iDingus™

Make this your next image sent to OFCOM :) probably don't even have to dare you because there's nothing that brings joy to anyone more than getting to respond to legal enforcement notices from foreign countries with memes. Seriously... What are they gonna do!? Call the bailiffs!? they can't repo anything because none of the assets are even legally registered in the country of enforcement lmao

certified banger

Actually. Rupert Lowe did one. He so far has collected vast swathes of evidence about the rape gangs, how they're operating, and has witness testimonies from the abused who agreed to testify in the enquiry. It only took him a few months to do so, and is now at a stage where he's hellbent on pushing for prosecutions. And unlike the stuck up twat that is Jess Philips when she lead the failed inquiry that Labour "performed", he never tried to expand the scope of the enquiry or tried to bias witnesses' testimonies.

@TheFreds We had one dumbo, it took 7 years which is way longer than your career lasted.

You voted against a national inquiry into rape gangs. You’re already in the gutter.

National rape gang inqury when, Bridget? Or does Labour not want to investigate the most heinous criminal activity and bring justice to the people harmed and the families of children killed as a result of those gangs? If you don't want to serve justice as we expect you should, why not? Are there MPs within the cabinet that are complicit? Scared the police forces will have to undergo scrutiny and major reforms? Why? Why does the lives of common people who were harmed as a result of these evil gangs *not* matter to a party that's supposed to have formed for the people, by the people? Doubt you'll respond to those questions much like Starmer won't respond to questions about the Mandelson incident. But it would put the nation's mind at ease if you addressed why you and the rest of the cabinet voted against justice for abused children.

@PgolfMj @StellaOShea1 @reformparty_uk Not to mention Our asylum regs don't actually allow members of a country considered safe, which the entire EU is, to claim asylum in the UK.

@StellaOShea1 @reformparty_uk They are most certainly NOT asylum seekers fleeing war ravaged France they are economic migrants looking to extract gazillions of £’s from the gullible UK 🇬🇧 coffers….

🚨 BREAKING NEWS 🚨 Kent County Council has declared an illegal migration emergency in Kent. All opposition councillors refused to vote for the motion. The Tories tried to stop it from even taking place. 196,067 migrants have now crossed the English Channel since 2018.

'cause why contact an embassy, then buy air fare when transiting through Europe and hitching a ride on a dinghy is basically free to them? There's an entire network of NGOs facilitating and subsidizing their movements from their homeland to the UK that formed as a result of how easy we are to gain leave of entry to.

@StellaOShea1 @reformparty_uk Why don't they fly to the UK for less than £100?

@ArtetaClown @StellaOShea1 @reformparty_uk Dropping an arrow from a drone would possibly be enough... If they shoot our drones down, resort to arming the RNLI with crossbows. If they attack them, we send out the HMS dragon as a naval guard and arm her with torps.

@StellaOShea1 @reformparty_uk What we need to do is sink the boats during the crossing-use a drone submersible!

Yep, because the home office has the rigidity of a wet rag. When the ECHR tells them no for (x) reason, even if it's as dumb as "migrant's son doesn't like the chicken nuggets they have at home", they just go "oh, okay. They can remain here then" instead of growing a pair and deporting failed asylum cases immediately because the conditions to grant asylum weren't met, meaning they are therefore illegal migrants, which UK law still dictates must be removed. We as individuals would be ARRESTED AND CHARGED with harboring illegal migrants if we so much as tried that kind of thing. No idea why the central government thinks they can without discourse and people demanding accountability.

@StellaOShea1 @reformparty_uk A safe and legal route, such as applying through an embassy, means the applicant won’t be in the country… they prefer the current “I’m in and you don’t have the balls to throw me out” model

We have them. How else did the Ukranian refugees get here safely? The people crossing the channel though are violating the documentation requirements that asylum seekers also must follow to make it easier to grant or deny asylum by discarding their passports on transit from France to here. Mind you, France is considered a safe country, so by the time they escape their own borders into Europe, they would be able to still go through the asylum process. Especially if they, like us, are in a country that's allowed access to EU schengen regulations, meaning they can stay as a tourist or transit though the EU without needing a visa for a maximum of 90 days, which resets on exit after 180 days. That would be enough time to, say, land in Italy, claim asylum in the EU, then stay *there* until their asylum return conditions are met and they can safely return home.

@reformparty_uk Shocking. What we need is legal, safe routes for asylum seekers so they don’t have to attempt that extremely dangerous crossing in order to get to the UK.

Polanski doesn't know that Nor do the people who back his ideas. A smart rich person never keeps large swathes of wealth on hand at all times. They keep it invested and only ever use it when it's absolutely necessary. This is part of why "the 1%" don't pay as much tax as the leyman thinks they should. They literally don't have that capital in hand like the average person does their wages, so is not immediately subject to tax.

@implausibleblog rich ppl wealth isn't liquid. it's in ownership of companies. forcing every rich person to sell 1% of their company, would crash the stock market (literally). this hurts working ppl big time. terrible idea

Zack Polanski, "A wealth tax won't fix everything but it would be a very good place to start" "1% on £10 million, and 2% on £1 billion, would raise around £15 billion a year" "A clear message that those who have accumulated the most money will pay a little bit more" "For a truly progressive government a wealth tax needs to be a day one priority" "And to get our economy moving we much look at all the levers we can pull" "That must include equalising capital gains tax with income tax" "Close down tax avoidance loopholes" "And to expand National Insurance to cover income from investment as well as earned income"

@implausibleblog His face when the tax policies just result in further shrinkage of GDP...

