TUSC is there now and will pick up those votes.[/p][/quote]Sorry your living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that. I would go as far as to say more chance a UKIP win than a TUSC win[/p][/quote]No UKIP like the BNP have max out and are not going to improve on there lot much more they are to far right wing to be able to, where as the TUSC are still increasing which i can see stopping yet well not till most union rank and file change who they support. The TUSC can put up more people to stand in elections and all ready have done than what UKIP and BNP can combined together[/p][/quote].. 'where as the TUSC are still increasing'?? Not so, is it? Southampton local elections: - 2011 TUSC - 1824 votes - 2.9% 2012 TUSC - 1227 votes - 2.1% In both years TUSC put up candidates in 13 wards - so that can't account for the decrease. Must be they are becoming less popular. freefinker
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
It would be better and it would save a lot of money to bring people up though the ranks in that dept, you could cut the cost of this post down to £50,000 a year.
The unions would have quite a lot to say about expecting someone to do a chief officer's job for less than the going rate just because they came up through the ranks at SCC.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: It would be better and it would save a lot of money to bring people up though the ranks in that dept, you could cut the cost of this post down to £50,000 a year.[/p][/quote]The unions would have quite a lot to say about expecting someone to do a chief officer's job for less than the going rate just because they came up through the ranks at SCC. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Fri 1 Feb 13

rich the stitch says...

southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up? rich the stitch
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Fri 1 Feb 13

skin2000 says...

What does a People Director do? What do People Directors get paid in the private sector?
Will the electorate see any benefit in having a People Director...if so, perhaps it is worth getting a few more.
What does a People Director do? What do People Directors get paid in the private sector? Will the electorate see any benefit in having a People Director...if so, perhaps it is worth getting a few more. skin2000
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Fri 1 Feb 13

bigfella777 says...

southy wrote:
It would be better and it would save a lot of money to bring people up though the ranks in that dept, you could cut the cost of this post down to £50,000 a year.
Who's going to be a director for 50k when the mayors chauffeur gets 40k for driving a car for christs sake.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: It would be better and it would save a lot of money to bring people up though the ranks in that dept, you could cut the cost of this post down to £50,000 a year.[/p][/quote]Who's going to be a director for 50k when the mayors chauffeur gets 40k for driving a car for christs sake. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

6:33pm Fri 1 Feb 13

skin2000 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
southy wrote:
It would be better and it would save a lot of money to bring people up though the ranks in that dept, you could cut the cost of this post down to £50,000 a year.
Who's going to be a director for 50k when the mayors chauffeur gets 40k for driving a car for christs sake.
Yes! 40 grand to drive the Mayor around, plus 135k for a People Director....Not much change out of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS......beginnin
g to why Council Tax is so costly.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: It would be better and it would save a lot of money to bring people up though the ranks in that dept, you could cut the cost of this post down to £50,000 a year.[/p][/quote]Who's going to be a director for 50k when the mayors chauffeur gets 40k for driving a car for christs sake.[/p][/quote]Yes! 40 grand to drive the Mayor around, plus 135k for a People Director....Not much change out of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS......beginnin g to why Council Tax is so costly. skin2000
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Donald2000 says...

Can someone please advise me what possible qualities could this person have that they merit this salary which is out of all proportion to the job specification?

That's nearly £3k a week and if the person spends 35 hours doing the work, it's a chargeout rate of about £90.00 an hour. Meanwhile people who are not employed or who are struggling to get a job will be paying for this person.

Someone needs to do a value for money audit on this position because I would suggest that this particular job is worth probably only half the rate that SCC seems to want to pay. We really are being run by dumbletons.
Can someone please advise me what possible qualities could this person have that they merit this salary which is out of all proportion to the job specification? That's nearly £3k a week and if the person spends 35 hours doing the work, it's a chargeout rate of about £90.00 an hour. Meanwhile people who are not employed or who are struggling to get a job will be paying for this person. Someone needs to do a value for money audit on this position because I would suggest that this particular job is worth probably only half the rate that SCC seems to want to pay. We really are being run by dumbletons. Donald2000
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Fri 1 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

Donald2000 wrote:
Can someone please advise me what possible qualities could this person have that they merit this salary which is out of all proportion to the job specification?

That's nearly £3k a week and if the person spends 35 hours doing the work, it's a chargeout rate of about £90.00 an hour. Meanwhile people who are not employed or who are struggling to get a job will be paying for this person.

Someone needs to do a value for money audit on this position because I would suggest that this particular job is worth probably only half the rate that SCC seems to want to pay. We really are being run by dumbletons.
Friends in high places!
[quote][p][bold]Donald2000[/bold] wrote: Can someone please advise me what possible qualities could this person have that they merit this salary which is out of all proportion to the job specification? That's nearly £3k a week and if the person spends 35 hours doing the work, it's a chargeout rate of about £90.00 an hour. Meanwhile people who are not employed or who are struggling to get a job will be paying for this person. Someone needs to do a value for money audit on this position because I would suggest that this particular job is worth probably only half the rate that SCC seems to want to pay. We really are being run by dumbletons.[/p][/quote]Friends in high places! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

10:33pm Fri 1 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

Even the Labour supporters who call the Sea City a white elephant are quiet on this one.
Even the Labour supporters who call the Sea City a white elephant are quiet on this one. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

10:42pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au.
it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
[quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins. southy
  • Score: 0

10:45pm Fri 1 Feb 13

southy says...

skin2000 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
southy wrote:
It would be better and it would save a lot of money to bring people up though the ranks in that dept, you could cut the cost of this post down to £50,000 a year.
Who's going to be a director for 50k when the mayors chauffeur gets 40k for driving a car for christs sake.
Yes! 40 grand to drive the Mayor around, plus 135k for a People Director....Not much change out of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS......beginnin

g to why Council Tax is so costly.
the whole lot needs looking at the top, these are jobs for the boys in true capitalist fashion
[quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: It would be better and it would save a lot of money to bring people up though the ranks in that dept, you could cut the cost of this post down to £50,000 a year.[/p][/quote]Who's going to be a director for 50k when the mayors chauffeur gets 40k for driving a car for christs sake.[/p][/quote]Yes! 40 grand to drive the Mayor around, plus 135k for a People Director....Not much change out of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS......beginnin g to why Council Tax is so costly.[/p][/quote]the whole lot needs looking at the top, these are jobs for the boys in true capitalist fashion southy
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Fri 1 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au.
it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
I recall you stating this during the strikes and you still have to evidence to prove it will cost this amount.

Your opinion was based on what some 'individuals' were charged to bring in a private contractor, you forget a bulk contract will attract a masive discount.

But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of your dream world, keep standing outside Sainsburys and show us all who NOT to vote for. Only an idiot would vote TUSC assuming they're all as stupid as you!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]I recall you stating this during the strikes and you still have to evidence to prove it will cost this amount. Your opinion was based on what some 'individuals' were charged to bring in a private contractor, you forget a bulk contract will attract a masive discount. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of your dream world, keep standing outside Sainsburys and show us all who NOT to vote for. Only an idiot would vote TUSC assuming they're all as stupid as you! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

11:04pm Fri 1 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

What wage would you pay the Mayors Chauffeur Southy, if you were a Councill leader? Or would you have him take a taxi to his daily diary?
What wage would you pay the Mayors Chauffeur Southy, if you were a Councill leader? Or would you have him take a taxi to his daily diary? IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

11:22pm Fri 1 Feb 13

seven777. says...

Red,Blue,Yellow,Gree
n and assorted d..kheads,racists and loons is pool to choose from and thats fine.The thing is whatever choice you make the outcome is always the same, a complete bl..dy mess.
Red,Blue,Yellow,Gree n and assorted d..kheads,racists and loons is pool to choose from and thats fine.The thing is whatever choice you make the outcome is always the same, a complete bl..dy mess. seven777.
  • Score: 0

12:22am Sat 2 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au.
it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
.. so, you have no source for these figures. That's par for the course; you just make it up as you go along.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote].. so, you have no source for these figures. That's par for the course; you just make it up as you go along. freefinker
  • Score: 0

8:14am Sat 2 Feb 13

rich the stitch says...

southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop? rich the stitch
  • Score: 0

9:05am Sat 2 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

southy wrote:
skin2000 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
southy wrote:
It would be better and it would save a lot of money to bring people up though the ranks in that dept, you could cut the cost of this post down to £50,000 a year.
Who's going to be a director for 50k when the mayors chauffeur gets 40k for driving a car for christs sake.
Yes! 40 grand to drive the Mayor around, plus 135k for a People Director....Not much change out of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS......beginnin


g to why Council Tax is so costly.
the whole lot needs looking at the top, these are jobs for the boys in true capitalist fashion
Southy is TUSC part if the SWP?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: It would be better and it would save a lot of money to bring people up though the ranks in that dept, you could cut the cost of this post down to £50,000 a year.[/p][/quote]Who's going to be a director for 50k when the mayors chauffeur gets 40k for driving a car for christs sake.[/p][/quote]Yes! 40 grand to drive the Mayor around, plus 135k for a People Director....Not much change out of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS......beginnin g to why Council Tax is so costly.[/p][/quote]the whole lot needs looking at the top, these are jobs for the boys in true capitalist fashion[/p][/quote]Southy is TUSC part if the SWP? southampton999
  • Score: 0

9:24am Sat 2 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

Sorry typo. Southy is TUSC part of the SWP? Please excuse my ignorance.
Sorry typo. Southy is TUSC part of the SWP? Please excuse my ignorance. southampton999
  • Score: 0

11:16am Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

southampton999 wrote:
Sorry typo. Southy is TUSC part of the SWP? Please excuse my ignorance.
Correct you a little bit, TUSC yes, SWP no, SP yes.
The SWP in this area are not to interested in the TUSC, they would much prefere to follow the LRC route.
[quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: Sorry typo. Southy is TUSC part of the SWP? Please excuse my ignorance.[/p][/quote]Correct you a little bit, TUSC yes, SWP no, SP yes. The SWP in this area are not to interested in the TUSC, they would much prefere to follow the LRC route. southy
  • Score: 0

11:20am Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?
No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend.
[quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?[/p][/quote]No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend. southy
  • Score: 0

11:33am Sat 2 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
southampton999 wrote:
Sorry typo. Southy is TUSC part of the SWP? Please excuse my ignorance.
Correct you a little bit, TUSC yes, SWP no, SP yes.
The SWP in this area are not to interested in the TUSC, they would much prefere to follow the LRC route.
.. splitters!!!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: Sorry typo. Southy is TUSC part of the SWP? Please excuse my ignorance.[/p][/quote]Correct you a little bit, TUSC yes, SWP no, SP yes. The SWP in this area are not to interested in the TUSC, they would much prefere to follow the LRC route.[/p][/quote].. splitters!!! freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:35am Sat 2 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?
No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend.
.. and your source is????
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?[/p][/quote]No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend.[/p][/quote].. and your source is???? freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:44am Sat 2 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

southy wrote:
southampton999 wrote:
Sorry typo. Southy is TUSC part of the SWP? Please excuse my ignorance.
Correct you a little bit, TUSC yes, SWP no, SP yes.
The SWP in this area are not to interested in the TUSC, they would much prefere to follow the LRC route.
Oh I was wondering if you knew Comrade Delta??
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: Sorry typo. Southy is TUSC part of the SWP? Please excuse my ignorance.[/p][/quote]Correct you a little bit, TUSC yes, SWP no, SP yes. The SWP in this area are not to interested in the TUSC, they would much prefere to follow the LRC route.[/p][/quote]Oh I was wondering if you knew Comrade Delta?? southampton999
  • Score: 0

11:46am Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
What wage would you pay the Mayors Chauffeur Southy, if you were a Councill leader? Or would you have him take a taxi to his daily diary?
Don't you think the guy who will get the job, don't have a high enough wage all ready, this £40,000 will be on top of what he all ready gets for carrying the Mace into council chambers meetings.

If it was just one person with one job then wage should be around the £18,000 to £20,000.
And why not use public transport Pat Bear did when ever she could, often you would see her jump on a bus to do her daily diary when she was Mayor.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: What wage would you pay the Mayors Chauffeur Southy, if you were a Councill leader? Or would you have him take a taxi to his daily diary?[/p][/quote]Don't you think the guy who will get the job, don't have a high enough wage all ready, this £40,000 will be on top of what he all ready gets for carrying the Mace into council chambers meetings. If it was just one person with one job then wage should be around the £18,000 to £20,000. And why not use public transport Pat Bear did when ever she could, often you would see her jump on a bus to do her daily diary when she was Mayor. southy
  • Score: 0

11:50am Sat 2 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

southampton999 wrote:
southy wrote:
southampton999 wrote:
Sorry typo. Southy is TUSC part of the SWP? Please excuse my ignorance.
Correct you a little bit, TUSC yes, SWP no, SP yes.
The SWP in this area are not to interested in the TUSC, they would much prefere to follow the LRC route.
Oh I was wondering if you knew Comrade Delta??
I was hoping I could get the phone numbers of some of the little darlings like Esme, Candy and Maxine. The socialists do seem to be preferred party of the hairy armpit brigade.
[quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: Sorry typo. Southy is TUSC part of the SWP? Please excuse my ignorance.[/p][/quote]Correct you a little bit, TUSC yes, SWP no, SP yes. The SWP in this area are not to interested in the TUSC, they would much prefere to follow the LRC route.[/p][/quote]Oh I was wondering if you knew Comrade Delta??[/p][/quote]I was hoping I could get the phone numbers of some of the little darlings like Esme, Candy and Maxine. The socialists do seem to be preferred party of the hairy armpit brigade. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

11:58am Sat 2 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?
No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend.
There are 91217 households in Southampton. Assuming that they have one bin each at the moment according to your figures the cost per month to have that bin collected is 90 pence which is £82095.30 or £985143.60 per year. So all of the trucks, staff, insurance, repairs ,maintenance, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay, N.I.,disposal, renewals of vehicles, equipment and the like is paid for from less than a million quid!!!!??? YOU MY FRIEND ARE IN CLOUD CUCKOO LAND!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?[/p][/quote]No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend.[/p][/quote]There are 91217 households in Southampton. Assuming that they have one bin each at the moment according to your figures the cost per month to have that bin collected is 90 pence which is £82095.30 or £985143.60 per year. So all of the trucks, staff, insurance, repairs ,maintenance, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay, N.I.,disposal, renewals of vehicles, equipment and the like is paid for from less than a million quid!!!!??? YOU MY FRIEND ARE IN CLOUD CUCKOO LAND!!!!! southampton999
  • Score: 0

