What is left about Labour now?

As I have been talking about it Maisie, (your post seemed very oddly phrased), I will explain why I have been interested in the law and online libel. I don't think anyone should have to "tell Maisie" if they report a post, but as you are having a dig, I will tell you it wasn't me. I chose to reply to it.

On the libel front, I was seeking to understand how we are in the position we have reached regarding what and how we disseminate information. It seemed that the same piece of writing in print could be libellous but would not be online.

That turned out not to be true. What I have found (so far) has been helped by GSM doing what she does best - explaining bits of the law. It appears that a comment which could be pursued as libellous if it was in print, can be pursued if it is online. If someone was concerned enough to be bothered to do so.

While I may believe we are morally responsible for ensuring we do not libel others, some, it seems, do not have my qualms. Their conscience is theirs, not mine Maisie, but facts interest me.

What struck me was the apparent dichotomy in the law regarding publishing in print and similar publishing online. Publishing in print appears to attract equal liability to both publisher and writer. Print distributors, e.g., a newsagent, are seen as not having any control over the content, so no liability.

My interest is because people seem to say anything on the internet without the restraint a newspaper, for example, would apply to its letter section.

I discovered the laws relating to the printed word had been applied to the internet. However, the difference between a publisher and a distributor is much less clear online. Providers do what they can to be able to class themselves as a distributor. Being a distributor means they would be less liable than if they were classed as a publisher, when they would be equally liable should someone sue.

It is good business practice to mitigate potential loss. But I find the law perverse. Rather than making every attempt, as print publishers must, to ensure what they print is factual, online providers are encouraged not to interfere. They are left only doing something when one member complains they are personally offended by what another writes.

We do all have our pet interests Maisie. I have no idea why you expect yours to be tolerated but chose not to tolerate mine. Disagree by all means, but it would be good to keep it civil.

1. CGT does not apply to the sale of one's main residence.

The wealthy will have multiple properties and they do pay CGT on those, plus Stamp Duty, plus tax on any income.

2. You get tax relief on your pension contributions so of course you should pay tax on your pension income.

Quit rightly

3. There is main residence relief available if you are passing on your home to your direct descendants. For couples the maximum relief is £950,000.

This is far too high it encourages social division wealthy families have massive advantages

4. There is still a tax credit of 20% mortgage interest paid but only at the basic rate.

This should be restricted to first time buyers

MaizieD

Casdon

Not guilty of reporting, but I’ve missed this, did Grany say something libellous or what?

Nothing more apparently libellous than usual, Casdon.

I am feeling that a poster is trying to control what is being said on this forum and is using suggestions of possible defamation litigation to the moderators to scare them into removing posts.

Goodness, what would be their motivation for doing that?
I do wish that people who reported had enough courage of their convictions to give their reasons.

Casdon

Not guilty of reporting, but I’ve missed this, did Grany say something libellous or what?

Nothing more apparently libellous than usual, Casdon.

I am feeling that a poster is trying to control what is being said on this forum and is using suggestions of possible defamation litigation to the moderators to scare them into removing posts.

I believe that Obama was also a member of the TC?

Honestly glorianny left wing conspiracies are never very convincing at the best of times, and reiterating the nonsense in left wing publications never helps the left wing rump in their arguments.

What would be more convincing would be a detailed critique of Labour Party policy from the left wing point of view, - government policy will make or break any government, not some silly conspiracy theory about “dark power” - to do so begins to sound like Nadine Dorries or Donald Trump and we all know how sound of mind they are!

And with regard to Tony Benn, all questions easily answered by any labour leader.

We've had that conversation Casdon. My conclusion, until we learn more, is that they would leave libel so as not to be classed as a publisher.

They have kindly said that I can repeat my answer but I think I will use it when it comes up again

DaisyAnneReturns

I don't think him refusing to say what you want him to say will be seen in the same way by other people Gloriany.

Surely, our PM should be a Statesman, leading the country. Someone with the capabilities of an ambassador, a negotiator, not someone led by their ego. And ego usually does lead where extremists are concerned. Someone who would not drag us into the mire we are currently getting deeper into, day by day, partly because our recent previous leaders have lacked statesmanship. Someone who know when to keep their mouth shut until opening it can improve injustice or whatever you are looking to improve.

As for conspiracy theories, they usually turn out to be just that. Someone's weird make believe.

The Trilateral Commission is not a conspiracy theory it is a very real and very secretive organisation.
Why didn't Starmer declare his membership? Is that the action of an honest person?
It's aims are not at all compatible with Labour.
I don't want him to say anything. I simply want some evidence that proves he is not as duplicitous or as self serving as a lot of his actions seem to indicate. Statesmanship does not necessitate or require someone to keep quiet. It simply requires someone who keeps promises, speaks honestly and expresses some moral values,
I'd like Starmer to answer Tony Benn's test
“What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you”
― Tony Benn

Not guilty of reporting, but I’ve missed this, did Grany say something libellous or what?

Sorry. I know that Grany's posts can be repetitive and irritating, but why is she being censored?

There is something very strange going on here. Perhaps the person who reported her post could enlighten us as to what made it different from the usual ones?

I don't think him refusing to say what you want him to say will be seen in the same way by other people Gloriany.

