The Grauniad Complains About Our Taxes

[P.K.]

This made me laugh:

It's a rather mischievous piece of journalism, trading in dubious double entendres ("How low will they go?") and deliberately confusing different issues and arguments.

Because it was followed by this:

In simple terms, it's pseudo-socialism at its very worst: the belief that because Country A is badly run and has to levy punitive taxes in order to maintain its economy, then the citizens of Country B, which is well run, should not be able to enjoy a more advantageous regime, and that no-one should be free to relocate from Country A to Country B.

Oops!

 

This amused me too:

 

They certainly seem to, possibly because the Guardian is a glorified student rag that views everything through an awkward quasi-socially-conscientious lens more appropriate to the junior common room than the press office.

Would that be the same Guardian newspaper that two weeks ago picked up The British Press Awards top prize of "Newspaper of the Year"? A shame because I've never thought the Grauniad was "more appropriate to the junior common room" so I was beginning to think that I still had a radical and fresh sort-of youngsters view on things. So to find the above post is just ill-judged opinion flying in the face of the press establishment view of the Grauniad is something of a downer.

 

It's still better than Private Eye though

Come off it! Private Eye is worth it just for "Pseuds Corner". This is where they pillory idiots who use very long words and what they think are clever expressions to dress opinion up as fact. Anyone with any intelligence finds it hilarious!

[LoneWolf]

For what its worth I thought Vinnie made a brilliant post. Really nice turn of phrase that lad has !

[VinnieK]

Would that be the same Guardian newspaper that two weeks ago picked up The British Press Awards top prize of "Newspaper of the Year"? A shame because I've never thought the Grauniad was "more appropriate to the junior common room" so I was beginning to think that I still had a radical and fresh sort-of youngsters view on things. So to find the above post is just ill-judged opinion flying in the face of the press establishment view of the Grauniad is something of a downer.

 

Yeah that's super, P.K. Now read the actual post: there's a subtle difference between saying "...lens more appropriate to the junior common room than the press office", and the actual paper being more appropriate to the junior common room. I'll leave it up to you to figure it out.

 

And my! The British Press Industry managed to stumble around during one of their regular drunken jollies long enough to slap a "voted best" on something, before getting round to the more important business of falling over? This completely invalidates my opinion, still, at least I'm capable of forming one.

 

Come off it! Private Eye is worth it just for "Pseuds Corner". This is where they pillory idiots who use very long words and what they think are clever expressions to dress opinion up as fact. Anyone with any intelligence finds it hilarious!

 

Then fuck off back to chortling over your current affairs equivalent of The Beano, you pissy old malcontent.

[TheScope]

the Grauniad

 

Hehehehe I see what you did there. The Grauniad. Excellent.

[P.K.]

For what its worth I thought Vinnie made a brilliant post. Really nice turn of phrase that lad has!

If it's his but at the end of the day his timing is crap. Claiming that the latest "Newspaper of the Year" is a "glorified student rag" doesn't exactly show your judgement in the best possible light.

 

Unfortunately in order to grow what is basically it's only business the IOM has to appear more "attractive" than the other tax havens. So now we are seeing what is essentially a price war.

 

Just for the record although successfull "tax avoidance" via institutions such as the IOM is legal like many others I think it is highly immoral. So I tend to look down on those who sing it's praises.

[P.K.]

there's a subtle difference between saying "...lens more appropriate to the junior common room than the press office", and the actual paper being more appropriate to the junior common room. I'll leave it up to you to figure it out.

"lens"?????

And my! The British Press Industry managed to stumble around during one of their regular drunken jollies long enough to slap a "voted best" on something, before getting round to the more important business of falling over? This completely invalidates my opinion, still, at least I'm capable of forming one.

 

Come off it! Private Eye is worth it just for "Pseuds Corner". This is where they pillory idiots who use very long words and what they think are clever expressions to dress opinion up as fact. Anyone with any intelligence finds it hilarious!

Then fuck off back to chortling over your current affairs equivalent of The Beano, you pissy old malcontent.

For what its worth I thought Vinnie made a brilliant post. Really nice turn of phrase that lad has.

Oh really? I don't see how using obscenities adds anything to one's opinion. To me it usually means the argument is lost...

 

It always amuses me when people say how terrible a certain newspaper is. Because it means they must have read it!

[Tugger]

I like the Graun generally speaking but there is no question that it comes down hard on the IOM (sometimes rightly - I seem to recall that the Roly Drower case was reported harshly as an infringement on freedom of speech). If I remember this particular edition correctly, there were two articles side by side one of which said that the IOM had stolen a march on the Channel Islands because it could afford too, as it already had VAT. The other article said that the IOM did not have VAT, so it was all pretty shoddy really

[P.K.]

Actually the printed story had a lot more information in it than the e-version (despite that the electronic Guardian is reckoned to be the UK's best e-newspaper, I just thought VinnieK would want to know that) and some of it was rather more flattering to the IOM than to the rest. Unfortunately despite signing up to disclose account information it would appear that generally the offshore crowd just pay lipservice to their agreements. But that is down to the individual institutions rather than the legislation.