11:59am Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?
No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend.
.. and your source is????
Unlike you Free you are a single person, research into all of this was done during the Bin Strike after the Torys had said they would hand this dept over to private contractor, and it was not just this City where it was said.
And as I all ready posted the USA, NZ, AU all have areas where this as been done, the public service of rubbish collettion have been handed over to private hands to run, and as ended up costing at lest 22 times more.
Its the same old story those on the Right lie to people about letting the private sector have control over public services saying it will be cheaper but in truth it is not, it has all ways endded up costing the public a lot more, we have even seen this in this country, with Water, Gas, Electric and C Oil. all was promise a to be cheaper for the public but never was all endded up costing the public a lot more.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?[/p][/quote]No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend.[/p][/quote].. and your source is????[/p][/quote]Unlike you Free you are a single person, research into all of this was done during the Bin Strike after the Torys had said they would hand this dept over to private contractor, and it was not just this City where it was said. And as I all ready posted the USA, NZ, AU all have areas where this as been done, the public service of rubbish collettion have been handed over to private hands to run, and as ended up costing at lest 22 times more. Its the same old story those on the Right lie to people about letting the private sector have control over public services saying it will be cheaper but in truth it is not, it has all ways endded up costing the public a lot more, we have even seen this in this country, with Water, Gas, Electric and C Oil. all was promise a to be cheaper for the public but never was all endded up costing the public a lot more. southy
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

southampton999 wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?
No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend.
There are 91217 households in Southampton. Assuming that they have one bin each at the moment according to your figures the cost per month to have that bin collected is 90 pence which is £82095.30 or £985143.60 per year. So all of the trucks, staff, insurance, repairs ,maintenance, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay, N.I.,disposal, renewals of vehicles, equipment and the like is paid for from less than a million quid!!!!??? YOU MY FRIEND ARE IN CLOUD CUCKOO LAND!!!!!
Its 90p per mth that is taken out of the Council Tax and used for emptying rubbish bins.
You can find this out easy enough your self just write a letter to the council and ask for a break down in where your council tax go's to.
[quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?[/p][/quote]No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend.[/p][/quote]There are 91217 households in Southampton. Assuming that they have one bin each at the moment according to your figures the cost per month to have that bin collected is 90 pence which is £82095.30 or £985143.60 per year. So all of the trucks, staff, insurance, repairs ,maintenance, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay, N.I.,disposal, renewals of vehicles, equipment and the like is paid for from less than a million quid!!!!??? YOU MY FRIEND ARE IN CLOUD CUCKOO LAND!!!!![/p][/quote]Its 90p per mth that is taken out of the Council Tax and used for emptying rubbish bins. You can find this out easy enough your self just write a letter to the council and ask for a break down in where your council tax go's to. southy
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?
No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend.
.. and your source is????
Unlike you Free you are a single person, research into all of this was done during the Bin Strike after the Torys had said they would hand this dept over to private contractor, and it was not just this City where it was said.
And as I all ready posted the USA, NZ, AU all have areas where this as been done, the public service of rubbish collettion have been handed over to private hands to run, and as ended up costing at lest 22 times more.
Its the same old story those on the Right lie to people about letting the private sector have control over public services saying it will be cheaper but in truth it is not, it has all ways endded up costing the public a lot more, we have even seen this in this country, with Water, Gas, Electric and C Oil. all was promise a to be cheaper for the public but never was all endded up costing the public a lot more.
Your figure are rubbish (excuse the pun). As I have demonstrated it does not cost less than a million quid per year to empty all of Southampton's bins as you say in your postings.So even if it costs £200 per year (by your figures) and I have to pay that and get a reduction of the same amount on my Council Tax I don't care, seems rather reasonable to me!! Quick calculation Refuse Truck £150000 to buy, yes you can lease it but the overall costs over the lifetime are the same (say over 10 years £15000 per year) Maintenance £ 5000 per year, Couple of tyres £2000 per year. Insurance £2000. per year, Diesel £ 25000 per year, Crew, Driver inc pension, holidays, sickness etc etc etc £ 50000 per year, 3 operators including all the other stuff that goes with employing people £90000 per year. That adds up to £189000 per year FOR ONE TRUCK!!! That does not include any other office staff, or indeed disposing of the rubbish nor the medical for the driver to keep his HGV. SO AS YOU CAN SEE YOU ARE TALKING ABSOLUTE B*****
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?[/p][/quote]No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend.[/p][/quote].. and your source is????[/p][/quote]Unlike you Free you are a single person, research into all of this was done during the Bin Strike after the Torys had said they would hand this dept over to private contractor, and it was not just this City where it was said. And as I all ready posted the USA, NZ, AU all have areas where this as been done, the public service of rubbish collettion have been handed over to private hands to run, and as ended up costing at lest 22 times more. Its the same old story those on the Right lie to people about letting the private sector have control over public services saying it will be cheaper but in truth it is not, it has all ways endded up costing the public a lot more, we have even seen this in this country, with Water, Gas, Electric and C Oil. all was promise a to be cheaper for the public but never was all endded up costing the public a lot more.[/p][/quote]Your figure are rubbish (excuse the pun). As I have demonstrated it does not cost less than a million quid per year to empty all of Southampton's bins as you say in your postings.So even if it costs £200 per year (by your figures) and I have to pay that and get a reduction of the same amount on my Council Tax I don't care, seems rather reasonable to me!! Quick calculation Refuse Truck £150000 to buy, yes you can lease it but the overall costs over the lifetime are the same (say over 10 years £15000 per year) Maintenance £ 5000 per year, Couple of tyres £2000 per year. Insurance £2000. per year, Diesel £ 25000 per year, Crew, Driver inc pension, holidays, sickness etc etc etc £ 50000 per year, 3 operators including all the other stuff that goes with employing people £90000 per year. That adds up to £189000 per year FOR ONE TRUCK!!! That does not include any other office staff, or indeed disposing of the rubbish nor the medical for the driver to keep his HGV. SO AS YOU CAN SEE YOU ARE TALKING ABSOLUTE B***** southampton999
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%) southy
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

southampton999 wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?
No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend.
.. and your source is????
Unlike you Free you are a single person, research into all of this was done during the Bin Strike after the Torys had said they would hand this dept over to private contractor, and it was not just this City where it was said.
And as I all ready posted the USA, NZ, AU all have areas where this as been done, the public service of rubbish collettion have been handed over to private hands to run, and as ended up costing at lest 22 times more.
Its the same old story those on the Right lie to people about letting the private sector have control over public services saying it will be cheaper but in truth it is not, it has all ways endded up costing the public a lot more, we have even seen this in this country, with Water, Gas, Electric and C Oil. all was promise a to be cheaper for the public but never was all endded up costing the public a lot more.
Your figure are rubbish (excuse the pun). As I have demonstrated it does not cost less than a million quid per year to empty all of Southampton's bins as you say in your postings.So even if it costs £200 per year (by your figures) and I have to pay that and get a reduction of the same amount on my Council Tax I don't care, seems rather reasonable to me!! Quick calculation Refuse Truck £150000 to buy, yes you can lease it but the overall costs over the lifetime are the same (say over 10 years £15000 per year) Maintenance £ 5000 per year, Couple of tyres £2000 per year. Insurance £2000. per year, Diesel £ 25000 per year, Crew, Driver inc pension, holidays, sickness etc etc etc £ 50000 per year, 3 operators including all the other stuff that goes with employing people £90000 per year. That adds up to £189000 per year FOR ONE TRUCK!!! That does not include any other office staff, or indeed disposing of the rubbish nor the medical for the driver to keep his HGV. SO AS YOU CAN SEE YOU ARE TALKING ABSOLUTE B*****
Its fact it might of gone up a bit in the last 2 years when this was check out, but it would not have gone up that much, but would still be less than a £ per mth.

Its 90p per mth that is taken out of the Council Tax and used for emptying rubbish bins.
You can find this out easy enough your self just write a letter to the council and ask for a break down in where your council tax go's to.
[quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]So you do have a source, would you like to share it with us, just to prove you have not made it up. The amount is for a single collection, not a contract covering 100000's of houses. Southy, have any members of the TUSC seen your comments on here, and asked you to stop?[/p][/quote]No its for a city wide collettion, A single collection would cost you a hell a lot more, it would cheaper to hire a skip for a weekend.[/p][/quote].. and your source is????[/p][/quote]Unlike you Free you are a single person, research into all of this was done during the Bin Strike after the Torys had said they would hand this dept over to private contractor, and it was not just this City where it was said. And as I all ready posted the USA, NZ, AU all have areas where this as been done, the public service of rubbish collettion have been handed over to private hands to run, and as ended up costing at lest 22 times more. Its the same old story those on the Right lie to people about letting the private sector have control over public services saying it will be cheaper but in truth it is not, it has all ways endded up costing the public a lot more, we have even seen this in this country, with Water, Gas, Electric and C Oil. all was promise a to be cheaper for the public but never was all endded up costing the public a lot more.[/p][/quote]Your figure are rubbish (excuse the pun). As I have demonstrated it does not cost less than a million quid per year to empty all of Southampton's bins as you say in your postings.So even if it costs £200 per year (by your figures) and I have to pay that and get a reduction of the same amount on my Council Tax I don't care, seems rather reasonable to me!! Quick calculation Refuse Truck £150000 to buy, yes you can lease it but the overall costs over the lifetime are the same (say over 10 years £15000 per year) Maintenance £ 5000 per year, Couple of tyres £2000 per year. Insurance £2000. per year, Diesel £ 25000 per year, Crew, Driver inc pension, holidays, sickness etc etc etc £ 50000 per year, 3 operators including all the other stuff that goes with employing people £90000 per year. That adds up to £189000 per year FOR ONE TRUCK!!! That does not include any other office staff, or indeed disposing of the rubbish nor the medical for the driver to keep his HGV. SO AS YOU CAN SEE YOU ARE TALKING ABSOLUTE B*****[/p][/quote]Its fact it might of gone up a bit in the last 2 years when this was check out, but it would not have gone up that much, but would still be less than a £ per mth. Its 90p per mth that is taken out of the Council Tax and used for emptying rubbish bins. You can find this out easy enough your self just write a letter to the council and ask for a break down in where your council tax go's to. southy
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
No you don't!!!! You get a 25 % reduction for single occupancy. You also get a three month amnesty evey year if the property is unfurnished and empty. If it is your second home then you get a 25% reduction. If you are a full time student then you are exempt as you are if you are in hosing benefit or disabled. Get your facts right. It is a property based tax and is equatable to the value of your house!!! Again you are talking the b*****it language of North Korea.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]No you don't!!!! You get a 25 % reduction for single occupancy. You also get a three month amnesty evey year if the property is unfurnished and empty. If it is your second home then you get a 25% reduction. If you are a full time student then you are exempt as you are if you are in hosing benefit or disabled. Get your facts right. It is a property based tax and is equatable to the value of your house!!! Again you are talking the b*****it language of North Korea. southampton999
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

southampton999 you need to redo your figures, like insurence would be the cost of covering all the council vehciels, the cost of a rubbish truck would not be a yearly cost (unless it was a lease truck) but a cost to the life time of that truck, each truck only has 3 operators normally, the figure of £ 25000 per year is for the whole fleet the council owns, same with maintaince and tyres its for the fleet not a single.
also you need to think about is that Council tax is in bands and not a single levy.
southampton999 you need to redo your figures, like insurence would be the cost of covering all the council vehciels, the cost of a rubbish truck would not be a yearly cost (unless it was a lease truck) but a cost to the life time of that truck, each truck only has 3 operators normally, the figure of £ 25000 per year is for the whole fleet the council owns, same with maintaince and tyres its for the fleet not a single. also you need to think about is that Council tax is in bands and not a single levy. southy
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

southampton999 wrote:
southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
No you don't!!!! You get a 25 % reduction for single occupancy. You also get a three month amnesty evey year if the property is unfurnished and empty. If it is your second home then you get a 25% reduction. If you are a full time student then you are exempt as you are if you are in hosing benefit or disabled. Get your facts right. It is a property based tax and is equatable to the value of your house!!! Again you are talking the b*****it language of North Korea.
Anyway Kim jun Southy brain of North Korea . You haven't actually managed to tell us all where all the money comes from to subsidise the bin collection down to 90 pence per month!!! You have seen the figures (admittedly back if an envelope stuff) it costs to run one truck for a year on its own. And you have no answer. That's because you think that the 'glorious leader' of North Korea comes to Southampton and sprinkled fairy dust in the rubbish and it disappears free if charge.
[quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]No you don't!!!! You get a 25 % reduction for single occupancy. You also get a three month amnesty evey year if the property is unfurnished and empty. If it is your second home then you get a 25% reduction. If you are a full time student then you are exempt as you are if you are in hosing benefit or disabled. Get your facts right. It is a property based tax and is equatable to the value of your house!!! Again you are talking the b*****it language of North Korea.[/p][/quote]Anyway Kim jun Southy brain of North Korea . You haven't actually managed to tell us all where all the money comes from to subsidise the bin collection down to 90 pence per month!!! You have seen the figures (admittedly back if an envelope stuff) it costs to run one truck for a year on its own. And you have no answer. That's because you think that the 'glorious leader' of North Korea comes to Southampton and sprinkled fairy dust in the rubbish and it disappears free if charge. southampton999
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

southampton999 wrote:
southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
No you don't!!!! You get a 25 % reduction for single occupancy. You also get a three month amnesty evey year if the property is unfurnished and empty. If it is your second home then you get a 25% reduction. If you are a full time student then you are exempt as you are if you are in hosing benefit or disabled. Get your facts right. It is a property based tax and is equatable to the value of your house!!! Again you are talking the b*****it language of North Korea.
That 25% deduction is because you have no partner, (its work out one adult to a house hold and if that one adult as a partner then 25% is added on) and for each child that is of working age >>(repeat this part looks like you missed it before) THAT IS NOT in full time education living in that house hold then % is added ontop (its this part what makes this a kind of poll tax).
The cheapest that can be paid in Council Tax is 20% (and thats with Housing Benefit), that includes disabled which in some cases you could still end up paying the full amount.
[quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]No you don't!!!! You get a 25 % reduction for single occupancy. You also get a three month amnesty evey year if the property is unfurnished and empty. If it is your second home then you get a 25% reduction. If you are a full time student then you are exempt as you are if you are in hosing benefit or disabled. Get your facts right. It is a property based tax and is equatable to the value of your house!!! Again you are talking the b*****it language of North Korea.[/p][/quote]That 25% deduction is because you have no partner, (its work out one adult to a house hold and if that one adult as a partner then 25% is added on) and for each child that is of working age >>(repeat this part looks like you missed it before) THAT IS NOT in full time education living in that house hold then % is added ontop (its this part what makes this a kind of poll tax). The cheapest that can be paid in Council Tax is 20% (and thats with Housing Benefit), that includes disabled which in some cases you could still end up paying the full amount. southy
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

southy wrote:
southampton999 you need to redo your figures, like insurence would be the cost of covering all the council vehciels, the cost of a rubbish truck would not be a yearly cost (unless it was a lease truck) but a cost to the life time of that truck, each truck only has 3 operators normally, the figure of £ 25000 per year is for the whole fleet the council owns, same with maintaince and tyres its for the fleet not a single.
also you need to think about is that Council tax is in bands and not a single levy.
Exactly the trucks cost 150 k and have a useful life if 10 years so 150k divided by 10 is 15k. Regarding insurance this is a fair figure given that these trucks can do a lot of damage. You also have to factor in the element which I have include in that figure if public liability insurance. A claim would run into millions if someone was killed and the council were at fault so the premium would reflect that.
Tyres for these truck probably cost up to 1k each and they have at least 10. So maybe my figures are on the low side. Maybe you need to read a couple of book on how to run a business!!! And how expensive things really are!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: southampton999 you need to redo your figures, like insurence would be the cost of covering all the council vehciels, the cost of a rubbish truck would not be a yearly cost (unless it was a lease truck) but a cost to the life time of that truck, each truck only has 3 operators normally, the figure of £ 25000 per year is for the whole fleet the council owns, same with maintaince and tyres its for the fleet not a single. also you need to think about is that Council tax is in bands and not a single levy.[/p][/quote]Exactly the trucks cost 150 k and have a useful life if 10 years so 150k divided by 10 is 15k. Regarding insurance this is a fair figure given that these trucks can do a lot of damage. You also have to factor in the element which I have include in that figure if public liability insurance. A claim would run into millions if someone was killed and the council were at fault so the premium would reflect that. Tyres for these truck probably cost up to 1k each and they have at least 10. So maybe my figures are on the low side. Maybe you need to read a couple of book on how to run a business!!! And how expensive things really are! southampton999
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.
I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household.

