Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Trevaunance
Over 90 days ago
Bi-curious Male, 51
Straight Female, 52
0 miles · Exeter
Forum
Sex God
Me too to be fair.
OK, I get the whole argument not to, you like it, finances, you dont want to lose stuff stored on it etc. but I'm usually inclined to take an opportunity to upgrade when a gadget dies on me.
OK, I get the whole argument not to, you like it, finances, you dont want to lose stuff stored on it etc. but I'm usually inclined to take an opportunity to upgrade when a gadget dies on me.
Sex God
How hard is it to stop going off on tangents?
I would happily debate Mr Murphy elsewhere, but he is not relevant to the direct question I asked of you.
I would happily debate Mr Murphy elsewhere, but he is not relevant to the direct question I asked of you.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
Then perhaps increasing the amount of products that are bad for you where VAT is payable and decreasing the amount of products that are good for you where you currently pay VAT would be a start.
As for the tobacco tax revenue thing, I can only quote what I read on the internet about the tax and clearly that is wrong, but if you do the maths yourself it works roughly like this
average smoker 20 a day,
that is 5-6 thousand a year
tax on ciggies is over 70%
10 million smokers
That means that the revenue from smoking tax still outweighs the cost of treating smokers by the NHS by 10s of millions
What a load of nonsense. Lets take the £6000 per annum figure you mentioned. Tax that at 70% and you get a revenue of £4200. Multiply that by the estimated 10 million smokers and you get a revenue of £42,000,000,000 or £42 billion.
But that is not a true reflection at any stage of the calculation.
If the average cost of 20 cigarettes is £7 and a person smokes 20 a day that is £7 x 7 = £49 per week. Multiply that by 52 for the weeks in the year and you reach a figure of £2548.
If tax revenue is 70% this example would generate a tax revenue of per annum.
Multiply that by the estimated 10 million smokers and you reach a figure of billion which is around 40% of the total your figures suggest.
If your going to start bandying figures about then at least make sure they make sense!
Of course these figures are reduced further if you account for the fact that the average smoker smokes 12 cigarettes per day. In this case the final figure would be £10,701,600,000, a quarter of your figures.
Yes it's true that this figure of £10 billion is higher than the direct cost of smoking on the NHS today, but that balance is slowly tipping the other way. These figures are based on a much reduced number of smokers than historical averages. For example in 1974 45% of adults smoked, whereas today that figure is 20%. Now that means that all those ex smokers are not contributing to the tobacco taxation, but they will possibly be having treatment for smoking related illness.
Quote by MidsCouple24
We are a couple who both smoke, that is 20 a day EACH, I thought on this site being a couple would be recognised.
Of course it is recognised that you are a couple, I challenge you to prove that any one has said, assumed or done otherwise.
You haven't said you were speaking about yourself and I haven't said I was speaking about you either. Your exact phrase was 'average smoker 20 a day' and so I based my initial figures on your assumption of the average smoker, nothing else, so please don't try to make me look like fool.
Where have you said that you were talking about your household smoking habits?.
More to the point, if you and Sasha smoke 20 a day you are now able to see a much truer reflection than the rather ambiguous figures you gave.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Personally I have never met a smoker that smokes only 12 a day especally taking that as an average since that means that a great many would only be smoking 6 a day by those figures, anyone smoking only 6 cigarettes a day would probably pack it in altogether, at one point Sasha was smoking 60 a day and quite a few people do that, but it is like cock size, for the most part deduct 2" from every statement, many smokers do not like to admit to Doctors or even friends just how many they do smoke.
You claim that the average smoker has 20 cigarettes a day. Prove it. In the mean time I will base my figure on 12 a day.
Quote by MidsCouple24
I never intended this thread to be about smoking it is about obesity so why don't we concentrate on that.
On the contrary, 8 of your first nine sentences in the original post are about smoking, therefore you clearly had a point to raise. Otherwise why mention it at all.
Sex God
I have no issue whatsoever with taking a selfie at a memorial service. If the occasion was meant to be solemn, then I'm sure at some point someone would have stopped the people from dancing. Mother nature didn't dampen their spirits with torrential rain, so why should I.
