The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[L00b]

i don't have a clue what you are on about. if you want to ship an item from china to the uk without paying vat or import duty it is very simple. you ship items individually ensuring that each has a value under £15. so if you want to ship 2 memory sticks that cost £14.99 each they come in 2 packages. it's not rocket science. but as there are thousands of folk already doing it who ship hundreds of thousands of items each year, it is difficult to see how folk bulk importing and mailing from within the uk compete.

OK, got you now. No under-declaration, split the shipping individually.

 

That's quite a departure from:

that's odd. i ship thousands of pounds worth of goods from china and never pay a bean. the secret is to keep the packet value down to around £15. then you can sent pretty much anything anywhere and pay no duty or vat.

So I take it that you didn't mean 'anything' of any value, just 'anything with a max value of £15', and that your 'secret' should not be used in respect of any items with a higher value than £15, i.e. does not mean to under-declare the true value of what's inside the packet.

but do feel free to take your jibberings up with taxman. i look forward to his jibberings on the subject.

No need, now that you've clarified that it was just low-value tat like USB sticks, and that we've established your "anything anywhere" needed a bit more qualifying

 

It is nit-picking, to be sure. But IMHO important nitpicking...because someone might read your 'secret' post, take it at face value, then land themselves in a spot of bother. Glad we cleared it up.

Edited October 1, 2015 by L00b

[JFKvsNixon]

If, as Eric says, 65 countries are at war, nuclear weapons are hardly keeping the peace. Maybe it's time for a reappraisal.

 

Without the threat of nuclear annihilation, would the USSR have held back from taking Berlin or the USA from taking Cuba? Both these actions would have arguably led to WW3.

 

I have very little doubt that nuclear weapons stopped the Cold War turning hot between the USA and the USSR.

Edited October 1, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[Eric Arthur]

If, as Eric says, 65 countries are at war, nuclear weapons are hardly keeping the peace. Maybe it's time for a reappraisal.

 

You have completely missed the point.

 

Imagine the UK without nuclear weapons. Imagine Iran with them.

Imagine the UK without a UN Security Council veto. Imagine North Korea with one.

 

Nobody with any sense likes nuclear weapons but we hold our nose and put our principles aside to take the least worst option, mutual deterrent, something that Corbyn cant imagine himself doing, demonstrating his inability to be the leader of a nation.

 

This is how it is in the real world, principles work when everyone agrees. Unilateral principalism is just a pathetic ignorance of responsibility.

[L00b]

If, as Eric says, 65 countries are at war, nuclear weapons are hardly keeping the peace. It's 70 years since the world went nuclear, maybe it's time for a proper reappraisal.

The reverse logic works just as well, Anna: none of the known and suspected nuclear powers are 'at war' with one another, nor the subject of an attack. In that context, the two "most dangerous" ones have long been India and Pakistan.

[Eric Arthur]

Thanks L00b I'm glad that somebody noticed the obvious.

[drummonds]

Thanks L00b I'm glad that somebody noticed the obvious.

 

hey. if you think corbyn has blown it on trident, just wait until he gets round to making pulling out of nato a labour party policy.

[Vague_Boy]

Imagine the UK without nuclear weapons.

 

Then we'd be like, well, Spain. Or Germany. Or Sweden. Or Ireland. Or Italy. Or Norway. Or Australia. Or Canada.

[drummonds]

Then we'd be like, well, Spain. Or Germany. Or Sweden. Or Ireland. Or Italy. Or Norway. Or Australia. Or Canada.

 

or ukraine. deterents are very handy when you need to deter someone.

 

---------- Post added 01-10-2015 at 11:22 ----------

 

You have completely missed the point.

 

Imagine the UK without nuclear weapons. Imagine Iran with them.

Imagine the UK without a UN Security Council veto. Imagine North Korea with one.

 

Nobody with any sense likes nuclear weapons but we hold our nose and put our principles aside to take the least worst option, mutual deterrent, something that Corbyn cant imagine himself doing, demonstrating his inability to be the leader of a nation.

 

This is how it is in the real world, principles work when everyone agrees. Unilateral principalism is just a pathetic ignorance of responsibility.

 

it is rather like fort knox. you can imagine that the money spent on security was well spent as no one has ever robbed the place, or you can say it was wasted because no one has ever robbed the place.

 

the corbynistas would say the gold could have been left in a huge heap in a tent as no one has ever attelpted to pinch it.

[Anna B]

While we're at it, can we please remember that America has also deployed nuclear depleted Uranium shells and bullets in the Iraq war, testified by a big rise in birth defects in babies born in war zones since then.

 

And am I the only one who thinks having a major arms manufacturer (Donald Rumsfeld) as American minister of Defence during a time of war, is a conflict of interests? Of course no one could possibly think the Americans might wage war to keep Corporate profits up and America's exports and growth in the black, could they...?

 

We cannot have a proper debate about the state of war in the 21st Century, until the Chilcott report comes out, (if ever) and providing it is a full and frank investigation that hasn't been redacted to ribbons.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Anna B

[L00b]

While we're at it, can we please remember that America has also deployed nuclear depleted Uranium shells and bullets in the Iraq war, testified by a big rise in birth defects in babies born in war zones since then.

Depleted uranium shells are not 'nuclear'.

 

They have a small element of radioactivity, but that's part and parcel of getting the job done faster, better and safer for our troops (whose AH-64 attack choppers also use these).

 

You aren't ever going to stop the technological escalation of warfare (depleted uranium shells were created to defeat improved armour: if the enemy has better armoured tanks, and APCs and whatnot, you need something still better to knock them out). Thousands of years of warfare proves so.

 

We could do without those munitions I suppose, but then everybody must agree not to whinge if, as and when more British troops should get killed doing the same job of fighting better armoured foes in the course of performing their duties. If you won't agree to it, perhaps you'd prefer the older Russian option of strapping landmines to dogs and training them to go fetch their food under enemy tanks?

 

War. Ugly business, whichever way you look at it. But sometimes unavoidable. Like 70 years ago, and many more before and since I'm sure. And still as inherently human a 'problem solver' as thousands of years ago.

 

There is a valid point about organising their clean-up after a conflict ends, just like landmines (which, though not nuclear or even radioactive, have long been -and remain- far more of a post-war problem).

 

You also make a valid comment about Bush and Rumsfeld, but how are they relevant to Trident? Most of the budget would get spent in the UK, allocating work to UK firms providing UK jobs.

Edited October 1, 2015 by L00b