First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education.
You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.[/p][/quote]I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household. First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education. You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill. southy
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au.
it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
"In the 1970s, the National Science Foundation funded the first empirical study, examining the cost and performance of municipal garbage collection under various institutional alternatives. The researchers found that competitive contracting was clearly less costly. Further research during the 1980s and 1990s—by academics, think tanks, and the federal government’s General Accounting Office—reinforced those findings across hundreds of different types of services at federal, state, and local levels of government in the United States. The findings on municipal garbage collection were replicated in a large-scale study in Canada." Privatization by Robert W. Poole Jr.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]"In the 1970s, the National Science Foundation funded the first empirical study, examining the cost and performance of municipal garbage collection under various institutional alternatives. The researchers found that competitive contracting was clearly less costly. Further research during the 1980s and 1990s—by academics, think tanks, and the federal government’s General Accounting Office—reinforced those findings across hundreds of different types of services at federal, state, and local levels of government in the United States. The findings on municipal garbage collection were replicated in a large-scale study in Canada." Privatization by Robert W. Poole Jr. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au.
it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
"In the 1970s, the National Science Foundation funded the first empirical study, examining the cost and performance of municipal garbage collection under various institutional alternatives. The researchers found that competitive contracting was clearly less costly. Further research during the 1980s and 1990s—by academics, think tanks, and the federal government’s General Accounting Office—reinforced those findings across hundreds of different types of services at federal, state, and local levels of government in the United States. The findings on municipal garbage collection were replicated in a large-scale study in Canada." Privatization by Robert W. Poole Jr.
Quite right!!!
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]"In the 1970s, the National Science Foundation funded the first empirical study, examining the cost and performance of municipal garbage collection under various institutional alternatives. The researchers found that competitive contracting was clearly less costly. Further research during the 1980s and 1990s—by academics, think tanks, and the federal government’s General Accounting Office—reinforced those findings across hundreds of different types of services at federal, state, and local levels of government in the United States. The findings on municipal garbage collection were replicated in a large-scale study in Canada." Privatization by Robert W. Poole Jr.[/p][/quote]Quite right!!! southampton999
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au.
it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
"In the 1970s, the National Science Foundation funded the first empirical study, examining the cost and performance of municipal garbage collection under various institutional alternatives. The researchers found that competitive contracting was clearly less costly. Further research during the 1980s and 1990s—by academics, think tanks, and the federal government’s General Accounting Office—reinforced those findings across hundreds of different types of services at federal, state, and local levels of government in the United States. The findings on municipal garbage collection were replicated in a large-scale study in Canada." Privatization by Robert W. Poole Jr.
yes i read that very interesting read, but when put in practice, it endded up costing a lot more, it was a case of there studies did not include how much would go to share holders and managerment board plus other things and did not work out cheaper but cost went up 23 times the amount, reason being is that the think tanks are falling on the side of capitalism big time and was giving false figures, one state that ran the experment for 5 years, endded up dropping it because the big rise in cost and the local authority did not want to lose control of Queens by the people rejecting them come election time.
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]"In the 1970s, the National Science Foundation funded the first empirical study, examining the cost and performance of municipal garbage collection under various institutional alternatives. The researchers found that competitive contracting was clearly less costly. Further research during the 1980s and 1990s—by academics, think tanks, and the federal government’s General Accounting Office—reinforced those findings across hundreds of different types of services at federal, state, and local levels of government in the United States. The findings on municipal garbage collection were replicated in a large-scale study in Canada." Privatization by Robert W. Poole Jr.[/p][/quote]yes i read that very interesting read, but when put in practice, it endded up costing a lot more, it was a case of there studies did not include how much would go to share holders and managerment board plus other things and did not work out cheaper but cost went up 23 times the amount, reason being is that the think tanks are falling on the side of capitalism big time and was giving false figures, one state that ran the experment for 5 years, endded up dropping it because the big rise in cost and the local authority did not want to lose control of Queens by the people rejecting them come election time. southy
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Sat 2 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

I haven't received my letter yet advising that my council Tax would increase if my sister were to move in and our household will become 3
I haven't received my letter yet advising that my council Tax would increase if my sister were to move in and our household will become 3 IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

southampton999 wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au.
it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
"In the 1970s, the National Science Foundation funded the first empirical study, examining the cost and performance of municipal garbage collection under various institutional alternatives. The researchers found that competitive contracting was clearly less costly. Further research during the 1980s and 1990s—by academics, think tanks, and the federal government’s General Accounting Office—reinforced those findings across hundreds of different types of services at federal, state, and local levels of government in the United States. The findings on municipal garbage collection were replicated in a large-scale study in Canada." Privatization by Robert W. Poole Jr.
Quite right!!!
Its was a false picture they painted, remember these studys ect was done by capitalist and favour any form of capitalism and did not give a true objected view of the matter.
[quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]"In the 1970s, the National Science Foundation funded the first empirical study, examining the cost and performance of municipal garbage collection under various institutional alternatives. The researchers found that competitive contracting was clearly less costly. Further research during the 1980s and 1990s—by academics, think tanks, and the federal government’s General Accounting Office—reinforced those findings across hundreds of different types of services at federal, state, and local levels of government in the United States. The findings on municipal garbage collection were replicated in a large-scale study in Canada." Privatization by Robert W. Poole Jr.[/p][/quote]Quite right!!![/p][/quote]Its was a false picture they painted, remember these studys ect was done by capitalist and favour any form of capitalism and did not give a true objected view of the matter. southy
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

I hate extremists on either side of the Political spectrum. The ones on the right are thuggish idiots so they are easy to defeat. It's the ones on the left who are also thuggish idiots but are backed up by so-called free thinkers and intellectuals that are the most dangerous at the moment certainly to our country. This country has always prided itself on resourcefulness and fair play. It is this that has kept this small Island ahead of the game against massive odds. Now my real gripe is against idiots like Southy who insist that employers are scum, and that all the workers should unite against the evil tyranny in the UK. Well fair enough things aren't perfect but we are a lot better off than many other nations. I travel widely and see so with my own eyes. May I respectfully suggest that people like Southy take the massive chip off their shoulder and fashion it into a boat and get out there and look at the world with eyes open and with an open mind rather than spouting all his vile hatred against anyone or any organisation he thinks don't fit his outdated abhorrent socialist credentials. Remember Southy , George Orwell. We are equal but some are more equal than others. Socialism/ Communism is on par with Fascism, Non of it works!!!
I hate extremists on either side of the Political spectrum. The ones on the right are thuggish idiots so they are easy to defeat. It's the ones on the left who are also thuggish idiots but are backed up by so-called free thinkers and intellectuals that are the most dangerous at the moment certainly to our country. This country has always prided itself on resourcefulness and fair play. It is this that has kept this small Island ahead of the game against massive odds. Now my real gripe is against idiots like Southy who insist that employers are scum, and that all the workers should unite against the evil tyranny in the UK. Well fair enough things aren't perfect but we are a lot better off than many other nations. I travel widely and see so with my own eyes. May I respectfully suggest that people like Southy take the massive chip off their shoulder and fashion it into a boat and get out there and look at the world with eyes open and with an open mind rather than spouting all his vile hatred against anyone or any organisation he thinks don't fit his outdated abhorrent socialist credentials. Remember Southy , George Orwell. We are equal but some are more equal than others. Socialism/ Communism is on par with Fascism, Non of it works!!! southampton999
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.
I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household.

First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education.
You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.
As I pointed out, you clearly don't understand the Council Tax system. Single occupants receive a 25% discount but it doesn't make any difference how many working adults are in a dwelling, the charge for that banded property will remain at the level published by the council. There are no additional charges made for extra working adults and this is yet another instance where you chose to post about something you don't understand. Please refer to the council website for details or perhaps you would like to refer me to the source of information that you are using. I sometimes wonder if you would be against so many things if someone sat you down and made sure you understood them in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.[/p][/quote]I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household. First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education. You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.[/p][/quote]As I pointed out, you clearly don't understand the Council Tax system. Single occupants receive a 25% discount but it doesn't make any difference how many working adults are in a dwelling, the charge for that banded property will remain at the level published by the council. There are no additional charges made for extra working adults and this is yet another instance where you chose to post about something you don't understand. Please refer to the council website for details or perhaps you would like to refer me to the source of information that you are using. I sometimes wonder if you would be against so many things if someone sat you down and made sure you understood them in the first place. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.
I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household.

First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education.
You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.
As I pointed out, you clearly don't understand the Council Tax system. Single occupants receive a 25% discount but it doesn't make any difference how many working adults are in a dwelling, the charge for that banded property will remain at the level published by the council. There are no additional charges made for extra working adults and this is yet another instance where you chose to post about something you don't understand. Please refer to the council website for details or perhaps you would like to refer me to the source of information that you are using. I sometimes wonder if you would be against so many things if someone sat you down and made sure you understood them in the first place.
A lot better than you do, single occupants get the flat rate for that band, if they have a partner then 25% is added on, read you next bill and look at how it is laid up if your married, and read the small print while your at it. and it do matter how many working adults for each one there is a % to be added on.
why not come round here and let me take you to the 3 houses inbetween the end houses each one pays a different amount of tax, for the same band house. condition next to me is one oap widower with adult son working, next to them is a young family with 3 kids, no adult kids, next to them is working couple with no kids, and each household council tax is different and thats before any discounts.
What happens is that you pay a lower % rate for the first adult, then lower % for the second and so on
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.[/p][/quote]I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household. First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education. You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.[/p][/quote]As I pointed out, you clearly don't understand the Council Tax system. Single occupants receive a 25% discount but it doesn't make any difference how many working adults are in a dwelling, the charge for that banded property will remain at the level published by the council. There are no additional charges made for extra working adults and this is yet another instance where you chose to post about something you don't understand. Please refer to the council website for details or perhaps you would like to refer me to the source of information that you are using. I sometimes wonder if you would be against so many things if someone sat you down and made sure you understood them in the first place.[/p][/quote]A lot better than you do, single occupants get the flat rate for that band, if they have a partner then 25% is added on, read you next bill and look at how it is laid up if your married, and read the small print while your at it. and it do matter how many working adults for each one there is a % to be added on. why not come round here and let me take you to the 3 houses inbetween the end houses each one pays a different amount of tax, for the same band house. condition next to me is one oap widower with adult son working, next to them is a young family with 3 kids, no adult kids, next to them is working couple with no kids, and each household council tax is different and thats before any discounts. What happens is that you pay a lower % rate for the first adult, then lower % for the second and so on southy
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Sat 2 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

Southy, go on the council website or contact the Council Tax admin team, then come back here and admit you have got it totally wrong!

You are given a figure based upon your property valuation. If you are lucky enough to be single you can get a 25% discount of that standard valuation rate. If you have 20 other adults living with you, that valuation rate still applies and does not increase.

You're listening to the man on the street instead of listening to the officials.
Southy, go on the council website or contact the Council Tax admin team, then come back here and admit you have got it totally wrong! You are given a figure based upon your property valuation. If you are lucky enough to be single you can get a 25% discount of that standard valuation rate. If you have 20 other adults living with you, that valuation rate still applies and does not increase. You're listening to the man on the street instead of listening to the officials. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
southampton999 wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
rich the stitch wrote:
southy wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.
lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.
Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?
sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au.
it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.
"In the 1970s, the National Science Foundation funded the first empirical study, examining the cost and performance of municipal garbage collection under various institutional alternatives. The researchers found that competitive contracting was clearly less costly. Further research during the 1980s and 1990s—by academics, think tanks, and the federal government’s General Accounting Office—reinforced those findings across hundreds of different types of services at federal, state, and local levels of government in the United States. The findings on municipal garbage collection were replicated in a large-scale study in Canada." Privatization by Robert W. Poole Jr.
Quite right!!!
Its was a false picture they painted, remember these studys ect was done by capitalist and favour any form of capitalism and did not give a true objected view of the matter.
The most robust conclusion you can draw is that there are some circumstances in which council run bin collections can be as efficient, maybe more so, than the private sector can provide, especially where the council also owns and runs facilities such as landfill. The warning from the furthest Left-leaning academics is that it should never be blindly assumed that privatisation will always lead to a cheaper outcome. But nowhere do they conclude that privatised waste services would increase costs by "22 to 26" times, as you suggest.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: If the Tories were in power in Southampton, we would have better services at lower prices. Now our council tax will go up, with services cut. Vote Tory, get rid of the Unions and Southampton would prosper. Have a good weekend what ever your views.[/p][/quote]lol better services you mean less services for your money under Tory, let point one thing that we all need, rubbish colletion the cost to you is 90p per mth, if Torys had there way it would be handed out to a private contractor where the price would be around £22 per mth and it would come to you as a seperate bill to be paid.[/p][/quote]Where did you get that figure from Southy? Any actual source, or just another 'fact' you've made up?[/p][/quote]sorce is from places where its all ready happened, a round the world, usa nz au. it will increase 22 times to 26 times the amount, also branch members have check on prices from the private companys, all so during the bin strike thats what it cost to bring in private contractors to empty the bins.[/p][/quote]"In the 1970s, the National Science Foundation funded the first empirical study, examining the cost and performance of municipal garbage collection under various institutional alternatives. The researchers found that competitive contracting was clearly less costly. Further research during the 1980s and 1990s—by academics, think tanks, and the federal government’s General Accounting Office—reinforced those findings across hundreds of different types of services at federal, state, and local levels of government in the United States. The findings on municipal garbage collection were replicated in a large-scale study in Canada." Privatization by Robert W. Poole Jr.[/p][/quote]Quite right!!![/p][/quote]Its was a false picture they painted, remember these studys ect was done by capitalist and favour any form of capitalism and did not give a true objected view of the matter.[/p][/quote]The most robust conclusion you can draw is that there are some circumstances in which council run bin collections can be as efficient, maybe more so, than the private sector can provide, especially where the council also owns and runs facilities such as landfill. The warning from the furthest Left-leaning academics is that it should never be blindly assumed that privatisation will always lead to a cheaper outcome. But nowhere do they conclude that privatised waste services would increase costs by "22 to 26" times, as you suggest. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Sat 2 Feb 13

freefinker says...

SOUTHY’S JANUARY POSTINGS.

A valiant effort throughout the month to take stories off subject produced a defence of Lenin and condemnation for the capitalist Stalin. ‘Capitalist Communism’ had a few mentions; Cuba and Vietnam are held up as good examples of countries embracing ‘democratic socialism’. Surprisingly, Thatcher was blamed only a few times for all our woes.

Despite being asked numerous times to explain how TUSC would bridge the gap between their slogan of ‘No Cuts’ and the income received from central government, southy was totally unable to give any details whatsoever. An awful lot of irrelevant waffle was generated instead.

But the ‘Needs Budget’, which we established last year is just southy’s very own euphemism for ‘No Cuts’, got a few airings – despite being only a mere figment of his fervent imagination. Ah, bless.

Prediction of the month; Jeremy Moulton is just about to depose Royston Smith as Tory leader. We shall see. Predictions are not southy’s strong point; remember, there was definitely going to be a general election before the end of 2012.

On the factual front, a bad start to 2013; even before we were half way through the month there were 4 real howlers, all of which could have been avoided with minimal checking: -
1) Sulphur fluorides are natural and in every river. Wrong, there are no naturally occurring sulphur fluorides.
2) SCC operates no multi-story car parks. Wrong, they own and operate 5.
3) The first Bilderberg meeting was in 1945. Wrong, it was 1954.
4) There were 3 rounds in the 1990 Conservative Party leadership election. Wrong, there were only 2 – and he got all the election rules totally wrong as well as saying it was the ‘night of the long knives’ (an event from 1962).
However, with his usual I’m always right attitude he continually insisted it was everybody else in the world that had it wrong.

Then a bit of a quiet 10 days before he gets all his statistics for EU citizens in the UK hopelessly wrong. Apparently there are less than 1,000 Romanians in the UK and the French have the largest number of EU nationals residing in the UK, but with fewer than 10,000. Wrong and wrong. When it’s pointed out the 2011 census showed 579,000 Poles residing here, he did his usual disappearing trick. However, he resurfaced 5 days later with a revised total for the French; now it’s not quite 250,000, but still insists they are the largest EU nationality in the UK. Phew, a 2500% increase in under a week, but still wrong.

Next southy invents some new laws. His pronounces that ‘overseas workers’ are not subject to either PAYE or the National Minimum Wage until they have worked here for 6 months. Unfortunately, it’s one of those secret laws that only southy is privy to. How employers get to know of this is anyone’s guess.

