It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dont leave the Island

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
What the hell is going on in the UK, the Goverment, not content with turning the place into a Police state now want to tax us to death if we travel. Maybe I got it wrong, I thought being part of the EU was all about free movement and removing barriers, why is the UK goverment taking this course of action.

Mainland Europeans do not face this problem so why are we being hit for wanting to travel within the EU or come to that the rest of the World. The money grabbing scumbags that run this country want stringing up.




posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
It seems as though the UK is taking a US approach on its spending. They will tax and tax and tax and with more taxes the more spending. Honestly, it sucks. No offense...



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I think you might be referring to the latest proposal from David Cameron with regards to increasing taxes on air travel... right? Haven't heard of the government doing anything like this recently, anyway.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaAnuOmega
It seems as though the UK is taking a US approach on its spending. They will tax and tax and tax and with more taxes the more spending. Honestly, it sucks. No offense...


What are ypu talking about? bush cut taxes.

And the UK has been on course of a police state for a long time.

pay attention americans, this is what will happen if we follow these liberal nutcases.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
And the UK has been on course of a police state for a long time.


Can we stay on topic? Your views on the UK are pretty well known, XphilesPhan. There's no need to jump into every thread you can to keep saying that the UK is/will be a police state.

magicmushroom, is this the story you're talking about?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
What the hell is going on in the UK, the Goverment, not content with turning the place into a Police state now want to tax us to death if we travel. Maybe I got it wrong, I thought being part of the EU was all about free movement and removing barriers, why is the UK goverment taking this course of action.

Mainland Europeans do not face this problem so why are we being hit for wanting to travel within the EU or come to that the rest of the World. The money grabbing scumbags that run this country want stringing up.


Are you purposely being naive for the sake of this thread? Its pretty clear why David Cameron (not the government) is proposing these taxes and it has nothing to do with free travel or removing barriers; its all about pollution.

Travelling by aircraft causes a massive release of CO2 gas which scientists believe leads to global warming, a real problem whether you believe its caused by humans or not. Taxing regular plane travellers will reduce this. Camerons idea proposes that everone gets one tax-free return flight a year so its directly targeting regular offenders.

You might care to know that you are already taxed everytime you fly anyway, so its a bit late to act appalled about this anyway.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   
The Tories have promised not to increase the net rate of taxation
www.bbc.co.uk...
And unlike Labour I trust the Tories over taxation. Labour said it wouldn’t increase income tax (they didn’t); instead they increased national insurance which hurts the working class even more than income tax. They brought in a host of slimy stealth tax’s which are expensive even to collect.

Frankly I think environmental taxes are a damn good idea so long as they don’t increase net taxation. Environmental tax’s offer to give incentives to efficiency and
pioneering the technology necessary to do this; environmental tax’s are the only kind of stealth tax I firmly approve of; they don’t even serve a ideology, they serve a practical necessity.
But unless the Conservative party changes its name to “Labour” I do not believe they’ll increase the total rate of taxation. This is one of the reasons why “Tory gone green” is such a good idea: If Labour does it taxes will probably go up, if the Tories do it they’ll probably stay the same.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Hi Ste yes thats part of it.

Gfad, The global warming issue is a scam to extort money from us, many scientists do not bilieve man is responsible for it.

Liberal, Technology moves at its own rate, taxation has nothing to do with it, if anything high costs can stifle new idea's.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Gfad, The global warming issue is a scam to extort money from us, many scientists do not bilieve man is responsible for it.


Get real will you?

Global warming is supported by a whole load of evidence and is generally agreed in climatology circles etc. etc.

Even if global warming isnt human caused we are still responsible for a whole load of environmental detruction which we could at least start to stop. Not considering CO2 emissions long-haul flights pollute the air and use up vast amounts of dwindling oil supplies.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I've always wondered what our "betters" consider to be a proper tax rate:
Should it be fifty percent? How about seventy-five? Well, why beat around the bush (no pun intended), why not just tax us one-hundred and ten percent? And then, offer us low-rate government loans to make up the difference. That way we will be perpetually in debt to our glorious masters (all praise upon them)! To make it even better, they could attach the debts to our estate when we perish, then our children would be assigned the honor of paying our due. Assuredly the monies would only go to better purposes than we could concieve for it!



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Gfad you say there is evidence re global warming and then say even if we are not responcible well which is it and for all the alleged scientific proofs there are just as many scientists who disagree.

I have no problem in cleaning up our act re pollution to rivers, seas etc. but the GW has got to be the best stunt going, lets tax people on something that is virtually impossible to prove one way or the other.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Originally posted by Magicmushroom

lets tax people on something that is virtually impossible to prove one way or the other.


Vote Tory and the total amount of tax collected will be the same.
In fact vote Tory and I bet taxes will be less; they just don't want to say that in case people accuse them of cutting public services (not that I really give a monkeys, I haven't been in the NHS for a good few years).



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Gfad you say there is evidence re global warming and then say even if we are not responcible well which is it and for all the alleged scientific proofs there are just as many scientists who disagree.