Or find their way out of a wet paper bag. Dianne abbott's the type who'd trade £10 for 99p because 99 is a bigger number Starmer is a wannabe Lennin with fewer brain cells and a degree in "law" And Reeves strikes me as the kind of gal who'd sell her car to cover the extra costs that the 39% fuel duty incurs.

@prestonjbyrne As we say in the UK they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery

I'm pleased to learn that Labour is repealing the Online Safety Act and enacting a UK version of Section 230 that also covers AI.

@AlfredTheMid @burnleyboi97 Then pay a 146% death tax. If you don't pay, your soul is forced back onto your body by HMRC and you're forced to live until you pay it.

@burnleyboi97 That's totally fine, we can all just pay 95% tax until day of the pillow.

It must be fun to be have boomer levels of entitlement

It really depends. Immigration is fantastic for filling vacancies in your economy with new skilled labour and inarguably *IS* an unbelievably massive boon to the UK economy when managed as it should be. There are other factors though such as total wage growth, housing supply and costs, additional public infrastructure strain to also consider when trying to form a balanced and fair immigration policy. The way the UK government policy appears to be going is "flood the economy with low-skilled labour,pay them all peanuts and pocket lint, watch the cost of living skyrocket, then when nobody's auditing, spaff all the tax revenue off everywhere BUT here, then watch the fireworks. If this was their true goal then they've done a cracking job of it so far, but need to rein it in because it's splitting people's opinions of each other in society. If not, then they are unwittingly (or worse, knowingly) the perpetrators of the anti-immigration rhetoric that's brewing within the further right region of the political spectrum. All while destroying the economy for the individual. GDP is an important metric, but it can't be rapidly accelerated unless GDP per capita is ALSO on the rise, as this metric implies that the average individual has more spending power available to them.. Per-cap GDP is like our currency itself. When new money enters the economy, it devalues the already available currency, meaning you need more of it to buy the same goods. When you sharply increase the number of people in a country, per-capita GDP does the same thing. It drops, reducing people's spending power. With less spending power comes stricter spending trends, and therefore a slower growing economy.

@ElGringoOso @burnleyboi97 Immigration does help the economy, but we need much more of it to make up for the wealth-hoarding Boomers who also want benefits because they "paid in"

@ElGringoOso @burnleyboi97 Ooh! Welfare tax!! Reeves would probably LOVE to implement that one!!

@burnleyboi97 Who's going to pay for it? The millions of Pakistanis on welfare they imported?

As someone who drives a LOT as part of my job; Yearly vision and health screening For ALL over 65s should be a requirement to maintain a full UK driver's license. You have no idea how many near misses I've seen as the result of an older driver failing to see or react to other traffic. And lest we forget the risks the slowest of the bunch can pose when you're trying to merge onto a motorway with one ahead trundling along at 30 god damn mph and almost stopping by the end of the slip road! AT LEAST SPEED MATCH THE HGVS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! THE MOST DANGEROUS POSITION TO BE IN ON A MOTORWAY IS STOPPED!!

@burnleyboi97 The level of rage you got from this post is almost on par with the time I said I agreed with over 70s having to undergo vision tests in order to drive. The boomers were angry that day my friend

Personally if I were them I'd be trying to force government to scrap the taxes on pensions first. We already paid tax on that money, the only difference between pension and primary income is that it's money we've set aside AFTER INCOME TAX so that we can still have an income once we can no longer work. There's no good reason why it should be considered taxable at that point. They already eat between 20 and 45% of our gross income, plus 20% off all purchases, 30% from every company in GB, THIRTY NINE MORE PERCENT ON FUCKING FUEL DUTY ALONGSIDE THE 20% VAT ALREADY LEVIED!! I'd like to know how a government who rakes in the absolute shiploads of cash the UK government does can't even BEGIN to build up a fucking budget surplus!!! There are much smaller governments than ours whose governments are running huge surpluses and therefore can afford to run a low tax establishment. We could absolutely do the same in less than 3 years if the Westminster definition of "Professional liar" was not "A politician" I originally never believed that #TaxationIsTheft was an accurate statement. Well... Until we started seeing how little gets put back in as public services and infrastructure expansion and maintenance. There's no reason why our roads and public infrastructure should be so poorly maintained. None whatsoever.

btw, Lenovo, like all other SIs, make a margin on the Windows licenses when they sell a PC with Windows installed. the cost to Lenovo for those licenses is normally quite a bit lower than the cost the consumer will pay for that license when they purchase / build out a laptop or PC on their site. A lot of this is due to wholesale / bulk pricing agreements that SIs like Lenovo will make with Microsoft to procure stock of those license keys.

OEMs get Windows licenses at wholesale rates, which reduces the cost disparity of the devices when you build out a system running it. Take Lenovo's thinkpad lines as an example; Lenovo charges £50 for Windows 11 OEM. For an extra £60, you can get Windows 11 Pro (£110 total license cost ontop of the build price) They charge £25 for Linux ontop of the build price. this is because they have to pay for their builders to actually install and configure the OS on the machine once it's been manufactured. If you want to save the most money possible on your new laptop, specify it without an OS, then install it yourself.

Why do Linux laptops cost so much? With Windows out of the picture, should they not cost less? But you look at preloaded Linux laptops, and they are more expansive than similar spec Windows laptops. The same is the case with Linux mini-PCs. Your thoughts?