He’s not finished yet though, as we get a pronouncement on human origins (is there nothing this chap can’t get wrong?). Apparently, we are ‘a cross bred of at lest 2 great apes’ – news to paleoanthropologists worldwide, but there you are, southy said it so it must be, er, wrong.

Well folks, stand by for more fun in February.
SOUTHY’S JANUARY POSTINGS. A valiant effort throughout the month to take stories off subject produced a defence of Lenin and condemnation for the capitalist Stalin. ‘Capitalist Communism’ had a few mentions; Cuba and Vietnam are held up as good examples of countries embracing ‘democratic socialism’. Surprisingly, Thatcher was blamed only a few times for all our woes. Despite being asked numerous times to explain how TUSC would bridge the gap between their slogan of ‘No Cuts’ and the income received from central government, southy was totally unable to give any details whatsoever. An awful lot of irrelevant waffle was generated instead. But the ‘Needs Budget’, which we established last year is just southy’s very own euphemism for ‘No Cuts’, got a few airings – despite being only a mere figment of his fervent imagination. Ah, bless. Prediction of the month; Jeremy Moulton is just about to depose Royston Smith as Tory leader. We shall see. Predictions are not southy’s strong point; remember, there was definitely going to be a general election before the end of 2012. On the factual front, a bad start to 2013; even before we were half way through the month there were 4 real howlers, all of which could have been avoided with minimal checking: - 1) Sulphur fluorides are natural and in every river. Wrong, there are no naturally occurring sulphur fluorides. 2) SCC operates no multi-story car parks. Wrong, they own and operate 5. 3) The first Bilderberg meeting was in 1945. Wrong, it was 1954. 4) There were 3 rounds in the 1990 Conservative Party leadership election. Wrong, there were only 2 – and he got all the election rules totally wrong as well as saying it was the ‘night of the long knives’ (an event from 1962). However, with his usual I’m always right attitude he continually insisted it was everybody else in the world that had it wrong. Then a bit of a quiet 10 days before he gets all his statistics for EU citizens in the UK hopelessly wrong. Apparently there are less than 1,000 Romanians in the UK and the French have the largest number of EU nationals residing in the UK, but with fewer than 10,000. Wrong and wrong. When it’s pointed out the 2011 census showed 579,000 Poles residing here, he did his usual disappearing trick. However, he resurfaced 5 days later with a revised total for the French; now it’s not quite 250,000, but still insists they are the largest EU nationality in the UK. Phew, a 2500% increase in under a week, but still wrong. Next southy invents some new laws. His pronounces that ‘overseas workers’ are not subject to either PAYE or the National Minimum Wage until they have worked here for 6 months. Unfortunately, it’s one of those secret laws that only southy is privy to. How employers get to know of this is anyone’s guess. He’s not finished yet though, as we get a pronouncement on human origins (is there nothing this chap can’t get wrong?). Apparently, we are ‘a cross bred of at lest 2 great apes’ – news to paleoanthropologists worldwide, but there you are, southy said it so it must be, er, wrong. Well folks, stand by for more fun in February. freefinker
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Sat 2 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.
I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household.

First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education.
You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.
.. oh, thank you southy. Your first big factual error for February.

Last year you told us ‘Council Tax go's to national government, and government lets us have small % of it back’. Now you have demonstrated you also don’t have the faintest idea of how council tax is calculated.

And you claim to have all the knowledge about politics because you are a member of a political party and the rest of us are not? Do me a favour.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.[/p][/quote]I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household. First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education. You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.[/p][/quote].. oh, thank you southy. Your first big factual error for February. Last year you told us ‘Council Tax go's to national government, and government lets us have small % of it back’. Now you have demonstrated you also don’t have the faintest idea of how council tax is calculated. And you claim to have all the knowledge about politics because you are a member of a political party and the rest of us are not? Do me a favour. freefinker
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.
I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household.

First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education.
You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.
"The Council Tax is made up as follows:

50% is the property element,
50% is the personal element
- this is made up of a 1st adult element of 25%
- and a 2nd adult element of 25%.

The 2nd adult element applies if there are 2 or more than 2 adults; there is no extra element for a 3rd or 4th adult."

Fact.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.[/p][/quote]I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household. First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education. You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.[/p][/quote]"The Council Tax is made up as follows: 50% is the property element, 50% is the personal element - this is made up of a 1st adult element of 25% - and a 2nd adult element of 25%. The 2nd adult element applies if there are 2 or more than 2 adults; there is no extra element for a 3rd or 4th adult." Fact. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

freefinker wrote:
SOUTHY’S JANUARY POSTINGS.

A valiant effort throughout the month to take stories off subject produced a defence of Lenin and condemnation for the capitalist Stalin. ‘Capitalist Communism’ had a few mentions; Cuba and Vietnam are held up as good examples of countries embracing ‘democratic socialism’. Surprisingly, Thatcher was blamed only a few times for all our woes.

Despite being asked numerous times to explain how TUSC would bridge the gap between their slogan of ‘No Cuts’ and the income received from central government, southy was totally unable to give any details whatsoever. An awful lot of irrelevant waffle was generated instead.

But the ‘Needs Budget’, which we established last year is just southy’s very own euphemism for ‘No Cuts’, got a few airings – despite being only a mere figment of his fervent imagination. Ah, bless.

Prediction of the month; Jeremy Moulton is just about to depose Royston Smith as Tory leader. We shall see. Predictions are not southy’s strong point; remember, there was definitely going to be a general election before the end of 2012.

On the factual front, a bad start to 2013; even before we were half way through the month there were 4 real howlers, all of which could have been avoided with minimal checking: -
1) Sulphur fluorides are natural and in every river. Wrong, there are no naturally occurring sulphur fluorides.
2) SCC operates no multi-story car parks. Wrong, they own and operate 5.
3) The first Bilderberg meeting was in 1945. Wrong, it was 1954.
4) There were 3 rounds in the 1990 Conservative Party leadership election. Wrong, there were only 2 – and he got all the election rules totally wrong as well as saying it was the ‘night of the long knives’ (an event from 1962).
However, with his usual I’m always right attitude he continually insisted it was everybody else in the world that had it wrong.

Then a bit of a quiet 10 days before he gets all his statistics for EU citizens in the UK hopelessly wrong. Apparently there are less than 1,000 Romanians in the UK and the French have the largest number of EU nationals residing in the UK, but with fewer than 10,000. Wrong and wrong. When it’s pointed out the 2011 census showed 579,000 Poles residing here, he did his usual disappearing trick. However, he resurfaced 5 days later with a revised total for the French; now it’s not quite 250,000, but still insists they are the largest EU nationality in the UK. Phew, a 2500% increase in under a week, but still wrong.

Next southy invents some new laws. His pronounces that ‘overseas workers’ are not subject to either PAYE or the National Minimum Wage until they have worked here for 6 months. Unfortunately, it’s one of those secret laws that only southy is privy to. How employers get to know of this is anyone’s guess.

He’s not finished yet though, as we get a pronouncement on human origins (is there nothing this chap can’t get wrong?). Apparently, we are ‘a cross bred of at lest 2 great apes’ – news to paleoanthropologists worldwide, but there you are, southy said it so it must be, er, wrong.

Well folks, stand by for more fun in February.
BRILLIANTBRILLIANTBR
ILLIANT
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: SOUTHY’S JANUARY POSTINGS. A valiant effort throughout the month to take stories off subject produced a defence of Lenin and condemnation for the capitalist Stalin. ‘Capitalist Communism’ had a few mentions; Cuba and Vietnam are held up as good examples of countries embracing ‘democratic socialism’. Surprisingly, Thatcher was blamed only a few times for all our woes. Despite being asked numerous times to explain how TUSC would bridge the gap between their slogan of ‘No Cuts’ and the income received from central government, southy was totally unable to give any details whatsoever. An awful lot of irrelevant waffle was generated instead. But the ‘Needs Budget’, which we established last year is just southy’s very own euphemism for ‘No Cuts’, got a few airings – despite being only a mere figment of his fervent imagination. Ah, bless. Prediction of the month; Jeremy Moulton is just about to depose Royston Smith as Tory leader. We shall see. Predictions are not southy’s strong point; remember, there was definitely going to be a general election before the end of 2012. On the factual front, a bad start to 2013; even before we were half way through the month there were 4 real howlers, all of which could have been avoided with minimal checking: - 1) Sulphur fluorides are natural and in every river. Wrong, there are no naturally occurring sulphur fluorides. 2) SCC operates no multi-story car parks. Wrong, they own and operate 5. 3) The first Bilderberg meeting was in 1945. Wrong, it was 1954. 4) There were 3 rounds in the 1990 Conservative Party leadership election. Wrong, there were only 2 – and he got all the election rules totally wrong as well as saying it was the ‘night of the long knives’ (an event from 1962). However, with his usual I’m always right attitude he continually insisted it was everybody else in the world that had it wrong. Then a bit of a quiet 10 days before he gets all his statistics for EU citizens in the UK hopelessly wrong. Apparently there are less than 1,000 Romanians in the UK and the French have the largest number of EU nationals residing in the UK, but with fewer than 10,000. Wrong and wrong. When it’s pointed out the 2011 census showed 579,000 Poles residing here, he did his usual disappearing trick. However, he resurfaced 5 days later with a revised total for the French; now it’s not quite 250,000, but still insists they are the largest EU nationality in the UK. Phew, a 2500% increase in under a week, but still wrong. Next southy invents some new laws. His pronounces that ‘overseas workers’ are not subject to either PAYE or the National Minimum Wage until they have worked here for 6 months. Unfortunately, it’s one of those secret laws that only southy is privy to. How employers get to know of this is anyone’s guess. He’s not finished yet though, as we get a pronouncement on human origins (is there nothing this chap can’t get wrong?). Apparently, we are ‘a cross bred of at lest 2 great apes’ – news to paleoanthropologists worldwide, but there you are, southy said it so it must be, er, wrong. Well folks, stand by for more fun in February.[/p][/quote]BRILLIANTBRILLIANTBR ILLIANT southampton999
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Sat 2 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.
I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household.

First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education.
You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.
Students pay NIL Council tax so your last sentence is totally incorrect.Also the rate is set upon valuation band and single occupancy results in 25% being removed. It only reverts to the higher figure if another adult moves in.So why do you spout absolute tosh that everyone can pick you up on? You really just make a tit of yourself don't you? Interestingly upon that basis you would probably make quite a good politician!!!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.[/p][/quote]I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household. First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education. You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.[/p][/quote]Students pay NIL Council tax so your last sentence is totally incorrect.Also the rate is set upon valuation band and single occupancy results in 25% being removed. It only reverts to the higher figure if another adult moves in.So why do you spout absolute tosh that everyone can pick you up on? You really just make a tit of yourself don't you? Interestingly upon that basis you would probably make quite a good politician!!! southampton999
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Sat 2 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn......

http://www.southampt
on.gov.uk/living/cou
nciltax/charges2012.
aspx
Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn...... http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/living/cou nciltax/charges2012. aspx IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Sat 2 Feb 13

freefinker says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn......

http://www.southampt

on.gov.uk/living/cou

nciltax/charges2012.

aspx
.. too late, he's made his usual strategic retreat.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn...... http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/living/cou nciltax/charges2012. aspx[/p][/quote].. too late, he's made his usual strategic retreat. freefinker
  • Score: 0

4:57pm Sat 2 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

freefinker wrote:
SOUTHY’S JANUARY POSTINGS.

A valiant effort throughout the month to take stories off subject produced a defence of Lenin and condemnation for the capitalist Stalin. ‘Capitalist Communism’ had a few mentions; Cuba and Vietnam are held up as good examples of countries embracing ‘democratic socialism’. Surprisingly, Thatcher was blamed only a few times for all our woes.

Despite being asked numerous times to explain how TUSC would bridge the gap between their slogan of ‘No Cuts’ and the income received from central government, southy was totally unable to give any details whatsoever. An awful lot of irrelevant waffle was generated instead.

But the ‘Needs Budget’, which we established last year is just southy’s very own euphemism for ‘No Cuts’, got a few airings – despite being only a mere figment of his fervent imagination. Ah, bless.

Prediction of the month; Jeremy Moulton is just about to depose Royston Smith as Tory leader. We shall see. Predictions are not southy’s strong point; remember, there was definitely going to be a general election before the end of 2012.

On the factual front, a bad start to 2013; even before we were half way through the month there were 4 real howlers, all of which could have been avoided with minimal checking: -
1) Sulphur fluorides are natural and in every river. Wrong, there are no naturally occurring sulphur fluorides.
2) SCC operates no multi-story car parks. Wrong, they own and operate 5.
3) The first Bilderberg meeting was in 1945. Wrong, it was 1954.
4) There were 3 rounds in the 1990 Conservative Party leadership election. Wrong, there were only 2 – and he got all the election rules totally wrong as well as saying it was the ‘night of the long knives’ (an event from 1962).
However, with his usual I’m always right attitude he continually insisted it was everybody else in the world that had it wrong.

Then a bit of a quiet 10 days before he gets all his statistics for EU citizens in the UK hopelessly wrong. Apparently there are less than 1,000 Romanians in the UK and the French have the largest number of EU nationals residing in the UK, but with fewer than 10,000. Wrong and wrong. When it’s pointed out the 2011 census showed 579,000 Poles residing here, he did his usual disappearing trick. However, he resurfaced 5 days later with a revised total for the French; now it’s not quite 250,000, but still insists they are the largest EU nationality in the UK. Phew, a 2500% increase in under a week, but still wrong.

Next southy invents some new laws. His pronounces that ‘overseas workers’ are not subject to either PAYE or the National Minimum Wage until they have worked here for 6 months. Unfortunately, it’s one of those secret laws that only southy is privy to. How employers get to know of this is anyone’s guess.

He’s not finished yet though, as we get a pronouncement on human origins (is there nothing this chap can’t get wrong?). Apparently, we are ‘a cross bred of at lest 2 great apes’ – news to paleoanthropologists worldwide, but there you are, southy said it so it must be, er, wrong.

Well folks, stand by for more fun in February.
I appreciate some people may find this info to be critical of Southy, but to be fair I think it's important that the people of Redbridge who he is campaigning to win over are aware of his constant lies.

Now, I say lies as even when he is provided with real genuine evidence he still goes on to dispute it, so is blatently lieing.

I often think he is just winding us up as It's hard to believe someone who pays Council Tax can get it so wrong.