I am also in total agreement that our PM should take every opportunity to open doors and ensure the best for our country whenever he can.
I am also in total agreement that our PM should take every opportunity to open doors and ensure the best for our country whenever he can.
Sex God
That's excellent. Have a look at the people on the top tier of the stadium at the far corner. there are some very bored people there!
Sex God
So it seems that David Cameron, Barack Obama and the Dutch PM captured a moment of history with a .
The Dane took a picture of herself flanked by our PM and the President and to be fair they look as if they are having a pretty good time of things, and who can blame hem I would have been the same in their shoes. But they have forgotten about all the other camera's at the occasion and they have been splashed across newspapers and TV screens across the world. They have been criticised for not showing respect, because the pic was taken during Nelson Mandelas memorial commemoration.
Last year when Mrs T and I lost four members of our family in five weeks we could very easily have allowed it all to get on top of us. One of the relatives was unfortunately still a young child, but the others had all led full lives and we celebrated them. My Great Uncle's ceremony was one of the best occasions in my life, full of pride, family unity, love and above all laughter. It was a true celebration and bought together far flung family members and friends. Believe me, delivery the eulogy via speakers to almost 1000 people in and outside the crematorium is an experience I will never forget!
So did the leaders of three countries show a disrespectful attitude by taking a selfie, or did they get into the mood of the occasion and show they are human after all?
The Dane took a picture of herself flanked by our PM and the President and to be fair they look as if they are having a pretty good time of things, and who can blame hem I would have been the same in their shoes. But they have forgotten about all the other camera's at the occasion and they have been splashed across newspapers and TV screens across the world. They have been criticised for not showing respect, because the pic was taken during Nelson Mandelas memorial commemoration.
Last year when Mrs T and I lost four members of our family in five weeks we could very easily have allowed it all to get on top of us. One of the relatives was unfortunately still a young child, but the others had all led full lives and we celebrated them. My Great Uncle's ceremony was one of the best occasions in my life, full of pride, family unity, love and above all laughter. It was a true celebration and bought together far flung family members and friends. Believe me, delivery the eulogy via speakers to almost 1000 people in and outside the crematorium is an experience I will never forget!
So did the leaders of three countries show a disrespectful attitude by taking a selfie, or did they get into the mood of the occasion and show they are human after all?
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
Then perhaps increasing the amount of products that are bad for you where VAT is payable and decreasing the amount of products that are good for you where you currently pay VAT would be a start.
As for the tobacco tax revenue thing, I can only quote what I read on the internet about the tax and clearly that is wrong, but if you do the maths yourself it works roughly like this
average smoker 20 a day,
that is 5-6 thousand a year
tax on ciggies is over 70%
10 million smokers
That means that the revenue from smoking tax still outweighs the cost of treating smokers by the NHS by 10s of millions
What a load of nonsense. Lets take the £6000 per annum figure you mentioned. Tax that at 70% and you get a revenue of £4200. Multiply that by the estimated 10 million smokers and you get a revenue of £42,000,000,000 or £42 billion.
But that is not a true reflection at any stage of the calculation.
If the average cost of 20 cigarettes is £7 and a person smokes 20 a day that is £7 x 7 = £49 per week. Multiply that by 52 for the weeks in the year and you reach a figure of £2548.
If tax revenue is 70% this example would generate a tax revenue of per annum.
Multiply that by the estimated 10 million smokers and you reach a figure of billion which is around 40% of the total your figures suggest.
If your going to start bandying figures about then at least make sure they make sense!
Of course these figures are reduced further if you account for the fact that the average smoker smokes 12 cigarettes per day. In this case the final figure would be £10,701,600,000, a quarter of your figures.
Yes it's true that this figure of £10 billion is higher than the direct cost of smoking on the NHS today, but that balance is slowly tipping the other way. These figures are based on a much reduced number of smokers than historical averages. For example in 1974 45% of adults smoked, whereas today that figure is 20%. Now that means that all those ex smokers are not contributing to the tobacco taxation, but they will possibly be having treatment for smoking related illness.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
My opinion of Nelson Mandela, a great man who did things he probably regretted in the belief that this was the only course of action available to him at the time, his actions in later life showed him to, at the very least, have his heart in the right place and wanting peace but prepared to fight for that peace.
