Queens Speech

I think there is quite a lot of common ground between us here actually, Daisy. But more than happy to draw a line under this one.
Yes, a little less GN would probably be good for a lot of us!?

I think we will have to agree to differ GSM. There is more scholarly argument about this on the internet than I would guess we could manage. Holding an opinion (good, bad or indifferent) is, in my opinion, like breathing; it just is. To some degree, for someone to be shown as being "entitled" to something, you would have to show someone who wasn't.

However, I was woken up in the night by a dream, in which I was trying to explain to "someone" why I was "entitled" to sleep in my bed. That means I am indulging in GN far too much for my own good and need to get on with life. So, as I said, I am happy to agree to differ

DaisyAnne

For when you come back GSM as I am just off too.

There are two meanings for "entitled*

1. Believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
2. Given the right to have or do something. Someone can be entitled to a benefit, an item, or an activity.

The first seems to refer to an attitude (not a pleasant one) and the second to legal entitlement. Is there a law that says you are "entitled to an opinion"? Or is it, in fact, as my post explained an informal fallacy in which a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion. The statement exemplifies a red herring or thought-terminating cliché or, as I might say, sloppy thinking.

I agree with your analysis of two ways in which one can be ‘entitled’ Daisy. The first is indeed an unpleasant attitude which I have encountered in some ex-public schoolboys. An air of superiority which some schools seem to instil in pupils. Experience of working with some such specimens has taught me that they don’t necessarily have any worthwhile attributes about which to feel superior or ‘entitled’.

The second isn’t necessarily a legal entitlement. I said earlier that we are all entitled to hold opinions, though I don’t like the use of the phrase in the flouncing manner sometimes used to escape further discussion.

If we have the ability to think and reason then we will automatically form opinions which may or may not be well informed. No law can give us that right. It is our birthright if we have the good fortune to have the power of reason, though not all opinions are well reasoned. The law upholds our right to share opinions which might be defamatory if could not put forward a convincing case of justification. The man on the Clapham omnibus is not infrequently still consulted for his hypothetical opinion. The law does of course circumscribe our entitlement to publicly share some types of opinion but can’t prevent those of us living in the free world from holding those opinions. One may hold opinions any right thinking person would find abhorrent but escape sanction if they are not disseminated.

Not thrilled at Brenda’s £13 million offshore in the Cayman Islands…

Apologies for mis-spelling your name.

Ohh dear DaisyAnn, you have now dangled your own red herring , except that it is in fact see through.

For when you come back GSM as I am just off too.

There are two meanings for "entitled*

1. Believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
2. Given the right to have or do something. Someone can be entitled to a benefit, an item, or an activity.

The first seems to refer to an attitude (not a pleasant one) and the second to legal entitlement. Is there a law that says you are "entitled to an opinion"? Or is it, in fact, as my post explained an informal fallacy in which a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion. The statement exemplifies a red herring or thought-terminating cliché or, as I might say, sloppy thinking.

Glorianny

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t frown on tax avoidance Glorianny . As you said, it isn’t illegal. Everyone is entitled to arrange their finances to their own best advantage so long as they stay within the law. You could say that putting money in an ISA is tax avoidance.

There is nothing wrong with tax avoidance if that is the moral stance you choose to take and you do so openly and honestly and make it plain that those are your views.
The problem is the RF do not make plain their underhand conniving and manipulation. And although their actions may be considered legal they cannot be considered moral. This is the family that holds itself up as an example of public duty, personal sacrifice and Christian morality. None of which are evident in their actions.

I have asked several times would this behaviour be acceptable for an elected H of S. No one has answered. So I guess it's "No".

The answer is not necessarily "No" or "Yes" Glorianny. We are allowed to ignore posters but as you haven't got the message just let me tell you that I am and will be, ignoring your posts.

Germanshepherdsmum

Entitlement to arrange your affairs in the most tax advantageous way derives from common law, as confirmed by an independent judiciary, not from any statute passed by a government of any colour.

Do you believe that a sense of entitlement is exclusive to those who are Conservatives? And that all Conservative voters consider themselves ‘entitled’?

Must add, about to go out so won’t be picking this up until much later.

Germanshepherdsmum

Entitlement to arrange your affairs in the most tax advantageous way derives from common law, as confirmed by an independent judiciary, ...

Did we disagree about that?

DaisyAnn, why do you ask if I have a Uk vote,.? Would you please explain , it seems to me to be a rather loaded question.

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t frown on tax avoidance Glorianny . As you said, it isn’t illegal. Everyone is entitled to arrange their finances to their own best advantage so long as they stay within the law. You could say that putting money in an ISA is tax avoidance.