I for one am not victimising Southy, I just find it hard not to correct him. We all make mistakes, but he just seems to be a walking disaster!
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: SOUTHY’S JANUARY POSTINGS. A valiant effort throughout the month to take stories off subject produced a defence of Lenin and condemnation for the capitalist Stalin. ‘Capitalist Communism’ had a few mentions; Cuba and Vietnam are held up as good examples of countries embracing ‘democratic socialism’. Surprisingly, Thatcher was blamed only a few times for all our woes. Despite being asked numerous times to explain how TUSC would bridge the gap between their slogan of ‘No Cuts’ and the income received from central government, southy was totally unable to give any details whatsoever. An awful lot of irrelevant waffle was generated instead. But the ‘Needs Budget’, which we established last year is just southy’s very own euphemism for ‘No Cuts’, got a few airings – despite being only a mere figment of his fervent imagination. Ah, bless. Prediction of the month; Jeremy Moulton is just about to depose Royston Smith as Tory leader. We shall see. Predictions are not southy’s strong point; remember, there was definitely going to be a general election before the end of 2012. On the factual front, a bad start to 2013; even before we were half way through the month there were 4 real howlers, all of which could have been avoided with minimal checking: - 1) Sulphur fluorides are natural and in every river. Wrong, there are no naturally occurring sulphur fluorides. 2) SCC operates no multi-story car parks. Wrong, they own and operate 5. 3) The first Bilderberg meeting was in 1945. Wrong, it was 1954. 4) There were 3 rounds in the 1990 Conservative Party leadership election. Wrong, there were only 2 – and he got all the election rules totally wrong as well as saying it was the ‘night of the long knives’ (an event from 1962). However, with his usual I’m always right attitude he continually insisted it was everybody else in the world that had it wrong. Then a bit of a quiet 10 days before he gets all his statistics for EU citizens in the UK hopelessly wrong. Apparently there are less than 1,000 Romanians in the UK and the French have the largest number of EU nationals residing in the UK, but with fewer than 10,000. Wrong and wrong. When it’s pointed out the 2011 census showed 579,000 Poles residing here, he did his usual disappearing trick. However, he resurfaced 5 days later with a revised total for the French; now it’s not quite 250,000, but still insists they are the largest EU nationality in the UK. Phew, a 2500% increase in under a week, but still wrong. Next southy invents some new laws. His pronounces that ‘overseas workers’ are not subject to either PAYE or the National Minimum Wage until they have worked here for 6 months. Unfortunately, it’s one of those secret laws that only southy is privy to. How employers get to know of this is anyone’s guess. He’s not finished yet though, as we get a pronouncement on human origins (is there nothing this chap can’t get wrong?). Apparently, we are ‘a cross bred of at lest 2 great apes’ – news to paleoanthropologists worldwide, but there you are, southy said it so it must be, er, wrong. Well folks, stand by for more fun in February.[/p][/quote]I appreciate some people may find this info to be critical of Southy, but to be fair I think it's important that the people of Redbridge who he is campaigning to win over are aware of his constant lies. Now, I say lies as even when he is provided with real genuine evidence he still goes on to dispute it, so is blatently lieing. I often think he is just winding us up as It's hard to believe someone who pays Council Tax can get it so wrong. I for one am not victimising Southy, I just find it hard not to correct him. We all make mistakes, but he just seems to be a walking disaster! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn......

http://www.southampt

on.gov.uk/living/cou

nciltax/charges2012.

aspx
I think the confusion has arisen where houses have been re-valued under new occupation since 1991 which can result in two identical properties having different bandings but I don't know whether I have the energy to explain in detail to someone who finds it impossible to believe in anything other than his own views. The '%' increase per adult is probably based on a misunderstanding of the council request for the names of adults living at the address so that they can be registered for voting purposes. Tusc are truly blessed with this candidate.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn...... http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/living/cou nciltax/charges2012. aspx[/p][/quote]I think the confusion has arisen where houses have been re-valued under new occupation since 1991 which can result in two identical properties having different bandings but I don't know whether I have the energy to explain in detail to someone who finds it impossible to believe in anything other than his own views. The '%' increase per adult is probably based on a misunderstanding of the council request for the names of adults living at the address so that they can be registered for voting purposes. Tusc are truly blessed with this candidate. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

9:41pm Sat 2 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

I guess we'll have to wait until Monday for a new article to question Southy as to wether he has done his research.

The only apology Southy gives for being wrong is to simply never post on the article again.

So he has admitted he was wrong by doing his usual missing in action.

The 200 odd residents of Redbridge who voted for him last time should be sent a print out of his postings, so they can see what they are voting for!
I guess we'll have to wait until Monday for a new article to question Southy as to wether he has done his research. The only apology Southy gives for being wrong is to simply never post on the article again. So he has admitted he was wrong by doing his usual missing in action. The 200 odd residents of Redbridge who voted for him last time should be sent a print out of his postings, so they can see what they are voting for! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

10:56am Sun 3 Feb 13

freefinker says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
I guess we'll have to wait until Monday for a new article to question Southy as to wether he has done his research.

The only apology Southy gives for being wrong is to simply never post on the article again.

So he has admitted he was wrong by doing his usual missing in action.

The 200 odd residents of Redbridge who voted for him last time should be sent a print out of his postings, so they can see what they are voting for!
The 'thing' with southy is he can't back down and admit a mistake. And, in this case, it is so obviously clear he has got how council tax is calculated hopelessly wrong.

If he has been back to this story and seen the evidence you and Stephen J have provided, his course of action will be his usual; don't post anymore on this story. That way he will be able to return to the subject in the future and deny he ever got it wrong or that anyone else has clearly shown why he is wrong.

It is one of the main reasons why I now log all his many major errors for future reference. The other driving force is this quote from the man himself: -

southy, redbridge, 5:26pm Sat 8 Jan 11. says, 'and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that'.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: I guess we'll have to wait until Monday for a new article to question Southy as to wether he has done his research. The only apology Southy gives for being wrong is to simply never post on the article again. So he has admitted he was wrong by doing his usual missing in action. The 200 odd residents of Redbridge who voted for him last time should be sent a print out of his postings, so they can see what they are voting for![/p][/quote]The 'thing' with southy is he can't back down and admit a mistake. And, in this case, it is so obviously clear he has got how council tax is calculated hopelessly wrong. If he has been back to this story and seen the evidence you and Stephen J have provided, his course of action will be his usual; don't post anymore on this story. That way he will be able to return to the subject in the future and deny he ever got it wrong or that anyone else has clearly shown why he is wrong. It is one of the main reasons why I now log all his many major errors for future reference. The other driving force is this quote from the man himself: - southy, redbridge, 5:26pm Sat 8 Jan 11. says, 'and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that'. freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:01am Sun 3 Feb 13

southy says...

southampton999 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.
I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household.

First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education.
You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.
Students pay NIL Council tax so your last sentence is totally incorrect.Also the rate is set upon valuation band and single occupancy results in 25% being removed. It only reverts to the higher figure if another adult moves in.So why do you spout absolute tosh that everyone can pick you up on? You really just make a tit of yourself don't you? Interestingly upon that basis you would probably make quite a good politician!!!
southampton999 which part of this do you not under stand.
Quote
"then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education"

Note this part more so quote
"is not in full time education"
Note the word not.

Its not tosh thats how it is done, the value of the band of the home with 1 Adult, you pay extra for the partner, then you pay extra for every working age adult that is not in education.

If you want to find out more go back to the 90's when this Council Poll Tax replace the Community Charge Poll Tax, The only tit is you and people like you who wants to keep a failed political and economics policy in place, try researching the white papers in the local library and you see what you and others have been spouting out is total rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.[/p][/quote]I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household. First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education. You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.[/p][/quote]Students pay NIL Council tax so your last sentence is totally incorrect.Also the rate is set upon valuation band and single occupancy results in 25% being removed. It only reverts to the higher figure if another adult moves in.So why do you spout absolute tosh that everyone can pick you up on? You really just make a tit of yourself don't you? Interestingly upon that basis you would probably make quite a good politician!!![/p][/quote]southampton999 which part of this do you not under stand. Quote "then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education" Note this part more so quote "is not in full time education" Note the word not. Its not tosh thats how it is done, the value of the band of the home with 1 Adult, you pay extra for the partner, then you pay extra for every working age adult that is not in education. If you want to find out more go back to the 90's when this Council Poll Tax replace the Community Charge Poll Tax, The only tit is you and people like you who wants to keep a failed political and economics policy in place, try researching the white papers in the local library and you see what you and others have been spouting out is total rubbish. southy
  • Score: 0

11:11am Sun 3 Feb 13

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn......

http://www.southampt


on.gov.uk/living/cou


nciltax/charges2012.


aspx
I think the confusion has arisen where houses have been re-valued under new occupation since 1991 which can result in two identical properties having different bandings but I don't know whether I have the energy to explain in detail to someone who finds it impossible to believe in anything other than his own views. The '%' increase per adult is probably based on a misunderstanding of the council request for the names of adults living at the address so that they can be registered for voting purposes. Tusc are truly blessed with this candidate.
Go and check for eack adult in your home you pay % on top and the adult you pay a little bit smaller % on top and so on, that is as long they are not in full time education.
I take it you lot do not have kids of adult age that are not in full time education living at home, or your not left the nest yet and your parents are paying your council tax for you.
Regisering for voting is a different dept.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn...... http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/living/cou nciltax/charges2012. aspx[/p][/quote]I think the confusion has arisen where houses have been re-valued under new occupation since 1991 which can result in two identical properties having different bandings but I don't know whether I have the energy to explain in detail to someone who finds it impossible to believe in anything other than his own views. The '%' increase per adult is probably based on a misunderstanding of the council request for the names of adults living at the address so that they can be registered for voting purposes. Tusc are truly blessed with this candidate.[/p][/quote]Go and check for eack adult in your home you pay % on top and the adult you pay a little bit smaller % on top and so on, that is as long they are not in full time education. I take it you lot do not have kids of adult age that are not in full time education living at home, or your not left the nest yet and your parents are paying your council tax for you. Regisering for voting is a different dept. southy
  • Score: 0

11:14am Sun 3 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
southampton999 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.
I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household.

First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education.
You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.
Students pay NIL Council tax so your last sentence is totally incorrect.Also the rate is set upon valuation band and single occupancy results in 25% being removed. It only reverts to the higher figure if another adult moves in.So why do you spout absolute tosh that everyone can pick you up on? You really just make a tit of yourself don't you? Interestingly upon that basis you would probably make quite a good politician!!!
southampton999 which part of this do you not under stand.
Quote
"then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education"

Note this part more so quote
"is not in full time education"
Note the word not.

Its not tosh thats how it is done, the value of the band of the home with 1 Adult, you pay extra for the partner, then you pay extra for every working age adult that is not in education.

If you want to find out more go back to the 90's when this Council Poll Tax replace the Community Charge Poll Tax, The only tit is you and people like you who wants to keep a failed political and economics policy in place, try researching the white papers in the local library and you see what you and others have been spouting out is total rubbish.
.. so, you HAVEN’T researched it southy, or looked at the SCC website - or indeed anything authoritative on council tax. Just shooting from the hip again.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.[/p][/quote]I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household. First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education. You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.[/p][/quote]Students pay NIL Council tax so your last sentence is totally incorrect.Also the rate is set upon valuation band and single occupancy results in 25% being removed. It only reverts to the higher figure if another adult moves in.So why do you spout absolute tosh that everyone can pick you up on? You really just make a tit of yourself don't you? Interestingly upon that basis you would probably make quite a good politician!!![/p][/quote]southampton999 which part of this do you not under stand. Quote "then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education" Note this part more so quote "is not in full time education" Note the word not. Its not tosh thats how it is done, the value of the band of the home with 1 Adult, you pay extra for the partner, then you pay extra for every working age adult that is not in education. If you want to find out more go back to the 90's when this Council Poll Tax replace the Community Charge Poll Tax, The only tit is you and people like you who wants to keep a failed political and economics policy in place, try researching the white papers in the local library and you see what you and others have been spouting out is total rubbish.[/p][/quote].. so, you HAVEN’T researched it southy, or looked at the SCC website - or indeed anything authoritative on council tax. Just shooting from the hip again. freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:20am Sun 3 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
southampton999 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.
I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household.

First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education.
You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.
Students pay NIL Council tax so your last sentence is totally incorrect.Also the rate is set upon valuation band and single occupancy results in 25% being removed. It only reverts to the higher figure if another adult moves in.So why do you spout absolute tosh that everyone can pick you up on? You really just make a tit of yourself don't you? Interestingly upon that basis you would probably make quite a good politician!!!
southampton999 which part of this do you not under stand.
Quote
"then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education"

Note this part more so quote
"is not in full time education"
Note the word not.

Its not tosh thats how it is done, the value of the band of the home with 1 Adult, you pay extra for the partner, then you pay extra for every working age adult that is not in education.

If you want to find out more go back to the 90's when this Council Poll Tax replace the Community Charge Poll Tax, The only tit is you and people like you who wants to keep a failed political and economics policy in place, try researching the white papers in the local library and you see what you and others have been spouting out is total rubbish.
Could I quote something from the Council Tax Bill 2012/13 under 'Discounts' which is sent to every householder ?

"The full amount of council tax is based on two adults living in a property. If only one adult (Or no-one) lives in your home you may be entitled to a discount"

Please note that it is based on two not one and there should be similar wording on the back of your own bill because the terms must be printed by law. Everyone posting here can find the wording on their own bill without having to leave their property. Stop waffling and trying to wriggle out of another situation that you've got in to because you post first and think later.
I sometimes wonder if you pause to think why none of the other Tusc members come on this site to defend your bizarre rantings or is it because they too are embarrassed by what you have to say?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.[/p][/quote]I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household. First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education. You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.[/p][/quote]Students pay NIL Council tax so your last sentence is totally incorrect.Also the rate is set upon valuation band and single occupancy results in 25% being removed. It only reverts to the higher figure if another adult moves in.So why do you spout absolute tosh that everyone can pick you up on? You really just make a tit of yourself don't you? Interestingly upon that basis you would probably make quite a good politician!!![/p][/quote]southampton999 which part of this do you not under stand. Quote "then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education" Note this part more so quote "is not in full time education" Note the word not. Its not tosh thats how it is done, the value of the band of the home with 1 Adult, you pay extra for the partner, then you pay extra for every working age adult that is not in education. If you want to find out more go back to the 90's when this Council Poll Tax replace the Community Charge Poll Tax, The only tit is you and people like you who wants to keep a failed political and economics policy in place, try researching the white papers in the local library and you see what you and others have been spouting out is total rubbish.[/p][/quote]Could I quote something from the Council Tax Bill 2012/13 under 'Discounts' which is sent to every householder ? "The full amount of council tax is based on two adults living in a property. If only one adult (Or no-one) lives in your home you may be entitled to a discount" Please note that it is based on two not one and there should be similar wording on the back of your own bill because the terms must be printed by law. Everyone posting here can find the wording on their own bill without having to leave their property. Stop waffling and trying to wriggle out of another situation that you've got in to because you post first and think later. I sometimes wonder if you pause to think why none of the other Tusc members come on this site to defend your bizarre rantings or is it because they too are embarrassed by what you have to say? Torchie1
  • Score: 0

11:25am Sun 3 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
southampton999 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.
I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household.

First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education.
You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.
Students pay NIL Council tax so your last sentence is totally incorrect.Also the rate is set upon valuation band and single occupancy results in 25% being removed. It only reverts to the higher figure if another adult moves in.So why do you spout absolute tosh that everyone can pick you up on? You really just make a tit of yourself don't you? Interestingly upon that basis you would probably make quite a good politician!!!
southampton999 which part of this do you not under stand.
Quote
"then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education"

Note this part more so quote
"is not in full time education"
Note the word not.

Its not tosh thats how it is done, the value of the band of the home with 1 Adult, you pay extra for the partner, then you pay extra for every working age adult that is not in education.

If you want to find out more go back to the 90's when this Council Poll Tax replace the Community Charge Poll Tax, The only tit is you and people like you who wants to keep a failed political and economics policy in place, try researching the white papers in the local library and you see what you and others have been spouting out is total rubbish.
.. indeed, southampton999, myself and everybody else is quite capable of understanding your quote: -

'then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education'.

The only problem everybody has with your quote is that it is NOT true - full stop.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.[/p][/quote]I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household. First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education. You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.[/p][/quote]Students pay NIL Council tax so your last sentence is totally incorrect.Also the rate is set upon valuation band and single occupancy results in 25% being removed. It only reverts to the higher figure if another adult moves in.So why do you spout absolute tosh that everyone can pick you up on? You really just make a tit of yourself don't you? Interestingly upon that basis you would probably make quite a good politician!!![/p][/quote]southampton999 which part of this do you not under stand. Quote "then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education" Note this part more so quote "is not in full time education" Note the word not. Its not tosh thats how it is done, the value of the band of the home with 1 Adult, you pay extra for the partner, then you pay extra for every working age adult that is not in education. If you want to find out more go back to the 90's when this Council Poll Tax replace the Community Charge Poll Tax, The only tit is you and people like you who wants to keep a failed political and economics policy in place, try researching the white papers in the local library and you see what you and others have been spouting out is total rubbish.[/p][/quote].. indeed, southampton999, myself and everybody else is quite capable of understanding your quote: - 'then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education'. The only problem everybody has with your quote is that it is NOT true - full stop. freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:25am Sun 3 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn......

http://www.southampt



on.gov.uk/living/cou



nciltax/charges2012.



aspx
I think the confusion has arisen where houses have been re-valued under new occupation since 1991 which can result in two identical properties having different bandings but I don't know whether I have the energy to explain in detail to someone who finds it impossible to believe in anything other than his own views. The '%' increase per adult is probably based on a misunderstanding of the council request for the names of adults living at the address so that they can be registered for voting purposes. Tusc are truly blessed with this candidate.
Go and check for eack adult in your home you pay % on top and the adult you pay a little bit smaller % on top and so on, that is as long they are not in full time education.
I take it you lot do not have kids of adult age that are not in full time education living at home, or your not left the nest yet and your parents are paying your council tax for you.
Regisering for voting is a different dept.
"When calculating your Council Tax bill it is assumed that two or more adults aged over 18 live in the home. You do not have to pay more Council Tax if more than two adults live in your home."