Agreed.
Quote by MidsCouple24
My view of what Sir Winston Churchill and Harry Truman did in authorising the killing of civilians carte blanche during WWII, I would have done the same thing, if someone invades the Country I have sworn to defend I would use any force necessary to defeat them and protect my family and fellow countrymen.
Agreed, but this is what I don't get. You've taken the thread off on a complete tangent arguing that Churchill and Truman are mass murderers, yet you don't actually believe that yourself!
Quote by MidsCouple24
the accused terrorist Bin Laden was never convicted of a crime but was shot and killed during an attack on his home by US Forces, now personally I think it was a great day, but he was shot as a civilian presumed innocent until proven guilty !
Once again, you appear to be at odds with yourself here, and creating yet another spin off thread arguing with yourself. Bin Laden was a terrorist and was at the time of his death one of, if not the, most wanted man in the world.
Quote by Trevaunance
We as the present day holders of this planet have no right to second guess the actions or decisions of the past. We did not live through it and our laws, social restrictions or treaties cannot be applied retrospectively.
I was not present in South Africa in the sixties. I never experienced Apartheid. Those are facts. However, another fact is that I didn't sanction the use of lethal force either. I never raised an illegal military force against my government, I never sought military training in other countries, I never planted bombs at civilian targets and I most certainly never tried to claim that I should have all those things forgotten in the event of my later life being different.
A defence that the accused used at Nuremberg, "I was only obeying orders" an excuse that the people of Germany used after the war when questioned about the Holocaust, "It was the Nazi party in charge, I was just a civilian"
So what are you saying? Are you calling me a nazi, or some sort of collaborator? Are you seriously suggesting that because I wasn't in South Africa during the decade before I was born that I am somehow complicit with the actions of the SA government or the ANC? If you believe I have ever done any of the things I've denied then speak to the police straight away, if not apologise.
And as far as non emotional influence goes, then I'm sorry but unless you can prove that Mandela didn't do what he was convicted of then he is still a convicted man in my eyes.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Convicted because he was tried for the crime, Sir Winston Churchill though accused was never tried, Harry Truman though accused was never tried they were after all, the leaders of the Government who were victorious.
Stop clouding the issue. Was Mandela convicted or not?
As for the Ukrainian Army veterans that settled in the UK after the war, well that's fascinating stuff. I wish I had seen the documentary, but as it hasn't been repeated in years I will probably never get the chance
However there is a whole raft of information available on the Internet and I shall engorge myself of it
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
My opinion of Nelson Mandela, a great man who did things he probably regretted in the belief that this was the only course of action available to him at the time, his actions in later life showed him to, at the very least, have his heart in the right place and wanting peace but prepared to fight for that peace.
Agreed.
Quote by MidsCouple24
My view of what Sir Winston Churchill and Harry Truman did in authorising the killing of civilians carte blanche during WWII, I would have done the same thing, if someone invades the Country I have sworn to defend I would use any force necessary to defeat them and protect my family and fellow countrymen.
Agreed, but this is what I don't get. You've taken the thread off on a complete tangent arguing that Churchill and Truman are mass murderers, yet you don't actually believe that yourself!
Quote by MidsCouple24
the accused terrorist Bin Laden was never convicted of a crime but was shot and killed during an attack on his home by US Forces, now personally I think it was a great day, but he was shot as a civilian presumed innocent until proven guilty !
Once again, you appear to be at odds with yourself here, and creating yet another spin off thread arguing with yourself. Bin Laden was a terrorist and was at the time of his death one of, if not the, most wanted man in the world.
Quote by Trevaunance
We as the present day holders of this planet have no right to second guess the actions or decisions of the past. We did not live through it and our laws, social restrictions or treaties cannot be applied retrospectively.
I was not present in South Africa in the sixties. I never experienced Apartheid. Those are facts. However, another fact is that I didn't sanction the use of lethal force either. I never raised an illegal military force against my government, I never sought military training in other countries, I never planted bombs at civilian targets and I most certainly never tried to claim that I should have all those things forgotten in the event of my later life being different.