You clearly don't understand global warming. There are two argument inherent in all discussions regarding global warming, they are 1) is the earth warming up? 2)if it is, is it caused by humans?

Some people claim the earth isnt warming up at all, its just cyclical variations in some sort of self correcting feedback loop. Thats what I meant when I said "there is evidence for global warming".

I was obviously referring to the human cause when I said "if we are responsible".

I dont agree with you when you say "for all the alleged scientific proofs there are just as many scientists who disagree". The vast majority of climatologists, geologists and other scientists agree that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity.

Also, global warming isn't impossible to prove, you can look at the continuing trend of warmer summers and winters and conclude that the earth is warming up. Computational models can also be constructed showing the warming effects of greenhouse gases.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Gfad you are wrong, Global warming is a natural occurance with many experts from all over the world agreeing it is natural so why should we pay for taxes if we are not respocible for it. As I said its a scam , full of lies and deciet backed by environmental extremists and anti globalists who want to live in medieval times. Whats that old saying, a fool and his money are easily parted.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
What the hell is going on in the UK, the Goverment, not content with turning the place into a Police state now want to tax us to death if we travel.


- OK I'll bite.

But first off let's just hear what "tax us to death" really means, eh?

Are you referring to the current 'fatal' £10 duty on short-haul flights or the lethal £20 duty on long-haul flights?

Or is this just a complaint about Cameron's idea?

Describing why it was rejected by Gordon Brown in the Budet 2007 GB said -

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had representations to put VAT on airline tickets, a 17.5 per cent rise in airline ticket prices. I have investigated the detail of this proposal. It gives me no pleasure to tell the House that the substance of this measure has not been properly thought through. It would apply only to domestic flights, business would be able to claim back VAT

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk...


Global warming is a natural occurance


- No-one said it didn't ever happen naturally.
That's just to confuse 2 separate things.

No-one has ever denied global temperatures have not risen (and fallen) at times totally 'naturally' but that hardly excludes glabal warming due to human activity.

There is a clear international scientific consensus that the rises we are currently seeing go far beyond any natural effect and are directly related to human activity.


many experts from all over the world agreeing it is natural


- Well like I said don't confuse the 2 separate issues.
There has been and can be 'natural' global warming (and cooling) but that does not rule out human activity and that's a difference, sadly, that has been deliberately exploited by some who ought to know better.

Perhaps you saw the recent Channel 4 documantary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'?

A documentary so heavily and selectively edited that it has brought public letters of complaint from some of the experts presented as holding radically contrary views to the scientific 'mainstream'?


Carl Wunsch stated to the Royal Society (2006):

"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

www.royalsoc.ac.uk...

And his letter of complaint:

Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change--- in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?

I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
M I T


- But we've done this one before.


In fact, D. James Baker, administrator of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and undersecretary for oceans and atmosphere at the Department of Commerce under the Clinton administration, has said about human contributions to global warming (Washington Post , 11/12/97) that "there's no better scientific consensus on this on any issue I know—except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics."

www.fair.org... - an excellent article btw on how news proporting to be 'balanced' has actually given the 'anti' side far more prominence than their numbers deserve.

You seem to imagine an equal or greater level of support for the converse side of this debate but that is sheer fantasy.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
You may or may not find this interesting but it is symptomatic of the cynical manipulation of those fighting the rear-guard action against the facts of global warming -


Material Shows Weakening of Climate Reports

By ANDREW C. REVKIN and MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: March 20, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 19 — A House committee released documents Monday that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role.

Across NASA, researchers and career public affairs workers spoke up to alert The New York Times to rising political interference with the flow of science news to the public. A week after The Times’s first story, Michael Griffin, the NASA administrator, issued a statement "on scientific opennness" to the agency's 19,000 employees saying changes would be made.

In a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the official, Philip A. Cooney, who left government in 2005, defended the changes he had made in government reports over several years. Mr. Cooney said the editing was part of the normal White House review process and reflected findings in a climate report written for President Bush by the National Academy of Sciences in 2001.

They were the first public statements on the issue by Mr. Cooney, the former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Before joining the White House, he was the “climate team leader” for the American Petroleum Institute, the main industry lobby.

He was hired by Exxon Mobil after resigning in 2005 following reports on the editing in The New York Times. The White House said his resignation was not related to the disclosures.

Mr. Cooney said his past work opposing restrictions on heat-trapping gases for the oil industry had had no bearing on his actions once he joined the White House. “When I came to the White House,” he testified, “my sole loyalties were to the president and his administration.”

Mr. Cooney, who has no scientific background, said he had based his editing and recommendations on what he had seen in good faith as the “most authoritative and current views of the state of scientific knowledge.”

Mr. Cooney was defended by James L. Connaughton, chairman of the environmental council and his former boss.

The hearing was part of an investigation, begun under the committee’s Republican chairman last year, into accusations of political interference in climate science by the Bush administration.It became a heated and largely partisan tug of war over the appropriate role of scientists and political appointees in framing how the government conveys information on global warming.