How much clearer could it be?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn...... http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/living/cou nciltax/charges2012. aspx[/p][/quote]I think the confusion has arisen where houses have been re-valued under new occupation since 1991 which can result in two identical properties having different bandings but I don't know whether I have the energy to explain in detail to someone who finds it impossible to believe in anything other than his own views. The '%' increase per adult is probably based on a misunderstanding of the council request for the names of adults living at the address so that they can be registered for voting purposes. Tusc are truly blessed with this candidate.[/p][/quote]Go and check for eack adult in your home you pay % on top and the adult you pay a little bit smaller % on top and so on, that is as long they are not in full time education. I take it you lot do not have kids of adult age that are not in full time education living at home, or your not left the nest yet and your parents are paying your council tax for you. Regisering for voting is a different dept.[/p][/quote]"When calculating your Council Tax bill it is assumed that two or more adults aged over 18 live in the home. You do not have to pay more Council Tax if more than two adults live in your home." How much clearer could it be? Stephen J
  • Score: 0

11:33am Sun 3 Feb 13

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
southampton999 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax.
You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)
So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.
I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household.

First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education.
You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.
Students pay NIL Council tax so your last sentence is totally incorrect.Also the rate is set upon valuation band and single occupancy results in 25% being removed. It only reverts to the higher figure if another adult moves in.So why do you spout absolute tosh that everyone can pick you up on? You really just make a tit of yourself don't you? Interestingly upon that basis you would probably make quite a good politician!!!
southampton999 which part of this do you not under stand.
Quote
"then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education"

Note this part more so quote
"is not in full time education"
Note the word not.

Its not tosh thats how it is done, the value of the band of the home with 1 Adult, you pay extra for the partner, then you pay extra for every working age adult that is not in education.

If you want to find out more go back to the 90's when this Council Poll Tax replace the Community Charge Poll Tax, The only tit is you and people like you who wants to keep a failed political and economics policy in place, try researching the white papers in the local library and you see what you and others have been spouting out is total rubbish.
Could I quote something from the Council Tax Bill 2012/13 under 'Discounts' which is sent to every householder ?

"The full amount of council tax is based on two adults living in a property. If only one adult (Or no-one) lives in your home you may be entitled to a discount"

Please note that it is based on two not one and there should be similar wording on the back of your own bill because the terms must be printed by law. Everyone posting here can find the wording on their own bill without having to leave their property. Stop waffling and trying to wriggle out of another situation that you've got in to because you post first and think later.
I sometimes wonder if you pause to think why none of the other Tusc members come on this site to defend your bizarre rantings or is it because they too are embarrassed by what you have to say?
the word is who is libility it is to pay the council tax, And who is lible to pay the full amount of Council Tax.

"The full amount of council tax is based on two adults living in a property

Note your word "base of 2 adults"
There is extra on top if you have more adults living there and a % is added on top of that base of 2 adults

check with main Government whitehall.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southampton999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Southampton999 you do realise that Council Tax is another kind of Poll Tax. You don't just pay Council Tax on a single household, (that only happens if there is only one person living there) but for every adult that is in the house hold of working age that is not in full time education, for each adult % is added on (there is a reduction if the adult is unable to work lowest amount payable is 20%)[/p][/quote]So now it seems that you don't understand the basis on which Council Tax is calculated.[/p][/quote]I know it to well touchie it seems many do not or wish to hide how council tax is made up for each household. First you have the value bands that home sits in with one adult, on top which a % is added on if you have a partner, then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education. You can get reductions if you claim certain types of benefits, but the lest amount any one can pay is 20% of the final bill.[/p][/quote]Students pay NIL Council tax so your last sentence is totally incorrect.Also the rate is set upon valuation band and single occupancy results in 25% being removed. It only reverts to the higher figure if another adult moves in.So why do you spout absolute tosh that everyone can pick you up on? You really just make a tit of yourself don't you? Interestingly upon that basis you would probably make quite a good politician!!![/p][/quote]southampton999 which part of this do you not under stand. Quote "then on top you have extra % added on for every working age adult that is not in full time education" Note this part more so quote "is not in full time education" Note the word not. Its not tosh thats how it is done, the value of the band of the home with 1 Adult, you pay extra for the partner, then you pay extra for every working age adult that is not in education. If you want to find out more go back to the 90's when this Council Poll Tax replace the Community Charge Poll Tax, The only tit is you and people like you who wants to keep a failed political and economics policy in place, try researching the white papers in the local library and you see what you and others have been spouting out is total rubbish.[/p][/quote]Could I quote something from the Council Tax Bill 2012/13 under 'Discounts' which is sent to every householder ? "The full amount of council tax is based on two adults living in a property. If only one adult (Or no-one) lives in your home you may be entitled to a discount" Please note that it is based on two not one and there should be similar wording on the back of your own bill because the terms must be printed by law. Everyone posting here can find the wording on their own bill without having to leave their property. Stop waffling and trying to wriggle out of another situation that you've got in to because you post first and think later. I sometimes wonder if you pause to think why none of the other Tusc members come on this site to defend your bizarre rantings or is it because they too are embarrassed by what you have to say?[/p][/quote]the word is who is libility it is to pay the council tax, And who is lible to pay the full amount of Council Tax. "The full amount of council tax is based on two adults living in a property Note your word "base of 2 adults" There is extra on top if you have more adults living there and a % is added on top of that base of 2 adults check with main Government whitehall. southy
  • Score: 0

11:37am Sun 3 Feb 13

freefinker says...

.. southy, you need to note the words 'the FULL amount of council tax ...'
.. southy, you need to note the words 'the FULL amount of council tax ...' freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:40am Sun 3 Feb 13

southy says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn......

http://www.southampt




on.gov.uk/living/cou




nciltax/charges2012.




aspx
I think the confusion has arisen where houses have been re-valued under new occupation since 1991 which can result in two identical properties having different bandings but I don't know whether I have the energy to explain in detail to someone who finds it impossible to believe in anything other than his own views. The '%' increase per adult is probably based on a misunderstanding of the council request for the names of adults living at the address so that they can be registered for voting purposes. Tusc are truly blessed with this candidate.
Go and check for eack adult in your home you pay % on top and the adult you pay a little bit smaller % on top and so on, that is as long they are not in full time education.
I take it you lot do not have kids of adult age that are not in full time education living at home, or your not left the nest yet and your parents are paying your council tax for you.
Regisering for voting is a different dept.
"When calculating your Council Tax bill it is assumed that two or more adults aged over 18 live in the home. You do not have to pay more Council Tax if more than two adults live in your home."

How much clearer could it be?
It is base on only 2 adults living there, it do not include any more there is an extra on top, any child that is not in full time education and is over the age of 18 are class as lodgers
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn...... http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/living/cou nciltax/charges2012. aspx[/p][/quote]I think the confusion has arisen where houses have been re-valued under new occupation since 1991 which can result in two identical properties having different bandings but I don't know whether I have the energy to explain in detail to someone who finds it impossible to believe in anything other than his own views. The '%' increase per adult is probably based on a misunderstanding of the council request for the names of adults living at the address so that they can be registered for voting purposes. Tusc are truly blessed with this candidate.[/p][/quote]Go and check for eack adult in your home you pay % on top and the adult you pay a little bit smaller % on top and so on, that is as long they are not in full time education. I take it you lot do not have kids of adult age that are not in full time education living at home, or your not left the nest yet and your parents are paying your council tax for you. Regisering for voting is a different dept.[/p][/quote]"When calculating your Council Tax bill it is assumed that two or more adults aged over 18 live in the home. You do not have to pay more Council Tax if more than two adults live in your home." How much clearer could it be?[/p][/quote]It is base on only 2 adults living there, it do not include any more there is an extra on top, any child that is not in full time education and is over the age of 18 are class as lodgers southy
  • Score: 0

11:43am Sun 3 Feb 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
.. southy, you need to note the words 'the FULL amount of council tax ...'
Full amount base on 2 adults living as a couple. who are the registered occupiers, it do not include any more adults

Check with government whitehall who drafted all this up and set down on paper
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. southy, you need to note the words 'the FULL amount of council tax ...'[/p][/quote]Full amount base on 2 adults living as a couple. who are the registered occupiers, it do not include any more adults Check with government whitehall who drafted all this up and set down on paper southy
  • Score: 0

11:49am Sun 3 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
.. southy, you need to note the words 'the FULL amount of council tax ...'
Full amount base on 2 adults living as a couple. who are the registered occupiers, it do not include any more adults

Check with government whitehall who drafted all this up and set down on paper
... okeydokey.

Done as you said: -

https://www.gov.uk/c
ouncil-tax/working-o
ut-your-council-tax

Rest of the World 1 : southy 0
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. southy, you need to note the words 'the FULL amount of council tax ...'[/p][/quote]Full amount base on 2 adults living as a couple. who are the registered occupiers, it do not include any more adults Check with government whitehall who drafted all this up and set down on paper[/p][/quote]... okeydokey. Done as you said: - https://www.gov.uk/c ouncil-tax/working-o ut-your-council-tax Rest of the World 1 : southy 0 freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Sun 3 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

I'm speechless, I really am!
I'm speechless, I really am! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Sun 3 Feb 13

freefinker says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
I'm speechless, I really am!
.. but it happens all the time. You should expect it.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: I'm speechless, I really am![/p][/quote].. but it happens all the time. You should expect it. freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Sun 3 Feb 13

southy says...

Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati
on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992
/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added. southy
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn......

http://www.southampt





on.gov.uk/living/cou





nciltax/charges2012.





aspx
I think the confusion has arisen where houses have been re-valued under new occupation since 1991 which can result in two identical properties having different bandings but I don't know whether I have the energy to explain in detail to someone who finds it impossible to believe in anything other than his own views. The '%' increase per adult is probably based on a misunderstanding of the council request for the names of adults living at the address so that they can be registered for voting purposes. Tusc are truly blessed with this candidate.
Go and check for eack adult in your home you pay % on top and the adult you pay a little bit smaller % on top and so on, that is as long they are not in full time education.
I take it you lot do not have kids of adult age that are not in full time education living at home, or your not left the nest yet and your parents are paying your council tax for you.
Regisering for voting is a different dept.
"When calculating your Council Tax bill it is assumed that two or more adults aged over 18 live in the home. You do not have to pay more Council Tax if more than two adults live in your home."

How much clearer could it be?
It is base on only 2 adults living there, it do not include any more there is an extra on top, any child that is not in full time education and is over the age of 18 are class as lodgers
"You do not have to pay more Council Tax if more than two adults live in your home."

I didn't make this bit up! It's there, from the government, in black and white!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Here you go Southy, have a quiet read this evening and educate yourself. You always say you like to learn...... http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/living/cou nciltax/charges2012. aspx[/p][/quote]I think the confusion has arisen where houses have been re-valued under new occupation since 1991 which can result in two identical properties having different bandings but I don't know whether I have the energy to explain in detail to someone who finds it impossible to believe in anything other than his own views. The '%' increase per adult is probably based on a misunderstanding of the council request for the names of adults living at the address so that they can be registered for voting purposes. Tusc are truly blessed with this candidate.[/p][/quote]Go and check for eack adult in your home you pay % on top and the adult you pay a little bit smaller % on top and so on, that is as long they are not in full time education. I take it you lot do not have kids of adult age that are not in full time education living at home, or your not left the nest yet and your parents are paying your council tax for you. Regisering for voting is a different dept.[/p][/quote]"When calculating your Council Tax bill it is assumed that two or more adults aged over 18 live in the home. You do not have to pay more Council Tax if more than two adults live in your home." How much clearer could it be?[/p][/quote]It is base on only 2 adults living there, it do not include any more there is an extra on top, any child that is not in full time education and is over the age of 18 are class as lodgers[/p][/quote]"You do not have to pay more Council Tax if more than two adults live in your home." I didn't make this bit up! It's there, from the government, in black and white! Stephen J
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

Quoting directly from the Council Tax Bill :-

"Adults not counted when we work out the Council Tax ...........include

People with severe mental problems"
Quoting directly from the Council Tax Bill :- "Adults not counted when we work out the Council Tax ...........include People with severe mental problems" Torchie1
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Sun 3 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati

on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992

/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard. freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Sun 3 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
.. southy, you need to note the words 'the FULL amount of council tax ...'
Full amount base on 2 adults living as a couple. who are the registered occupiers, it do not include any more adults

Check with government whitehall who drafted all this up and set down on paper
Let's look at this 'full amount'

I'll keep it simple....if a glass is FULL of water, you cannot add any more water to the FULL glass.

The same applies to Council Tax, if they give a FULL amount, that is the maximum, it's FULL, they cannot add any more.

Got it yet?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. southy, you need to note the words 'the FULL amount of council tax ...'[/p][/quote]Full amount base on 2 adults living as a couple. who are the registered occupiers, it do not include any more adults Check with government whitehall who drafted all this up and set down on paper[/p][/quote]Let's look at this 'full amount' I'll keep it simple....if a glass is FULL of water, you cannot add any more water to the FULL glass. The same applies to Council Tax, if they give a FULL amount, that is the maximum, it's FULL, they cannot add any more. Got it yet? IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Sun 3 Feb 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati


on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992


/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold. southy
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Sun 3 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati



on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992



/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
I don't think freefinker needs to read it, He appears to understand perfectly how Council Tax is calculated. It is only you in the entire Southampton area that doesn't understand!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote]I don't think freefinker needs to read it, He appears to understand perfectly how Council Tax is calculated. It is only you in the entire Southampton area that doesn't understand! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Sun 3 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati



on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992



/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
.. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point.

It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections.

Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites.

So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote].. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections. Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites. So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position freefinker
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Sun 3 Feb 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati




on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992




/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
.. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point.

It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections.

Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites.

So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position
Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts.
Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government.
since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote].. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections. Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites. So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position[/p][/quote]Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts. Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government. since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax. southy
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Sun 3 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Okay I was trying to keep to the article but enough is enough.
Under Poll tax we had a fair system where every adult would contribute .meaning a household of say four would contribute more than a household of two.
with the larger field of payees the tax was expected to drop but it didn't because of idiots like the SWP refusing to pay & because Labour councils saw it as a way of getting more money.
Council tax is a tax on the value of the house & if only one person is living there they get a discount but more than one they don't it does not increase if you have more adults it does not go up above the set tax for that property.
so a household could have a couple with no kids paying the same as a family of ten & I can't see that being right.
a single mum I don't know if they get the single person discount?
but Southy you seem to be stuck in the past exactly when was Maggie in power?
Okay I was trying to keep to the article but enough is enough. Under Poll tax we had a fair system where every adult would contribute .meaning a household of say four would contribute more than a household of two. with the larger field of payees the tax was expected to drop but it didn't because of idiots like the SWP refusing to pay & because Labour councils saw it as a way of getting more money. Council tax is a tax on the value of the house & if only one person is living there they get a discount but more than one they don't it does not increase if you have more adults it does not go up above the set tax for that property. so a household could have a couple with no kids paying the same as a family of ten & I can't see that being right. a single mum I don't know if they get the single person discount? but Southy you seem to be stuck in the past exactly when was Maggie in power? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Sun 3 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati





on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992





/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
.. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point.