A defence that the accused used at Nuremberg, "I was only obeying orders" an excuse that the people of Germany used after the war when questioned about the Holocaust, "It was the Nazi party in charge, I was just a civilian"
So what are you saying? Are you calling me a nazi, or some sort of collaborator? Are you seriously suggesting that because I wasn't in South Africa during the decade before I was born that I am somehow complicit with the actions of the SA government or the ANC? If you believe I have ever done any of the things I've denied then speak to the police straight away, if not apologise.
And as far as non emotional influence goes, then I'm sorry but unless you can prove that Mandela didn't do what he was convicted of then he is still a convicted man in my eyes.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Convicted because he was tried for the crime, Sir Winston Churchill though accused was never tried, Harry Truman though accused was never tried they were after all, the leaders of the Government who were victorious.
Stop clouding the issue. Was Mandela convicted or not?
As for the Ukrainian Army veterans that settled in the UK after the war, well that's fascinating stuff. I wish I had seen the documentary, but as it hasn't been repeated in years I will probably never get the chance
However there is a whole raft of information available on the Internet and I shall engorge myself of it
Sex God
VAT is payable on many of the food types blamed for obesity. For example Chocolate biscuits, fizzy drinks, crisps, hot take away food, ice cream, chocolate, and confectionery/sweets, food eaten in fast food joints.
It is also payable on nuts, cereal bars and food to be eaten in restaurants.
It is also payable on nuts, cereal bars and food to be eaten in restaurants.
Sex God
Quote by Lizaleanrob
But if you want to go along that line
According to the NHS figures
Treating smokers for problems caused by smoking costs them £2.7 Billion per year
Treating obese people for problems caused by obesity costs them £5 Billion per year
Tax revenue from smoking is £105.7 Billion per year for the Government
something wrong with this
105.7 billion in revenue alone means 10 million smokers each spend £10,700 per year on fag taxes = roughly £250=300 per week on cigs per person per week
35 packs per week per person :silly:
website also shows the tax revenue from smoking to be considerably less than 105.7 Billion per year!
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
I also remember a Townsend Thoressen ferry where one factor of the capsizing was weight distribution when it turned out that all the heavy laden lorries were on one side of the ship, unladed lorries and cars on the other side, true the biggest factor was the fact that the ship sailed with the bow doors open but again disasters are caused by multiple factors.
I think it safe to assume that you mean the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster? It might surprise you to know that weight distribution was not a contributory factor to this tragic event.
Sex God
Jed I'm still not sure what your point is.
You begin by agreeing that larger passengers should pay extra. I can see why and I totally agree with you.
You then appear to be advocating that airplanes crash because the airlines don't weigh their passengers. To support this you provide the following evidence:
1. A helicopter crash caused by a bird strike during the Falklands War.
2. An unnamed aircraft type that has supposedly crashed in Afghanistan.
3. You've partially quoted the Australian equivalent of the CAA and how it historically recommended weights should have been derived, but you've missed the part that says how aggregated weight should be calculated.
4. Another unnamed aircraft crash where weight was just one of many contributing factors.
5. an unnamed Channel 4 documentary about difficulties that larger people have in their day to day life, that while interesting, isn't really relevant as it only goes to highlight that a 32 stone man can't fit into a standard airline seat. To be honest I don't need to watch a documentary to work that out.
The reality is that aircraft design has moved on considerably in the past 100 years and the weight calculations are done by sensors and computers. There are considerable safety margins built into the algorithms to ensure that standardised maximum take off weights are not exceeded. Can you not accept that?
You begin by agreeing that larger passengers should pay extra. I can see why and I totally agree with you.
You then appear to be advocating that airplanes crash because the airlines don't weigh their passengers. To support this you provide the following evidence:
1. A helicopter crash caused by a bird strike during the Falklands War.
2. An unnamed aircraft type that has supposedly crashed in Afghanistan.
3. You've partially quoted the Australian equivalent of the CAA and how it historically recommended weights should have been derived, but you've missed the part that says how aggregated weight should be calculated.