There is nothing wrong with tax avoidance if that is the moral stance you choose to take and you do so openly and honestly and make it plain that those are your views.
The problem is the RF do not make plain their underhand conniving and manipulation. And although their actions may be considered legal they cannot be considered moral. This is the family that holds itself up as an example of public duty, personal sacrifice and Christian morality. None of which are evident in their actions.

I have asked several times would this behaviour be acceptable for an elected H of S. No one has answered. So I guess it's "No".

Entitlement to arrange your affairs in the most tax advantageous way derives from common law, as confirmed by an independent judiciary, not from any statute passed by a government of any colour.

Do you believe that a sense of entitlement is exclusive to those who are Conservatives? And that all Conservative voters consider themselves ‘entitled’?

Must add, about to go out so won’t be picking this up until much later.

Germanshepherdsmum

If you are referring to the entitlement mentioned in my post of 08.38 Daisy, I was in fact drawing on what was said in a leading judgment on this issue: IRC v Duke of Westminster (1936). 'Entitlement' in this regard is not spurious, it is judicially approved.

And of course we are all entitled to our opinions.

It was more about the general repetition of "I am entitled to my opinon". We are not. No one can stop us holding one, so nobody attempts to - unless we voice or print it. That is not "entitlement". I think the whole of what I wrote explained that.

Germanshepherdsmum

I don’t frown on tax avoidance Glorianny . As you said, it isn’t illegal. Everyone is entitled to arrange their finances to their own best advantage so long as they stay within the law. You could say that putting money in an ISA is tax avoidance.

Goodness, there is a strong story about the sense of entitlement through this thread. I might start a new topic called "Conservatives and their sense of entitlement."

I would agree that there is no point in blaming citizens for using financial laws created by the government. My question would be: "are the financial laws created by far-right Conservatives right for all citizens".

They are patently not. I would say deliberately so. Much of this relates to the 'opinion' held by many Conservative voters of the moral degradation of the poor. This view is upheld and increased by the right-wing print and, more recently, online media.

So, by making the "poor" the "less moral" it appears okay to reward those already doing well by taking the very basic help from the poor.

I can see nothing less than fascism in that view.

If you are referring to the entitlement mentioned in my post of 08.38 Daisy, I was in fact drawing on what was said in a leading judgment on this issue: IRC v Duke of Westminster (1936). 'Entitlement' in this regard is not spurious, it is judicially approved.

And of course we are all entitled to our opinions.

We can all think about what we like. This is not an "entitlement" but is simply something that no one can stop without resorting to torture, which is not allowed. So all thought in this country goes unhindered. That is not and has never been the issue, although some like to pretend it is.

This changes when we put those thoughts into speech or print. It's time we got away from the ill-informed sense of "entitlement" and realised that you may attempt to justify an argument based on an opinion but you are not "entitled" to have such speech or publishing go unchallenged or expect it to be treated as equal to the truth when it isn't.

We may also object to misinformation, lies and hatred. The law is, where applicable, allowed to treat such "opinions" as criminal.

In my 'opinion', the sense of "entitlement" is spurious. Of course, I am happy to debate that 'opinion'.

So do a lot of people Grany. Difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

vegansrock

If a leader of, say, a newly independent African country wanted to make himself King and pass down the title to his son, had crowns and thrones, gold coaches and velvet cushions etc- would we think that was the way to go in the 21st century? Our system is beginning to look totally bonkers.

Or have people call them Your Highness Your Majesty

Queen has millions in off shore havens is that ok too GSM?

I don’t frown on tax avoidance Glorianny . As you said, it isn’t illegal. Everyone is entitled to arrange their finances to their own best advantage so long as they stay within the law. You could say that putting money in an ISA is tax avoidance.

If a leader of, say, a newly independent African country wanted to make himself King and pass down the title to his son, had crowns and thrones, gold coaches and velvet cushions etc- would we think that was the way to go in the 21st century? Our system is beginning to look totally bonkers.

We are indeed all entitled to our opinions.

We are all entitled to our opinions.

Germanshepherdsmum

‘If you can get away with it’? That implies doing something you’re not legally entitled to do.

No it can also mean doing something which is frowned up on and morally unacceptable, like say tax avoidance. It isn't illegal but many regard it as contemptible. It especially applies to people who do immoral things whilst claiming to be upstanding members of a church community when they are leaders of that church it's worse.

Bridgeit

When was the country ever ‘more equal, ‘no need to reply it never has been,, the World is not equal, it never will be….. how can it be that millions are starving whilst we pontificate on our computers , …. communism was supposed to be the answer, yeah right that went well…. Not

Do you have a UK vote Bridgit?

Well said volver (15.42)