Surely, our PM should be a Statesman, leading the country. Someone with the capabilities of an ambassador, a negotiator, not someone led by their ego. And ego usually does lead where extremists are concerned. Someone who would not drag us into the mire we are currently getting deeper into, day by day, partly because our recent previous leaders have lacked statesmanship. Someone who know when to keep their mouth shut until opening it can improve injustice or whatever you are looking to improve.

As for conspiracy theories, they usually turn out to be just that. Someone's weird make believe.

Iam64

Daisy - I’ve reported your post at 17.31 because it quotes a deleted post.
I agree with your comments by the way

Thanks for letting me know Iam.

I'm a bit as to why Grany's post was deleted. It seemed no worse than any other anti Starmer screed she has posted .

I'm not defending it, just wondering what made it reportable.

Daisy - I’ve reported your post at 17.31 because it quotes a deleted post.
I agree with your comments by the way

Thanks Whitewave and daisy ann

But Starmer is inexplicably linked with Israel. He has refused to declare Israel an apartheid state in spite of evidence and the views of many reputable human rights organisations like Amnesty.
He has thrown left wing Jews out of the Labour party with very little reason. Apparently when he does this it isn't anti-semitism they are simply "the wrong sort of Jew"
He had a very strange and still unexplained relationship with the CIA whilst head of the CPS
And he was until very recently a member of a secretive organisation, something he withheld from the LP and parliament. Starmer's membership of the Trilateral Commission remains a complete mystery. He has now left of course. But one LP bigwig who remains a member is Peter Mandelson. labourheartlands.com/sir-keir-starmer-the-establishment-candidate-the-labour-leadership-race-and-the-trilateral-commission/

By all means let's hear about Starmer's achievements but let's also be aware that this man has very strange connections and ideas that do not align with Labour beliefs in democracy, equality, or human rights.

Post references deleted post Talk guidelines.

Has Starmer attended a wreath laying ceremony for terrorists who murder an Olympic team

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Katie59

Forget the Ultra Rich they will always pay experts to avoid tax, it’s popular to tax the rich but will produce very little extra. The bulk of the wealth is held in property, shares and pensions, it is taxed in many ways when it is liquidated.
For example, when property is sold CGT is paid when it’s inherited IHT is paid and if it’s rented out Income Tax is paid and when you get your pension you pay tax as income.

Personally an increase in tax rates across the board is needed, if Starmer is not willing to do that I don’t see how services are going to improve

1. CGT does not apply to the sale of one's main residence.

2. You get tax relief on your pension contributions so of course you should pay tax on your pension income.

3. There is main residence relief available if you are passing on your home to your direct descendants. For couples the maximum relief is £950,000.

4. There is still a tax credit of 20% mortgage interest paid but only at the basic rate.

“The key issue is who the government money actually ends up wit; the already wealthy or the rest of the population....”

At present those with cash to invest have no restriction on where it is invested, so much of it is invested in foreign companies, providing an incentive to invest in UK companies would be helpful.

The only way you can help the “rest of the population” ( those without investments? ) is to increase wages and benefits, many of the lowest paid are in the care and service sector where increased pay cannot be recouped from company profitability.

MaizieD

^Personally an increase in tax rates across the board is needed, if Starmer is not willing to do that I don’t see how services are going to improve^

You know what, Katie59? The sky is not going to fall in if Starmer spends first and then taxes back. The Bank of England is obliged by law to pay out whatever money the government, in parliament, authorises it to pay. Governments have been funded like this for centuries.

The key issue is who the government money actually ends up wit; the already wealthy or the rest of the population....

It’s been proved over the last nearly 20 yrs that borrowing does not result in more taxation in later years because it’s all been spent on crisis management social improvement.

If borrowing creates growth then there would be a payback in future years, do you have any evidence that that is planned or even likely. We are not in a high unemployment situation where millions are jobless, employers are struggling to find workers

Grany, you are entitled to your extreme factionalist view, but factions do not win elections. Only a small percentage of voters actually want extremes. Factionalism is divisive, undemocratic and chaotic. We have been, and are going through, the chaos of one factional extreme; why would people vote for the chaos of an equally undemocratic opposite end of the spectrum.

We are a democracy. Most people are in the centre, maybe democratic-centre-right, maybe democratic-centre-liberal or democratic-centre-left. Those at the centre have one thing in common. They all believe in democracy.

Why would they want to give that up for your authoritarian socialism? Right, centre or left compromise is recognised by the majority as an essential of democracy.

It has not been recognised by the authoritarian right, authoritarian left, nor by authoritarian "Leavers". And look where that has got us.

Ilovecheese

I do hope you are right about him WW2. But it might have been a better idea to include rather than exclude left wingers if they are not to become an irritant to him.

Yes, it might, but Starmer is too strong a character to allow the tail to wag the dog, he would never allow himself to get into the position that most of the Tory leaders have found themselves in since 2010 with the sort of results we are witnessing.

I suspect that the left is never going to compromise, judging by the couple of posters on here.

Political leaders have to be pretty ruthless - and focused.

I do hope you are right about him WW2. But it might have been a better idea to include rather than exclude left wingers if they are not to become an irritant to him.

What I hope is that Starmer is ensuring that the rump of left wingers do not become the ERG of the Labour Party. We have all witnessed what that has done to the Tory party and it must not be allowed to happen to the Labour Party.