I never said it was OK for Ashley to pay below the minimum wage - what I said is if people are prepared to work for Ashley at the rate he pays then who is to blame. I repeat if no one was prepared to work there then he would have to pay more and offer better conditions. I guarantee you don't go into a shop and go that is too cheap I will pay more and I will also guarantee you haven't gone to your boss and say my work mate is underpaid and I will happily take a cut so he can earn a little bit more.

Tax avoidance is about using the existing laws to pay the correct amount of tax owed - is it not immoral expecting others to overpay on taxation just because they are rich - again I bet you would be the first one complaining if your tax payments were too high.

A lot of the issues in the NHS funding could be sorted by two things: firstly what do we want it to offer should extremely expensive cancer treatments be covered by the NHS, gender reasignment, IVF, etc. Secondly if its customers stopped abusing it by turning up at A&E when a visit to a chemist would suffice, missing appointments etc. Of course that isn't OK with you because the abusers aren't the wealthy.

Boom here we go

That will wake the usual lefties up

You're right - the workers are to blame, the idiots.

I wouldn't work in a place where I didn't think I was getting the correct pay and conditions, this is not a nanny state - perhaps things weren't quite so bad for most of the workers at Ashley's RDC - just a thought.

*Right wing hat on* They should have tried harder at school, or they should just get better jobs. *Right wing hat off*

Good for you - some people don't have that choice though.

It's a sad state of affairs when we've arrived at a point where not giving a f**k about other people is, in some quarters, a badge of pride.

So, an employer breaks employment law and it's the workers fault for taking the job.
Following this logic, if someone gets injured at work due to poor or non existent health and safety practice's, would that also be "their own fault" ?
Just asking as your world seems somewhat skewed ?

The two things are not quite the same - would you work in a place that was unsafe no, would you work in a place where they didn't pay you the minimum wage no - so how is it you can make these choices which are common sense but you support others who can't make these simple choices?

I know you lefties think the state should own and control everything we do and give us a bit of pocket money as long it doesn't include you and you sit at the top of the food chain. There has to come a point where individuals have to take some responsibility for their own actions?

I asked have you ever offered to earn less so others can earn more - I take it given you didn't respond that is a big no!! Says it all real talk the talk but don't walk the walk - so who has the skewed opinions?

I also talked about the NHS - again no response, talked about taxation no response - not a huge surprise like a lot of lefties the arrogance of believing their ethics are on a higher plane when in fact your actions show exactly the opposite

You're still trying to justify blatant wrong doing and because you have been picked up on it, i'm a leftie



You say that breaking employment law in one direction is not the same as flouting H & S law.
Well, it comes down to how well you run your business doesn't it.

Your argument about earning less so that someone can earn more is part of life but, avoiding LEGAL obligations isn't.

Individuals do have to take responsibility, which includes adhering to the law when it comes to paying staff.

As for taxation, again, I assume that you were happy for disabled people to lose their payments, whilst at the same time, promising a tax cut for the better off, mind you, there was a U turn on this one, again.

For your information, I've been a company director for over 20 years and I have NEVER authorised paying people below minimum wage and nor would I and if that makes me a leftie, I'm happy to be one.

NHS - I'm sure that we covered this one.

Our government and the right wing media are trying hard to blame it's short comings and missing targets on immigration and yet its clear to see that, if we want a service for all, there has to be proper funding and I would be happy for my income tax to increase to ensure that it survives.

IS THIS CLEAR ENOUGH

Yes - 3 times in the last 2 years; and it doesn't help your argument to characterise people who care about the welfare of those most in need as well as their own, as raging lefties who want the state to own everything.

What's at stake here is an entirely different kind of economy - and given the parlous state of the UK right now, it's not unreasonable to be prepared to support it.

What's at stake is an style of economy that has been shown on numerous occasions not work - so I think it is entirely unreasonable to expect support for what is a flawed arrangement.

Show me a Socialist state that is thriving?

