|
By:
A Labour politician not being that bothered about matters of privacy is a long odds on shot.
|
|
By:
What are you on about now, cider?
|
|
By:
Did you read the quote, or just copy and paste it from the RP?
|
|
By:
Please answer my question and then I will answer yours.
|
|
By:
I'm not surprised that a Labour politician is relaxed about the privacy of our own personal financial affairs being compromised for the kindly permission to do something legal (I assumed, wrongly perhaps, that was self evident). I therefore assumed you must not have read the quote, to ask me that question (self evident).
|
|
By:
There are privacy matters which, personally, I'm not that bothered about, but it's just the sheer weight of inconvenience heaped on people who are doing something perfectly legal.
It's the opposite, it doesn't matter if it's a monstrous hassle or 'frictionless'. How I choose to spend my own money, is nobody else's business, but my own. |
|
By:
Relaxed or not relaxed, for goodness sake the man is completely against the checks and that is it full stop.
|
|
By:
That's not my interpretation from the RP article. He is not against the principle of AF, just the suggested method.
|
|
By:
AC, not AF
|
|
By:
Not in Cider world sparrow, he turns a personal statement into a political opinion to suit his own agenda.nap
|
|
By:
Are you disagreeing? Do you interpret the quote as Lipsey being against AC in principle?
|
|
By:
Yes he does it all the time, cagliari. He wants people to believe that anyone on the left will be in favour of the checks which of course is nonense.
|
|
By:
How can people who claim to be able to function, read English and assume to have cognitive ability, interpret the element I quoted as being against the principle of AC.
|
|
By:
You quoted a comment he made as a personal opinion that it didn't bother him personally. He later says "It's a threat" so which do you want to twist about being in favour Cider?
|
|
By:
He's fine with affordability checks to do something perfectly legal, as long as they are convenient. Or I'm missing something pretty obvious.
I've posted about this before, language emanating from a politician/on the payroll of the taxpayer (of any hue) is very important. Someone not paying attention, may indeed scan read the whole piece and assume he was against AC. Of course, they would be completely wrong. |
|
By:
Of course they would be wrong as your opinion is all that matters to you, personally I think if you swallowed a 6" nail it would emerge as a corkscrew!!
|
|
By:
CG, the mooted ham fisted implementation is a threat, as he sees it. Not the ACs themselves.
[it's hard work] |
|
By:
Can't believe people are still talking as if AC is something just being discussed.
They are already in place & is killing off liquidity. Many are quitting or being forced to quit. |
|
By:
Fed up with bookmakers squealing about AC's . They believe they should be allowed to win as much as they can off punters without hindrance . But they are all in favour of AC's when the boots on the other foot . On Saturday I asked SkyinthepieBet for £8 @ 5's on the boxing . They did a quick check to see if they could afford to lay me .....and offered to risk a lay of £6.25 . That's the kind of affordability check they love !
|