It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections.

Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites.

So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position
Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts.
Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government.
since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.
So now your saying it's on how many bedrooms you have?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote].. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections. Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites. So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position[/p][/quote]Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts. Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government. since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.[/p][/quote]So now your saying it's on how many bedrooms you have? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Sun 3 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati





on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992





/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
.. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point.

It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections.

Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites.

So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position
Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts.
Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government.
since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.
.. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land.

They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well.

It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote].. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections. Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites. So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position[/p][/quote]Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts. Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government. since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.[/p][/quote].. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land. They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well. It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings. freefinker
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Sun 3 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati






on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992






/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
.. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point.

It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections.

Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites.

So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position
Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts.
Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government.
since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.
So now your saying it's on how many bedrooms you have?
Thats coming in loose and will be the first real major change to the Council tax, people will be paying extra to there council tax if they have empty rooms, its being debated in government to finalise the act
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote].. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections. Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites. So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position[/p][/quote]Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts. Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government. since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.[/p][/quote]So now your saying it's on how many bedrooms you have?[/p][/quote]Thats coming in loose and will be the first real major change to the Council tax, people will be paying extra to there council tax if they have empty rooms, its being debated in government to finalise the act southy
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Sun 3 Feb 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati






on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992






/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
.. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point.

It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections.

Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites.

So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position
Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts.
Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government.
since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.
.. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land.

They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well.

It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.
All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote].. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections. Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites. So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position[/p][/quote]Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts. Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government. since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.[/p][/quote].. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land. They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well. It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.[/p][/quote]All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it southy
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Sun 3 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

Dummy guide LOL How true LOL
Dummy guide LOL How true LOL IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Sun 3 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati







on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992







/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
.. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point.

It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections.

Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites.

So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position
Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts.
Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government.
since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.
.. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land.

They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well.

It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.
All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it
.. yes southy, if you say so.

Funny though, isn't it, that there is no council website anywhere, or any HMG websites, that even mentions that there is an 'extra %' for every adult (not in education)? Don’t you think this is quite a vital item of information that the public need to know about? After all it is relevant to a large section of the public, is it not?

Why do you think that is southy? Why are all these websites deliberately misleading? Why is it you can't produce one single iota of evidence for your 'extra %' fantasy?

Could it possibly be that you are wrong (and not for the first time)?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote].. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections. Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites. So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position[/p][/quote]Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts. Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government. since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.[/p][/quote].. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land. They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well. It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.[/p][/quote]All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it[/p][/quote].. yes southy, if you say so. Funny though, isn't it, that there is no council website anywhere, or any HMG websites, that even mentions that there is an 'extra %' for every adult (not in education)? Don’t you think this is quite a vital item of information that the public need to know about? After all it is relevant to a large section of the public, is it not? Why do you think that is southy? Why are all these websites deliberately misleading? Why is it you can't produce one single iota of evidence for your 'extra %' fantasy? Could it possibly be that you are wrong (and not for the first time)? freefinker
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Sun 3 Feb 13

southy says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Dummy guide LOL How true LOL
Saddy that is to true, with Governments they will tell you what they want you to know and that is it.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Dummy guide LOL How true LOL[/p][/quote]Saddy that is to true, with Governments they will tell you what they want you to know and that is it. southy
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati







on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992







/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
.. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point.

It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections.

Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites.

So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position
Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts.
Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government.
since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.
So now your saying it's on how many bedrooms you have?
Thats coming in loose and will be the first real major change to the Council tax, people will be paying extra to there council tax if they have empty rooms, its being debated in government to finalise the act
And yet another topic that he hasn't been able to understand before making silly comments. The well known bunch of rabid ring wingers and fantasists against Southy have got this on their website, as have Channel 4, the BBC and even the government.....

"Welfare reforms will cut the amount of benefit that people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home. This measure will apply from April 2013 to tenants of working age.

The power to do this is contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and is commonly referred to as the bedroom tax, size criteria or under-occupation penalty."

Poor Southy doesn't seem to be too aware of the facts, as usual.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote].. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections. Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites. So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position[/p][/quote]Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts. Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government. since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.[/p][/quote]So now your saying it's on how many bedrooms you have?[/p][/quote]Thats coming in loose and will be the first real major change to the Council tax, people will be paying extra to there council tax if they have empty rooms, its being debated in government to finalise the act[/p][/quote]And yet another topic that he hasn't been able to understand before making silly comments. The well known bunch of rabid ring wingers and fantasists against Southy have got this on their website, as have Channel 4, the BBC and even the government..... "Welfare reforms will cut the amount of benefit that people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home. This measure will apply from April 2013 to tenants of working age. The power to do this is contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and is commonly referred to as the bedroom tax, size criteria or under-occupation penalty." Poor Southy doesn't seem to be too aware of the facts, as usual. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Sun 3 Feb 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati








on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992








/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
.. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point.

It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections.

Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites.

So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position
Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts.
Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government.
since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.
.. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land.

They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well.

It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.
All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it
.. yes southy, if you say so.

Funny though, isn't it, that there is no council website anywhere, or any HMG websites, that even mentions that there is an 'extra %' for every adult (not in education)? Don’t you think this is quite a vital item of information that the public need to know about? After all it is relevant to a large section of the public, is it not?

Why do you think that is southy? Why are all these websites deliberately misleading? Why is it you can't produce one single iota of evidence for your 'extra %' fantasy?

Could it possibly be that you are wrong (and not for the first time)?
Thats why I told you to look at the Whitehall site, they do all the paper work its there job to, and how they word things is how it is pass.

Free get deeply involve into a Political party and use there resources, this is away to find out things a lot quicker, where you don't get one person looking but a number of people looking.

You tell me a time when governments have not been misleading, they all ways have been, they need your support, they don't expect you to go into any thing they do to deep, because you would start to object and start to band together to fight them over any policy.
And you had your edvidence just that you chose to avoid reading it all in full, or just ignore it like you normally do.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote].. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections. Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites. So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position[/p][/quote]Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts. Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government. since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.[/p][/quote].. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land. They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well. It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.[/p][/quote]All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it[/p][/quote].. yes southy, if you say so. Funny though, isn't it, that there is no council website anywhere, or any HMG websites, that even mentions that there is an 'extra %' for every adult (not in education)? Don’t you think this is quite a vital item of information that the public need to know about? After all it is relevant to a large section of the public, is it not? Why do you think that is southy? Why are all these websites deliberately misleading? Why is it you can't produce one single iota of evidence for your 'extra %' fantasy? Could it possibly be that you are wrong (and not for the first time)?[/p][/quote]Thats why I told you to look at the Whitehall site, they do all the paper work its there job to, and how they word things is how it is pass. Free get deeply involve into a Political party and use there resources, this is away to find out things a lot quicker, where you don't get one person looking but a number of people looking. You tell me a time when governments have not been misleading, they all ways have been, they need your support, they don't expect you to go into any thing they do to deep, because you would start to object and start to band together to fight them over any policy. And you had your edvidence just that you chose to avoid reading it all in full, or just ignore it like you normally do. southy
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Sun 3 Feb 13

southy says...

Its like this bedroom tax, loose had not heard about till today how many more of you have not heard of it yet.
And yet I known about for around 6 mths now.
Its like this bedroom tax, loose had not heard about till today how many more of you have not heard of it yet. And yet I known about for around 6 mths now. southy
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Sun 3 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Dummy guide LOL How true LOL
Saddy that is to true, with Governments they will tell you what they want you to know and that is it.
Ahh, I see. The % increase for each additional adult is top secret and the government don't want us to know about it.
No wonder no-one pays any % increase for more than 2 adults.

That makes total sense, I forget we have some things which are top secret.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Dummy guide LOL How true LOL[/p][/quote]Saddy that is to true, with Governments they will tell you what they want you to know and that is it.[/p][/quote]Ahh, I see. The % increase for each additional adult is top secret and the government don't want us to know about it. No wonder no-one pays any % increase for more than 2 adults. That makes total sense, I forget we have some things which are top secret. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Sun 3 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

SOUTHY YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! WHY DON'T YOU JUST ADMIT IT??? I have never ever seen so much cr@p being spouted from anyone in my life!!! And just in case you didn't read the whole of this post YOU ARE WRONG!!! HAVE THE GUTS TO ADMIT IT RATHER THAN MAKING YOURSELF OUT TO BE EVEN MORE OF A FOOL THAN YOU ALREADY HAVE (in capitals because I am shouting!!!)
SOUTHY YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! WHY DON'T YOU JUST ADMIT IT??? I have never ever seen so much cr@p being spouted from anyone in my life!!! And just in case you didn't read the whole of this post YOU ARE WRONG!!! HAVE THE GUTS TO ADMIT IT RATHER THAN MAKING YOURSELF OUT TO BE EVEN MORE OF A FOOL THAN YOU ALREADY HAVE (in capitals because I am shouting!!!) southampton999
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati









on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992









/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
.. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point.

It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections.

Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites.

So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position
Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts.
Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government.
since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.
.. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land.

They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well.

It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.
All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it
.. yes southy, if you say so.

Funny though, isn't it, that there is no council website anywhere, or any HMG websites, that even mentions that there is an 'extra %' for every adult (not in education)? Don’t you think this is quite a vital item of information that the public need to know about? After all it is relevant to a large section of the public, is it not?

Why do you think that is southy? Why are all these websites deliberately misleading? Why is it you can't produce one single iota of evidence for your 'extra %' fantasy?

Could it possibly be that you are wrong (and not for the first time)?
Thats why I told you to look at the Whitehall site, they do all the paper work its there job to, and how they word things is how it is pass.

Free get deeply involve into a Political party and use there resources, this is away to find out things a lot quicker, where you don't get one person looking but a number of people looking.

You tell me a time when governments have not been misleading, they all ways have been, they need your support, they don't expect you to go into any thing they do to deep, because you would start to object and start to band together to fight them over any policy.
And you had your edvidence just that you chose to avoid reading it all in full, or just ignore it like you normally do.
The simple explanation on the Council Tax Bill you receive every year is clearly beyond your comprehension then ?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote].. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections. Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites. So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position[/p][/quote]Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts. Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government. since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.[/p][/quote].. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land. They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well. It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.[/p][/quote]All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it[/p][/quote].. yes southy, if you say so. Funny though, isn't it, that there is no council website anywhere, or any HMG websites, that even mentions that there is an 'extra %' for every adult (not in education)? Don’t you think this is quite a vital item of information that the public need to know about? After all it is relevant to a large section of the public, is it not? Why do you think that is southy? Why are all these websites deliberately misleading? Why is it you can't produce one single iota of evidence for your 'extra %' fantasy? Could it possibly be that you are wrong (and not for the first time)?[/p][/quote]Thats why I told you to look at the Whitehall site, they do all the paper work its there job to, and how they word things is how it is pass. Free get deeply involve into a Political party and use there resources, this is away to find out things a lot quicker, where you don't get one person looking but a number of people looking. You tell me a time when governments have not been misleading, they all ways have been, they need your support, they don't expect you to go into any thing they do to deep, because you would start to object and start to band together to fight them over any policy. And you had your edvidence just that you chose to avoid reading it all in full, or just ignore it like you normally do.[/p][/quote]The simple explanation on the Council Tax Bill you receive every year is clearly beyond your comprehension then ? Torchie1
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Sun 3 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
Its like this bedroom tax, loose had not heard about till today how many more of you have not heard of it yet.
And yet I known about for around 6 mths now.
this is not a bedroom tax it's a way of getting people on the welfare who don't need us to pay for a two/three bedroomed house when at least one bedroom is empty so meaning the person can take on a smaller property & cost us less in rent read this again.
"Welfare reforms will cut the amount of benefit that people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home. This measure will apply from April 2013 to tenants of working age.
so no where does it say if your paying council tax & working will you be charged for any spare bedrooms
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Its like this bedroom tax, loose had not heard about till today how many more of you have not heard of it yet. And yet I known about for around 6 mths now.[/p][/quote]this is not a bedroom tax it's a way of getting people on the welfare who don't need us to pay for a two/three bedroomed house when at least one bedroom is empty so meaning the person can take on a smaller property & cost us less in rent read this again. "Welfare reforms will cut the amount of benefit that people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home. This measure will apply from April 2013 to tenants of working age. so no where does it say if your paying council tax & working will you be charged for any spare bedrooms loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Sun 3 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati









on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992









/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
.. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point.

It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections.

Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites.

So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position
Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts.
Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government.
since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.
.. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land.

They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well.

It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.
All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it
.. yes southy, if you say so.

Funny though, isn't it, that there is no council website anywhere, or any HMG websites, that even mentions that there is an 'extra %' for every adult (not in education)? Don’t you think this is quite a vital item of information that the public need to know about? After all it is relevant to a large section of the public, is it not?

Why do you think that is southy? Why are all these websites deliberately misleading? Why is it you can't produce one single iota of evidence for your 'extra %' fantasy?

Could it possibly be that you are wrong (and not for the first time)?
Thats why I told you to look at the Whitehall site, they do all the paper work its there job to, and how they word things is how it is pass.

Free get deeply involve into a Political party and use there resources, this is away to find out things a lot quicker, where you don't get one person looking but a number of people looking.

You tell me a time when governments have not been misleading, they all ways have been, they need your support, they don't expect you to go into any thing they do to deep, because you would start to object and start to band together to fight them over any policy.
And you had your edvidence just that you chose to avoid reading it all in full, or just ignore it like you normally do.
.. southy, you say 'Thats why I told you to look at the Whitehall site'.

I gave you the URL for the 'Whitehall' site at 11:49am Sun 3 Feb 13; it’s: -
https://www.gov.uk/c
ouncil-tax/working-o
ut-your-council-tax

You chose to either ignore the info it contains or misinterpret it.

So, for the ‘Dummy’s Guide for southy’, this is the précis: -

There are only 3 things that determine the amount of Council Tax payable on any ‘dwelling’
1) Its valuation band – roughly equivalent to its value in 1991.
2) How much the local authority charge for that band.
3) Any discounts or exemptions that apply – e.g. single adult occupant, students, dwelling empty, etc.

As this ‘Whitehall’ website says ‘A full Council Tax bill is based on 2 or MORE adults living in a household’. This is in plain English which even with your limited educational achievements should be fully comprehensible to you.

There is NO ‘extra %’ that can be added on whatsoever, under ANY circumstances.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote].. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections. Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites. So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position[/p][/quote]Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts. Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government. since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.[/p][/quote].. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land. They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well. It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.[/p][/quote]All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it[/p][/quote].. yes southy, if you say so. Funny though, isn't it, that there is no council website anywhere, or any HMG websites, that even mentions that there is an 'extra %' for every adult (not in education)? Don’t you think this is quite a vital item of information that the public need to know about? After all it is relevant to a large section of the public, is it not? Why do you think that is southy? Why are all these websites deliberately misleading? Why is it you can't produce one single iota of evidence for your 'extra %' fantasy? Could it possibly be that you are wrong (and not for the first time)?[/p][/quote]Thats why I told you to look at the Whitehall site, they do all the paper work its there job to, and how they word things is how it is pass. Free get deeply involve into a Political party and use there resources, this is away to find out things a lot quicker, where you don't get one person looking but a number of people looking. You tell me a time when governments have not been misleading, they all ways have been, they need your support, they don't expect you to go into any thing they do to deep, because you would start to object and start to band together to fight them over any policy. And you had your edvidence just that you chose to avoid reading it all in full, or just ignore it like you normally do.[/p][/quote].. southy, you say 'Thats why I told you to look at the Whitehall site'. I gave you the URL for the 'Whitehall' site at 11:49am Sun 3 Feb 13; it’s: - https://www.gov.uk/c ouncil-tax/working-o ut-your-council-tax You chose to either ignore the info it contains or misinterpret it. So, for the ‘Dummy’s Guide for southy’, this is the précis: - There are only 3 things that determine the amount of Council Tax payable on any ‘dwelling’ 1) Its valuation band – roughly equivalent to its value in 1991. 2) How much the local authority charge for that band. 3) Any discounts or exemptions that apply – e.g. single adult occupant, students, dwelling empty, etc. As this ‘Whitehall’ website says ‘A full Council Tax bill is based on 2 or MORE adults living in a household’. This is in plain English which even with your limited educational achievements should be fully comprehensible to you. There is NO ‘extra %’ that can be added on whatsoever, under ANY circumstances. freefinker
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Sun 3 Feb 13

freefinker says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
southy wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Dummy guide LOL How true LOL
Saddy that is to true, with Governments they will tell you what they want you to know and that is it.
Ahh, I see. The % increase for each additional adult is top secret and the government don't want us to know about it.
No wonder no-one pays any % increase for more than 2 adults.