4. Another unnamed aircraft crash where weight was just one of many contributing factors.
5. an unnamed Channel 4 documentary about difficulties that larger people have in their day to day life, that while interesting, isn't really relevant as it only goes to highlight that a 32 stone man can't fit into a standard airline seat. To be honest I don't need to watch a documentary to work that out.
The reality is that aircraft design has moved on considerably in the past 100 years and the weight calculations are done by sensors and computers. There are considerable safety margins built into the algorithms to ensure that standardised maximum take off weights are not exceeded. Can you not accept that?
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
I did not say their weight was the reason for the removal I said the pilot thought that his size could cause an obstruction.
I don't need to give you examples as you have said yourself that it wasn't weight, but size that caused the issue.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24To be fair mate your 60. At what stage should the government stop enlarging the print?
Well they can adopt some of the tactics they used on smoking can't they, big health warnings on wrappers, make the salt/fat warnings large enough to see, I can't read it on half the stuff I buy it is so small,
Quote by MidsCouple24In regard to Kinder, as you mentioned earlier it was a seven week campaign in early 2012, so not long lasting and not current. It was run at Easter time when lots of kids are looking or egg shaped treats, and so it was appropriate to the time. In addition to which it was solely based on the Kinder egg, not their other products.
regulate advertising better, allowing companies to say "approved by mums" has to be wrong.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Why not get really radical and support people who want to open a fast food franchise that will provide a well balanced product, Spud U Like for example, a baked potato with beans or coleslaw or cheese or prawns has to be better for kids than burgers and fries, albeit that everything in moderation is pretty harmless and everything in excess can be bad for you, so eating at spud u like every night can be as bad as eating too many burgers and fries. For once using toys to get the kids in might not be a bad idea, I remember as a child buying Mr Spud plastic bits like hats, eyes, moustache, noses etc so you could turn a potato into Mr Potato Head.
I'm sure your right. Lets restrict freedom of choice and stop eating beef or chicken. Spuds are the way forward! Are you also supporting the restriction of free enterprise for those that want to open a McDonalds, KFC or whatever that show the legal dietary requirements
Quote by MidsCouple24
Put a tax on the things that are really bad for you like salted crisps, heavily salted soup (we check the labels and it is amazing how much salt and fat is in some soups compared with others).
I think you've just taken a well aimed shot to the foot their! It's clear from your own testimony that food labeling works, despite you saying a few lines ago that they weren't large enough to see!
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
So essentially the passenger was removed for a safety reason concerning his size, nothing to do with his weight.
Please explain this one to me, I have never seen a large person that was not heavy.
Ok, lets make this simple.
Imagine a shoebox. How big is it? Is it large and heavy? could you move past it in a rush in a corridor?
Your probably thinking no. Of course it isn't. It's a shoe box, it weighs less than a kilo and I can stamp on it to ind my way out if necessary.
Well lets make that shoe box 6 foot square. Is it now large and heavy? Could you move past it in a rush?
Well I couldn't move past it in a rush if the corridor was exactly 6 foot square, but it's still only cardboard, I could break through it somehow.
But hang on, what if that shoebox was actually a box made of steel? It's still a relatively small size, but suddenly a lot heavier and I would be unable to break my way through it with my bare hands.
What if the box was the size of a normal shoebox, but made of solid gold. is it heavy or large? Could I get past it in a rush? Of course I could.
So hopefully you now understand that there is some difference betwixt the size, weight or dimensions of an object.
Now on the program you watched, according to you, a person was not allowed to fly on the aircraft because they weighed a lot. Do you not think that it might have been because they took up too much space?
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
Yea I wasn't really aiming my answers at you, I was thinking more of the last time the topic in the forums was Nelson Mandela, when many people did condemn him.
If you reply to me and/or quote me the I think it fair to be assumed that you are replying to me?
Sex God
Jed, you keep posing questions, but you skirt round the answers. You never commit one way or the other. You should be a politician!
What is your view?
Clever snipping on my part I know, but that's for a reason. I didn't want the rest of the statement to infringe and cloud this essential fact.