The hearing also produced the first sworn statements from George C. Deutsch III, who moved in 2005 from the Bush re-election campaign to public affairs jobs at NASA. There he warned career press officers to exert more control over James E. Hansen, the top climate expert at the space agency.

Testifying at the hearing, Dr. Hansen said editing like that of Mr. Cooney and efforts to limit scientists’ access to the news media and the public amounted to censorship and muddied the public debate over a pressing environmental issue. “If public affairs offices are left under the control of political appointees,” he said, “it seems to me that inherently they become offices of propaganda.”

Republicans criticized Dr. Hansen for what they described as taking political stances, for spending increasing amounts of time on public speaking and for accepting a $250,000 Heinz Award for environmental achievement from the Heinz Family Philanthropies, run by Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts.

Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, proposed that Dr. Hansen, by complaining about efforts to present two sides on global warming research, had become an advocate for limiting the debate.

Dr. Hansen replied, “What I’m an advocate for is the scientific method.”

Mr. Deutsch said his warnings to other NASA press officials about Dr. Hansen’s statements and news media access were meant to convey a “level of frustration among my higher-ups at NASA.”

Mr. Deutsch resigned last year after it was disclosed that he had never graduated from Texas A&M University, as his résumé on file at NASA said. He has since completed work for the degree, he said Monday.

Democrats focused on fresh details that committee staff members had compiled showing how Mr. Cooney made hundreds of changes to government climate research plans and reports to Congress on climate that raised a sense of uncertainty about the science.

The documents “appear to portray a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change,” said a memorandum circulated by the Democrats under the committee chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman of California.


www.nytimes.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Helo Smink, once again you qoute interesting sources but these are not facts, they are theeries pure and simple peoples theories are trotted out , their endorsed by the media and next they are suddenly facts, repeated over and over again for the sheep to swallow.


And getting back on topic the Citizens of the UK are being taxed to death our tax rate is over 50% of every £ and climbing, this so called labour Goverment has introduced more taxes than the Tories could ever dreamed of, the working mans party what a joke.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaAnuOmega
It seems as though the UK is taking a US approach on its spending. They will tax and tax and tax and with more taxes the more spending. Honestly, it sucks. No offense...


Actually for the US its more like borrow and borrow and borrow and let the next administration worry about it


Hey look on the bright side at least your grandkids won't be pissing on your graves for saddling them with a debate ridden future(which reminds me I've got to go).

[edit on 24-3-2007 by danwild6]



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Helo Smink, once again you qoute interesting sources but these are not facts, they are theeries


- Of course it's a "theory" mm, but it is a theory heavily supported by many facts and the best science we have today.

That's the nature of these things, we find out more as time goes by and we refine the science but to dismiss it all as just a theory that cannot be proven to the nth degree and beyond any question or doubt whatsoever is, IMO, pedantry gone nuts.......and often for very obvious & politically loaded reasons.

It happens to be a theory supported by a fiarly recent global scientific consensus.......and as I showed even those put up before us as the 'anti' side aren't always being presented honestly.

It's also frankly disingenuous to pretend that there is any sort of Governmental orthodoxy or media consensus behind this, in fact quite the opposite is the case as this 'message' has been actively resisted (as my quote shows) and ignored for years.

The "sheep" in fact have been being told to go to sleep, that it's all at best loopy tree-huggers day-dreamings or at worst simply a lefty plot to bring in communism/socialism by the back door for years.


And getting back on topic the Citizens of the UK are being taxed to death our tax rate is over 50% of every £ and climbing


- No, this is simply not true.

Even the arch-tory mouthpiece has to admit -


A household receiving £28,000 a year in disposable income pays 47.9 per cent of that in tax, while earners in the top income bracket pay 46.9 per cent.


- But only if not off-set by any kind of tax credit.


The report says: "Middle income groups - benefiting from neither tax credits nor upper income tax allowances - have the highest effective tax burden. "


www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/03/05/ntax05.xml

Just because the economy is running nicely and producing a record tax take that is nothing like the same as an increasing tax burden.


this so called labour Goverment has introduced more taxes than the Tories could ever dreamed of, the working mans party what a joke.


- No mm.
The real joke is that to be marginally worse off you have to get no tax credits (for low income or children), not be in receipt of Child Benefit, you must smoke and drive a large car.

The other thing some seem absolutely determined to ignore is that the latest big Budgetary changes don't happen until next year.
Plenty of time for a little pre-election adjustment for some feely-goods.


.......so I take it that the "taxed to death" claims regarding air travel were just an excuse for a rant and not actually based on anything actually tangible happening, hmmmm?

Or is a £10 duty on short-haul or a £20 tax on long-haul flight really your idea of life or death, huh?

[edit on 24-3-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Smink, I dont mind paying extra taxes if I can see it is doing some good, but thats just the point is it not we are paying more and more yet the service we get acttually gets worse so no its not a rant.

40 billion raised in road taxation, is it spent on the roads no, this Goverment like all others takes but it does not give the service we pay for.
Its funny how were are told that there is not enough money going in yet at the same time companies are making record profits.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join