That makes total sense, I forget we have some things which are top secret.
.. LOL.
Yes, satire and ridicule trump all.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Dummy guide LOL How true LOL[/p][/quote]Saddy that is to true, with Governments they will tell you what they want you to know and that is it.[/p][/quote]Ahh, I see. The % increase for each additional adult is top secret and the government don't want us to know about it. No wonder no-one pays any % increase for more than 2 adults. That makes total sense, I forget we have some things which are top secret.[/p][/quote].. LOL. Yes, satire and ridicule trump all. freefinker
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Sun 3 Feb 13

freefinker says...

.. oh, and I have had to add the 'bedroom tax' to my list of southy's February blunders.
.. oh, and I have had to add the 'bedroom tax' to my list of southy's February blunders. freefinker
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Sun 3 Feb 13

southampton999 says...

What is ironic is that Southy the left winger and man of the people shows arrogance, contempt and generally looks down his nose at the fellow posters on this site. He displays the EXACT behaviour that so called Toffs display to their fellow men. I think that Southy is actually member of the landed gentry and we are merely his serfs!!!
What is ironic is that Southy the left winger and man of the people shows arrogance, contempt and generally looks down his nose at the fellow posters on this site. He displays the EXACT behaviour that so called Toffs display to their fellow men. I think that Southy is actually member of the landed gentry and we are merely his serfs!!! southampton999
  • Score: 0

6:48pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati









on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992









/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
.. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point.

It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections.

Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites.

So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position
Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts.
Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government.
since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.
.. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land.

They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well.

It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.
All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it
.. yes southy, if you say so.

Funny though, isn't it, that there is no council website anywhere, or any HMG websites, that even mentions that there is an 'extra %' for every adult (not in education)? Don’t you think this is quite a vital item of information that the public need to know about? After all it is relevant to a large section of the public, is it not?

Why do you think that is southy? Why are all these websites deliberately misleading? Why is it you can't produce one single iota of evidence for your 'extra %' fantasy?

Could it possibly be that you are wrong (and not for the first time)?
Thats why I told you to look at the Whitehall site, they do all the paper work its there job to, and how they word things is how it is pass.

Free get deeply involve into a Political party and use there resources, this is away to find out things a lot quicker, where you don't get one person looking but a number of people looking.

You tell me a time when governments have not been misleading, they all ways have been, they need your support, they don't expect you to go into any thing they do to deep, because you would start to object and start to band together to fight them over any policy.
And you had your edvidence just that you chose to avoid reading it all in full, or just ignore it like you normally do.
Oh Peter Wyatt, new year, same old Southy, making a complete fool out of yourself on a daily basis.

Superb reading.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote].. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections. Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites. So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position[/p][/quote]Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts. Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government. since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.[/p][/quote].. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land. They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well. It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.[/p][/quote]All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it[/p][/quote].. yes southy, if you say so. Funny though, isn't it, that there is no council website anywhere, or any HMG websites, that even mentions that there is an 'extra %' for every adult (not in education)? Don’t you think this is quite a vital item of information that the public need to know about? After all it is relevant to a large section of the public, is it not? Why do you think that is southy? Why are all these websites deliberately misleading? Why is it you can't produce one single iota of evidence for your 'extra %' fantasy? Could it possibly be that you are wrong (and not for the first time)?[/p][/quote]Thats why I told you to look at the Whitehall site, they do all the paper work its there job to, and how they word things is how it is pass. Free get deeply involve into a Political party and use there resources, this is away to find out things a lot quicker, where you don't get one person looking but a number of people looking. You tell me a time when governments have not been misleading, they all ways have been, they need your support, they don't expect you to go into any thing they do to deep, because you would start to object and start to band together to fight them over any policy. And you had your edvidence just that you chose to avoid reading it all in full, or just ignore it like you normally do.[/p][/quote]Oh Peter Wyatt, new year, same old Southy, making a complete fool out of yourself on a daily basis. Superb reading. Shoong
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati










on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992










/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though.

"1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.
(1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.

2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis.
(1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis.
(2)For the purposes of determining for any day—
(a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling;
(b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling;
(c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or
(d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day."

What bit of that did you not understand?

Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.
You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that.

So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.
.. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point.

It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections.

Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites.

So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position
Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts.
Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government.
since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.
.. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land.

They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well.

It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.
All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it
.. yes southy, if you say so.

Funny though, isn't it, that there is no council website anywhere, or any HMG websites, that even mentions that there is an 'extra %' for every adult (not in education)? Don’t you think this is quite a vital item of information that the public need to know about? After all it is relevant to a large section of the public, is it not?

Why do you think that is southy? Why are all these websites deliberately misleading? Why is it you can't produce one single iota of evidence for your 'extra %' fantasy?

Could it possibly be that you are wrong (and not for the first time)?
Thats why I told you to look at the Whitehall site, they do all the paper work its there job to, and how they word things is how it is pass.

Free get deeply involve into a Political party and use there resources, this is away to find out things a lot quicker, where you don't get one person looking but a number of people looking.

You tell me a time when governments have not been misleading, they all ways have been, they need your support, they don't expect you to go into any thing they do to deep, because you would start to object and start to band together to fight them over any policy.
And you had your edvidence just that you chose to avoid reading it all in full, or just ignore it like you normally do.
Oh Peter Wyatt, new year, same old Southy, making a complete fool out of yourself on a daily basis.

Superb reading.
All that fuss and he is in a Band A property !
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that, seems you have not read it though. "1 Council tax in respect of dwellings. (1) As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area. 2 Liability to tax determined on a daily basis. (1)Liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. (2)For the purposes of determining for any day— (a)whether any property is a chargeable dwelling; (b)which valuation band is shown in the billing authority’s valuation list as applicable to any chargeable dwelling; (c)the person liable to pay council tax in respect of any such dwelling; or (d)whether any amount of council tax is subject to a discount and (if so) the amount of the discount, it shall be assumed that any state of affairs subsisting at the end of the day had subsisted throughout the day." What bit of that did you not understand? Note, nowhere in this act does it say that there is an increased amount payable for each adult (not in education). You have been hoisted with your own petard.[/p][/quote]You have not read it though, its going to take you most of the day just to get though the first section, when reading the subsections and subsection of that. So come on Free spend a lot of time and read it though, and I see you in a few weeks time when you got though it all, but like I said pay more attention to the 1988 acts that was added into the 1992 acts, and you will come across the part who is taxable in a house hold.[/p][/quote].. YOU have brought up these Acts; and YOU claim they prove your point. It is incumbent on you, therefore, to direct us to the relevant sections of this legislation that back up your position. Obviously you have studied them in detail to be able to assert your position with such confidence. So, should be easy for you to direct us uninitiated to the relevant sections. Over to you, as you seem to be the one who disbelieves everyone on this website, all the local government websites and all the HMG websites. So far you have not been able to produce one shred of evidence that backs your position[/p][/quote]Come on Free read it all, and not just skip though the headers, and you will come across that part in what I said the 1988 parts that are included into the the 1992 acts. Or is it a case you do not want to go though it all, if thats the case then your not going to begin to be able to understand how it is all work out, and prefere to be con by the government. since this 1992 act came into force very little as changed in act, biggest change its had upto date is revaluation of homes, but the biggest change to the act is coming up the bit that will be added on commonly known as the bedroom tax.[/p][/quote].. I don't NEED to go through it all because the position of how council tax is calculated for each 'dwelling' is well understood by every local authority throughout the land. They ALL agree with the unanimous consensus on this website that you are totally wrong. What's more the HMG websites back this up as well. It really is about time you just admitted you were wrong. I am not going to be deflected by your ridiculous red herrings.[/p][/quote]All your doing is going though the quick guide which do not tell you all, only a raw basic, its like a dummy guide tells you what they want you to know and never all of it[/p][/quote].. yes southy, if you say so. Funny though, isn't it, that there is no council website anywhere, or any HMG websites, that even mentions that there is an 'extra %' for every adult (not in education)? Don’t you think this is quite a vital item of information that the public need to know about? After all it is relevant to a large section of the public, is it not? Why do you think that is southy? Why are all these websites deliberately misleading? Why is it you can't produce one single iota of evidence for your 'extra %' fantasy? Could it possibly be that you are wrong (and not for the first time)?[/p][/quote]Thats why I told you to look at the Whitehall site, they do all the paper work its there job to, and how they word things is how it is pass. Free get deeply involve into a Political party and use there resources, this is away to find out things a lot quicker, where you don't get one person looking but a number of people looking. You tell me a time when governments have not been misleading, they all ways have been, they need your support, they don't expect you to go into any thing they do to deep, because you would start to object and start to band together to fight them over any policy. And you had your edvidence just that you chose to avoid reading it all in full, or just ignore it like you normally do.[/p][/quote]Oh Peter Wyatt, new year, same old Southy, making a complete fool out of yourself on a daily basis. Superb reading.[/p][/quote]All that fuss and he is in a Band A property ! Torchie1
  • Score: 0

11:29pm Sun 3 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

Now that Southy has had his education class for the weekend I'd like to comment on the article.

I welcome Alison Elliott to our City, in fairness a job was advertised and she applied. It isn't her fault if our leaders offered such a high salary.

We can only watch her performance in the future and hope she does a good job for everybody.

I wish her well as many people are going to be highly critical of her for taking over a role that someone appeared to be doing well in.

Good Luck Alison, I hope you put your knowledge and experience to good use in our City.
Now that Southy has had his education class for the weekend I'd like to comment on the article. I welcome Alison Elliott to our City, in fairness a job was advertised and she applied. It isn't her fault if our leaders offered such a high salary. We can only watch her performance in the future and hope she does a good job for everybody. I wish her well as many people are going to be highly critical of her for taking over a role that someone appeared to be doing well in. Good Luck Alison, I hope you put your knowledge and experience to good use in our City. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

11:32am Mon 4 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati

on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992

/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
The 1988 Act is indeed mentioned in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Section 100 states:

100. Abolition of community charges.

(1)No person shall be subject to a community charge in respect of any day falling after 31st March 1993.

(2)In this section “community charge” means—

(a)in relation to England and Wales, any community charge provided for by the 1988 Act;

(b)in relation to Scotland, any community charge or community water charge provided for by the 1987 Act.

So the extra percentage - the "Community Charge" - was effectively repealed by the 1992 Act.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]The 1988 Act is indeed mentioned in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Section 100 states: 100. Abolition of community charges. (1)No person shall be subject to a community charge in respect of any day falling after 31st March 1993. (2)In this section “community charge” means— (a)in relation to England and Wales, any community charge provided for by the 1988 Act; (b)in relation to Scotland, any community charge or community water charge provided for by the 1987 Act. So the extra percentage - the "Community Charge" - was effectively repealed by the 1992 Act. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Mon 4 Feb 13

loosehead says...

So Southy is against a way of freeing up two bedroom properties for young one child families?
As I know of a case where a single man has given up his two bedroomed house for a one bedroom property as he is incapacitated & can't work & doesn't want to rent to a stranger so has opted to keep all his welfare & move to a smaller place.
Surely it should be a done deal that single people don't get or have the right to a two bedroom property if it's council or housing associations shouldn't it?
my neighbours a single guy on welfare in a two bedroom house he took it over from his father should he be allowed to do that I think it's wrong
So Southy is against a way of freeing up two bedroom properties for young one child families? As I know of a case where a single man has given up his two bedroomed house for a one bedroom property as he is incapacitated & can't work & doesn't want to rent to a stranger so has opted to keep all his welfare & move to a smaller place. Surely it should be a done deal that single people don't get or have the right to a two bedroom property if it's council or housing associations shouldn't it? my neighbours a single guy on welfare in a two bedroom house he took it over from his father should he be allowed to do that I think it's wrong loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Mon 4 Feb 13

freefinker says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati


on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992


/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
The 1988 Act is indeed mentioned in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Section 100 states:

100. Abolition of community charges.

(1)No person shall be subject to a community charge in respect of any day falling after 31st March 1993.

(2)In this section “community charge” means—

(a)in relation to England and Wales, any community charge provided for by the 1988 Act;

(b)in relation to Scotland, any community charge or community water charge provided for by the 1987 Act.

So the extra percentage - the "Community Charge" - was effectively repealed by the 1992 Act.
.. oh dear, that won't be good enough to southy. After all, he's a member of a political party and therefore has access to a lot more detailed information than you or I.

If he does come back it will be that you haven't read the whole of the act so you have not yet found the sections that prove his argument. It really is surprising that every local authority in the land also missed this part of the legislation.
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]The 1988 Act is indeed mentioned in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Section 100 states: 100. Abolition of community charges. (1)No person shall be subject to a community charge in respect of any day falling after 31st March 1993. (2)In this section “community charge” means— (a)in relation to England and Wales, any community charge provided for by the 1988 Act; (b)in relation to Scotland, any community charge or community water charge provided for by the 1987 Act. So the extra percentage - the "Community Charge" - was effectively repealed by the 1992 Act.[/p][/quote].. oh dear, that won't be good enough to southy. After all, he's a member of a political party and therefore has access to a lot more detailed information than you or I. If he does come back it will be that you haven't read the whole of the act so you have not yet found the sections that prove his argument. It really is surprising that every local authority in the land also missed this part of the legislation. freefinker
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Mon 4 Feb 13

loosehead says...

freefinker wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the

http://www.legislati



on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992



/14

Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.
The 1988 Act is indeed mentioned in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Section 100 states:

100. Abolition of community charges.

(1)No person shall be subject to a community charge in respect of any day falling after 31st March 1993.

(2)In this section “community charge” means—

(a)in relation to England and Wales, any community charge provided for by the 1988 Act;

(b)in relation to Scotland, any community charge or community water charge provided for by the 1987 Act.

So the extra percentage - the "Community Charge" - was effectively repealed by the 1992 Act.
.. oh dear, that won't be good enough to southy. After all, he's a member of a political party and therefore has access to a lot more detailed information than you or I.

If he does come back it will be that you haven't read the whole of the act so you have not yet found the sections that prove his argument. It really is surprising that every local authority in the land also missed this part of the legislation.
QWonder if the TUSC will win Eastleigh in the by election?
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Try research that all the way though and the bit your looking for is the http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/1992 /14 Read that and do try and under stand it, read all subsections and subsections of that, Council Tax was made up by the old rates system and the community charge system, pay more attention the the added parts of 1988 acts that was added.[/p][/quote]The 1988 Act is indeed mentioned in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Section 100 states: 100. Abolition of community charges. (1)No person shall be subject to a community charge in respect of any day falling after 31st March 1993. (2)In this section “community charge” means— (a)in relation to England and Wales, any community charge provided for by the 1988 Act; (b)in relation to Scotland, any community charge or community water charge provided for by the 1987 Act. So the extra percentage - the "Community Charge" - was effectively repealed by the 1992 Act.[/p][/quote].. oh dear, that won't be good enough to southy. After all, he's a member of a political party and therefore has access to a lot more detailed information than you or I. If he does come back it will be that you haven't read the whole of the act so you have not yet found the sections that prove his argument. It really is surprising that every local authority in the land also missed this part of the legislation.[/p][/quote]QWonder if the TUSC will win Eastleigh in the by election? loosehead
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree