Paul Kennedy Posted January 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2010 Times: "Like countless office workers, he enjoyed popping out to buy a sandwich at lunchtime. But a newly appointed chief constable has astonished colleagues by appearing to suggest that the supermarket is now too dangerous for him. Peter Vaughan has been Chief Constable of South Wales for two weeks and is not ? at least yet ? a household name, even in his own patch. It is unclear how many people would recognise him if they bumped into him in the aisles. And, if they did, is it likely they would attack him, possibly pelting him with breakfast rolls, as happened to Camilla Parker Bowles in Sainsbury?s before her marriage to the Prince of Wales? These may be odd questions. But they are being asked because Mr Vaughan was quoted in Jane?s Police Review lamenting that ?security considerations? meant someone would have to do his shopping for him in future....... A spokesman for South Wales Police said that Mr Vaughan had written to Jane?s Police Review asking it to publish a correction. Chris Herbert, the editor of the magazine, stood by his story. He said: ?We don?t make quotes up. If it is in the story he said it, and there will be a shorthand note. ?It sounds as though he didn?t like it when he saw it in print and is back-pedalling. We haven?t yet heard from South Wales Police.? Sounds like a Prima Donna to me, rather too full of his own self importance, which doesn't bode well for his leadership of South Wales Police. PS His predecessor, Mrs Wilding, also had a view about supermarkets.....and young women from the Valleys, claiming that the Co-op no longer sold fresh fruit because ?there?s no demand for it? in the depressed valleys. She said: ?There is no hope in the valleys. I have worked in some of the worst inner-city areas in London and the deprivation here is different. The girls? aspiration is to get pregnant as quickly as possible and get a council property.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 15, 2010 Report Share Posted January 15, 2010 Maybe she had a point..... seems to be the asperations of a lot of teenage girls in a lot of areas of the country! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 15, 2010 Report Share Posted January 15, 2010 Wonder if child allowance ceased, we'd have this problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Wonder if child allowance ceased, we'd have this problem? Not as long as they can get accommodation and the other benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 .. so if they ceased too, would it have any effect - or would it just move them out to trailer parks?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Perhaps if alternative opportunities were available? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Such as???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Perhaps if alternative opportunities were available? Like becoming a non pregnant wage earner in various parts of the UK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Hows about compulsory strerilization after the first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I didn't have you down as a Libertarian Obs!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Hows about compulsory strerilization after the first? I said that on here once and got accused of being a Nazi..... better watch out Obs, the politically correct human rights activists we have on here will be after you!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Hows about compulsory strerilization after the first? I said that on here once and got accused of being a Nazi..... better watch out Obs, the politically correct human rights activists we have on here will be after you!! Compulsory vasectomies would prevent even the first, Baz. You have my vote for that. In fact, I will bring my own bricks and assist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 LP, my idea was compulsory sterilisation across the board (both maile and female) which would only be reversible once the parental applicant has a job and is in a steady relationship. Anyone one else can keep practising until they reach the required criteria! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 LP, my idea was compulsory sterilisation across the board (both maile and female) which would only be reversible once the parental applicant has a job and is in a steady relationship. Anyone one else can keep practising until they reach the required criteria! Not needed under my plan, Baz. Half the cost, half the strain on the NHS - you know it makes sense! Male op is quicker and less invasive..... only logical solution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 LP, my idea was compulsory sterilisation across the board (both maile and female) which would only be reversible once the parental applicant has a job and is in a steady relationship. Anyone one else can keep practising until they reach the required criteria! Not needed under my plan, Baz. Half the cost, half the strain on the NHS - you know it makes sense! Male op is quicker and less invasive..... only logical solution! But you are just strange.... which obviously comes with living in posh Lymm with its masonic rituals and strange goings on in the East Wing of the castle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 I hope you have a licence for those bricks LP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted January 16, 2010 Report Share Posted January 16, 2010 Strange? Moi? You say that like it's a bad thing..... but I think I'd probably find strong support from half the population of anywhere if I took my idea on the road.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I suggested; "Perhaps if alternative opportunities were available" Peter questioned: "Such as?????" Eagle has it in one!; " Like becoming a non pregnant wage earner in various parts of the UK?" However...... Employment opportunities are not exactly thick on the ground for these young people. And what employment there is does not provide earnings high enough for anything other than a mere existance (and that only if they remain living with parents.........until the moon turns blue). It's very sad but the alternative of a home of their own and an income far higher than anything they could possibly earn must seem rather appealing. Providing viable alternatives might be a solution. The real key I think would be in raising the minimum wage to a realistic level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Sha, raising the minimum wage is pointless because all that will happen is that as younger people can start to afford the properties, the price will rise as sellers take advantage of the additional money that is available. I think the solution is for younger people to be offered rented accomodation in government built houses and flats and rent set at a level which is affordable to minimum wage earners. The problem is that all property in this country is now at a premium as we have too many people and not enough buildings to house them in at a cost they can afford. Maybe tax breaks for employers to provide housing near factories as they used to do and the employee gets a tax break for living and paying rent/rates to the government/council. Of course if the policy of homeowners having to sell their houses to pay for old age care isn't stopped, the yound peopkle will never have their own houses as the government will take their parents houses off them in the future anyway!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Nice to see a Tory converted to the principle of Council Housing provision Baz! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Nice to see a Tory converted to the principle of Council Housing provision Baz! I'm glad I can continue to shock you Obs..... Council housing is important, but since the 80's it has been reduced to such a ridiculously low level by both the Tories and the Labour governments that we have the stupid situation where councils are paying tens of thousands of pounds to keep immigrant families in Chelsea mansions because they have no housing stock. This is particulary true in london where ex council houses bought for a few thousand pounds have sold for hundreds of thousands only weeks or months afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Correct - a legacy of "right to buy": I know this may smack of some kind of Soviet solution, but why not build high rise Council flats in the Town Centre for the young folk? It would re-populate the TC, and at the same time they may get home in time to spew in the toilet rather than on the pavements! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Sha, raising the minimum wage is pointless because all that will happen is that as younger people can start to afford the properties, the price will rise as sellers take advantage of the additional money that is available. By keeping the minimum wage low it is stopping younger people with the lesser paid jobs from having that little extra to perhaps put away towards the depoit on a home (although it would be nice to get some interest on savings at the moment ). By keeping the minimum wage the same the sellers will take advantage of any available money... but it will come from those with more spare ????'s to start with who in-turn will rent out their purchase to the lower paid person and make a profit in both the short and the long term I think the solution is for younger people to be offered rented accomodation in government built houses and flats and rent set at a level which is affordable to minimum wage earners. Maybe true but renting is dead money even if the rent is set at a very low level like you suggest. Even then it is not a solution to getting youngsters on the housing ladder it is only a solution to getting a borrowed roof over their heads What happens when a person starts to earn slightly more... would they then eventually lose their rented accomodation to make way for another low wage earner....? Would they then find themselves even worse off as house prices would have increased in the mean time so they are back to stage one where they can't afford to buy and so even more government built rented houses are requred to re-house them again. The problem is that all property in this country is now at a premium as we have too many people and not enough buildings to house them in at a cost they can afford. Hence all the mass new developments being passed with the words 'affordable housing' included Maybe tax breaks for employers to provide housing near factories as they used to do and the employee gets a tax break for living and paying rent/rates to the government/council. Not a bad idea but again if only 'rented' then it is a short term solution with no return at the end.... ie 'dead money'. Of course if the policy of homeowners having to sell their houses to pay for old age care isn't stopped, the young people will never have their own houses as the government will take their parents houses off them in the future anyway!! I guess the obvious solution here would be for parents to transer the deeds into their homes to their childen's names once their mortgage is paid off. You'd have to trust your kids though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Would't they then have to pay CGT or some other tax? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Not that I am aware of. As far as I know Capital Gains Tax only usually applies when you sell or give away a property which is NOT your MAIN home. If you give your home to your children then I think you are ok as long as you qualify for 'Private Relief' (I think that's what it's called anyway). To qualify the house has to have been your ONLY home for the whole time you have owned it and it's not allowed to have been used for anything else ie rented out for a profit etc etc. I could of course be completely wrong... so don't take my advice and sign yours over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.