You seem fixated on one point where you think you have an edge. I never said it was OK for Ashley not to pay the minimum wage. Its a legal obligation and as such he needs to adhere to the law. I would suspect he hasn't intentionally set out to do that but it can happen but he is rich so he must be clobbered!!

I haven't seen any example of Ashley breaking H&S laws so I would suggest the minimum wage was a genuine oversight and not a corporate culture - but again his rich so he must be clobbered.

Ashley did take responsibility and appears to have got matters sorted - most people are not perfect and they make mistakes it how you deal with them that shows what kind of person you are. He is rich so that can overlooked by the likes of you.

The promise of a tax cut was an attempt to increase the overall tax take - is that such a bad thing? CT rates have been reduced but the overall take from CT has increased is that really such a bad thing? You want more money for your disabled people what better way than increasing the tax take? Your view is blinded from simple logic by in built predudice

I would be happy to pay more for the NHS once the direction, waste and abuses of the service have been sorted - it seems crazy to pump money in willy nilly.

IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH?

At least we've finally agreed that they (sports direct) were in the wrong, halleluyah



Back to the NHS.
Where has anyone said we should just throw money at it ??
I've said it is underfunded and that the Tory press and the Tory party are throwing a smokescreen of "too many immigrants abusing the service" in order to cover the underfunding.
We've had 7 years of austerity cuts and whilst something had to be don to address the budget deficit, there has been a pretence of system abuse.
People haven't suddenly started going to casualty, instead of seeing their doctor, it's happened for years.
Clearly wrong and educating people will help reduce this aspect.
Also "health tourists", again not acceptable but, not the reason that the NHS is "failing".

Whichever party gains power, needs to front up and give us a firm choice, similar to the Libdems policy.
However, it's more likely that the NHS will be kicked about as a political football, rather than dealing with the need for funding.

My postal vote has been returned today. 2 votes from our house for Mr Gove MP.
I populated the missus's form to make sure it was completed correctly. Every little helps.

I would argue that the strongest economies, the most stable, have high degrees of control of their economies, have high levels of state ownership of energy, water, rail, health service & social care. These are the areas the left is arguing for. None of the main left/liberal parties are arguing for complete state ownership of every enterprise. But that doesn't fit your warped view.

Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Sweden and Norway - all versions of socialism that seem to be working quite nicely.

I fully accept that pure socialism in the traditional sense doesn't work - due to human nature and the corruption of the model - but there are modern versions of collectivism that can and do work.

Aye, I think that China is the fastest growing economy in the world (it's certainly one of them) and not a Tory in sight

UKIP say they would take passports off anyone travelling to countries such as libya, one way ticket not to return... especially if they are being watched by security services too

can anyone not agree with this?! should be in every parties manifesto.

Will Paul Nuttall be sat at the immigration desk in Tripoli chucking passports into a fire? On a serious note, how can they legally not let UK nationals back in the country?

Suspects arrested & questioned upon their return to the UK would be an obvious step, but you can't render a person stateless.

So people cannot visit relatives, friends, do humanitarian work or academic research?

Brearley is a UKIP fanboy, laps up anything they say. He was throwing loads of random statements out during the referendum, offering zero reasoning or insight.

They (UKIP) will have enough work on their plate, managing their 1 in 1 out policy.
I know that they can promise whatever they want (just like the EU campaign) as they will never be in power. However, t would be really, really interesting to see how we could go from a country with net immigration of 300,000 (approx) to having "balanced" immigration. - would they have a list of people who they would throw out.

Following your strange sentence construction - yes, I can not agree with it. Or I can just disagree with it - which I prefer.

UKIP say all sorts of strange and fanciful things; personally, if possible, I'd like to avoid a police state - and I tend not to see the demented pronouncements of Paul Nutall, a serial liar, as serious political discourse, however much the BBC are in love with him.

Sadly, no. This is a matter of national security and as Brearley rightly imo pointed out, should be in every Party manifesto.

Would our arms suppliers still be able to travel there to sell them arms to kill their own people?