Referring to the quote above, and sticking in the context of this thread:
Life and the world moves on. Social and political realities move with it.
We as the present day holders of this planet have no right to second guess the actions or decisions of the past. We did not live through it and our laws, social restrictions or treaties cannot be applied retrospectively.
I was not present in South Africa in the sixties. I never experienced Apartheid. Those are facts. However, another fact is that I didn't sanction the use of lethal force either. I never raised an illegal military force against my government, I never sought military training in other countries, I never planted bombs at civilian targets and I most certainly never tried to claim that I should have all those things forgotten in the event of my later life being different.
And as far as non emotional influence goes, then I'm sorry but unless you can prove that Mandela didn't do what he was convicted of then he is still a convicted man in my eyes.
Whilst we are at it I'm still wondering where your proof is of a whole battalion of SS joining us after WW2?
What is your view?
Quote by MidsCouple24
or does the fact that it was authorised by the Government of the time make it legal ?
Clever snipping on my part I know, but that's for a reason. I didn't want the rest of the statement to infringe and cloud this essential fact.
Referring to the quote above, and sticking in the context of this thread:
Life and the world moves on. Social and political realities move with it.
We as the present day holders of this planet have no right to second guess the actions or decisions of the past. We did not live through it and our laws, social restrictions or treaties cannot be applied retrospectively.
I was not present in South Africa in the sixties. I never experienced Apartheid. Those are facts. However, another fact is that I didn't sanction the use of lethal force either. I never raised an illegal military force against my government, I never sought military training in other countries, I never planted bombs at civilian targets and I most certainly never tried to claim that I should have all those things forgotten in the event of my later life being different.
And as far as non emotional influence goes, then I'm sorry but unless you can prove that Mandela didn't do what he was convicted of then he is still a convicted man in my eyes.
Whilst we are at it I'm still wondering where your proof is of a whole battalion of SS joining us after WW2?
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
The government are doing a bit, just not enough.
What else should they do?
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
The government are doing a bit, just not enough.
What else should they do?
Sex God
It is not such a simple case to compare smoking and obesity.
Smoking is a lifestyle choice. However it affects others directly in the form of passive smoking.
Obesity, whilst not always a lifestyle choice, is all too often directly related to diet and exercise. However it is not possible to pile on the pounds because someone sat next to you is eating a pasty.
Smoking is a lifestyle choice. However it affects others directly in the form of passive smoking.
Obesity, whilst not always a lifestyle choice, is all too often directly related to diet and exercise. However it is not possible to pile on the pounds because someone sat next to you is eating a pasty.
Sex God
So essentially the passenger was removed for a safety reason concerning his size, nothing to do with his weight.
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
The simple fact is none of us are qualified to decide if what Mandella did when fighting for what he believed in was right or wrong
You are entirely correct and at no stage have I decided. I allowed his country's justice system to decide whether it was right or wrong.
Quote by MidsCouple24I've got to admit I know nothing about this. Which battalion was it?
we provided a home for a whole SS Battalion here in the UK
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
condemned to being labelled a terrorist ?
Your the one that bought up condemning people, not me. Likewise I believe it was a court that convicted him, not me.
As you said the winning side or side in power can decide the label, and it's often said that history is written by the victors. Neither Mandela or the ANC have ever denied what he was convicted of, so perhaps they themselves have decided the label.
Quote by MidsCouple24
something we and most of the western world believed to be wrong which is why we imposed sanctions against the people and government of South Africa, if indeed Mandela was a terrorist we supported his actions.
The UK never supported the ANC or Mandela. The decision not to impose sanctions was taken in the early sixties and upheld by successive governments including Lady Thatcher.
Sex God
And so we go full circle back to my original post.
Quote by Trevaunance
To be fair, he wasn't bad, as far as terrorists go.
I've no doubt he has left a positive and lasting impression on the world.
Sex God
Quote by Steve
You are quite correct. But notwithstanding all the good he did for the world, history still shows he was convicted
As were the Birmingham 6 ;-)
The Birmingham six had their convictions overturned. Mandela didn't.