[VinnieK]

"lens"?????

 

Yes, a lens - an ideological or intellectual predisposition that distorts the perception or the presentation of events, themes, etc. Although the meaning was fairly obvious from the context.

 

Oh really? I don't see how using obscenities adds anything to one's opinion. To me it usually means the argument is lost...

 

Oh, come off it P.K. The argument could only be lost if you had provided one in the first place, but, as is ever the case, you didn't. The best you could be said to have done is presented the opinion of the British Trade Association as an absolute measure of worth - as if industry rankings are incontestable truths around which everyone else should align their personal opinion. That's not an argument, it's barely even an assertion for god's sake.

 

I know that it's just ingrained habit by now for you to make these veiled snipes and snide asides, and then cower behind your feeble delusions and whimpered pretentions of sophistication, but you know as well as I do that my 'obscenities' were in response to your limping attempt at caustic wit, not the 'argument'. I responded as I did precisely because I simply can't be that bothered to indulge your creepy little obsession to provoke and antagonise. Let's be honest: to reply to you in any way more cordial and thought out than I did would be to treat your post with far, far more respect and seriousness than it deserves.

 

For what its worth I thought Vinnie made a brilliant post. Really nice turn of phrase that lad has!

If it's his...

 

Yeah, that's right. I sit next to a gigantic filing cabinet with entertaining little phrases covering every single topic imaginable. It took fifty years and twenty thousand researchers to compile it, and it's been compared with decoding the human genome in terms of organizational sophistication and dedication. That one came from my 'Guardian' file.

 

Poor baby, you sound almost bitter. More so than is usual, I mean. Boo hoo!

 

It always amuses me when people say how terrible a certain newspaper is. Because it means they must have read it!

 

Because it's ridiculous to base criticism on experience? You're on top form tonight, big man!

[ian rush]

I buy the Observer and rely on the Guardian on-line and for the most part think it's just about the best out there.

 

However, their coverage of the Isle/Channel Isles is shit, probably through laziness - except in the business pages, where they seem to have some idea about how we operate rather than getting all student bed-wetter about our tax regime.

 

P.K: don't all countries compete with each other to try and attract, create and retain business, whether it be tax, skills, cheap labour, ability to bribe etc. - or am I just being naive?

[P.K.]

Oh, come off it P.K. The argument could only be lost if you had provided one in the first place, but, as is ever the case, you didn't. The best you could be said to have done is presented the opinion of the British Trade Association as an absolute measure of worth - as if industry rankings are incontestable truths around which everyone else should align their personal opinion. That's not an argument, it's barely even an assertion for god's sake.

Sorry VinnieK, but try as you might it's not exactly my fault that the Press voted The Guardian the "Newspaper of the Year" at exactly the same time you tried to "cleverly" belittle it. As in sex timing is everything... Learn and move on.

 

I know that it's just ingrained habit by now for you to make these veiled snipes and snide asides, and then cower behind your feeble delusions and whimpered pretentions of sophistication, but you know as well as I do that my 'obscenities' were in response to your limping attempt at caustic wit, not the 'argument'. I responded as I did precisely because I simply can't be that bothered to indulge your creepy little obsession to provoke and antagonise. Let's be honest: to reply to you in any way more cordial and thought out than I did would be to treat your post with far, far more respect and seriousness than it deserves.

Errr, no it's not ingrained habit by now for me to make veiled snipes. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. I come right out with it, say it as I honestly see it, call a spade a spade and then defend my corner as required. As anyone who cruises my somewhat "bruising" posts can testify. Veiled snipes? Why bother hiding behind subtlety unless, of course, you are trying to make yourself look clever? Not for me.

 

I know you don't like it but I really enjoy reading Private Eye. I like the way that there are far too many people out there who really do take themselves far too seriously. I love the way "The Eye" always seems to prick their pomposity in exactly the right way. You know, I can't help thinking there's a place reserved just for you in "Pseuds Corner".

 

Care to run that "veiled snipes" bit past me again?

[nipper]

Sorry to go off thread and interrupt the rather interesting and quite enjoyable tirades being exchanged here:

 

but could I just defend Private Eye in that it was they who latched onto what Robert Maxwell was all about a good decade before he was found out. They went where others did not dare to tread.

 

The downside of this particular episode, bizarrely and quite ironically, seemed to allow all manner of Pension Companies to blame a similar lack of funds on stock markets and other such ridiulous excuses. Because Bob was so, so bad, it made all the other crooks look almost innocently innocent.

 

And we're lettting 'em all get away with it.

[nipper]

I know this is a bit old now and should really be in the sports section, but what the heck.

 

Guardian Web Page

 

The article attempts to put a new perspective on the Commonwealth Games, calling them not the ginger stepchild of the international sporting community, but that stepchild's outcast younger brother who gets to come out from under the stairs only for beatings.

 

Hmmmh, very Guardianesque

 

The Isle Of Man got a mention as the goliath of International Athletics