Metropol

StuartPlymouth wrote:You've contradicted yourself.

If you hadn't taken those quotes out of context, then you would have known fully well that I was making two different points.

StuartPlymouth wrote:In a word, "YES", I do object to a few more pennies in tax. I already pay my proportion of income tax, without any of the tax breaks enjoyed by those with children.

If you are so much of a tight arse that you mind a couple of pennies, then maybe you should go on to have some kids to enjoy those all-important tax breaks. I am sure you will be laughing to the bank. Oh, then you pick up the bill for the £90,000 to £250,000 childhood normally costs a parent.

Connor Sephton wrote:

StuartPlymouth wrote:You've contradicted yourself.

If you hadn't taken those quotes out of context, then you would have known fully well that I was making two different points.

I intended to put in something like "abit edited out" rather than make it look as though you had contradicted yourself so readily. But I forgot as I was multi-tasking at the time! I will go back and insert that now!

Connor Sephton wrote:

StuartPlymouth wrote:In a word, "YES", I do object to a few more pennies in tax. I already pay my proportion of income tax, without any of the tax breaks enjoyed by those with children.

If you are so much of a tight arse that you mind a couple of pennies, then maybe you should go on to have some kids to enjoy those all-important tax breaks. I am sure you will be laughing to the bank. Oh, then you pick up the bill for the £90,000 to £250,000 childhood normally costs a parent.

That's my lifestyle choice NOT to have children. I already pay for those who choose another option. I simply said I don't want to pay even more because they are unable to control them.

Connor, last year on Metropol we had the debate about kids being an investment for the future and worth paying for by *all*. I was done to death by Sput in a very well structured argument and ultimately admitted defeat on that topic. Don't bring it back! (He'll gloat again! )

StuartPlymouth wrote:I intended to put in something like "abit edited out" rather than make it look as though you had contradicted yourself so readily. But I forgot as I was multi-tasking at the time! I will go back and insert that now!

Believe or not, though, that means nothing. Why? Because I haven't contradicted myself.

I suggest, you refrain from multi-tasking (after all, chewing gum and typing is too big a feat to conduct at the same time) and read my post a little more meticulously. Then you will see that the cuts you made from my post are still completely out of context (whatever cheesy sentiment you put between the two) and may even (if you are lucky) start to think objectively and realise that I was making different points in the two respective quotes you unwittingly pasted in that thing you call a post.

Connor Sephton wrote:...I was making different points in the two respective quotes you unwittingly pasted in that thing you call a post.

Indeed *you* were, but the point I was answering was whether tax was the answer. On the one hand you agreed that tax on alcohol wasn't the solution, but then stated that tax revenue should be used to avoid the issue of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour.

If by editing your quote I caused you to be mis-understood, then I apologise. I was merely paraphrasing the points from your post that I responded to. Your full comment was available for all to read further up the same page.

StuartPlymouth wrote:On the one hand you agreed that tax on alcohol wasn't the solution, but then stated that tax revenue should be used to avoid the issue of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour.

Do you not have the mental capacity to read posts?

Yes, I agreed tax on alcohol wasn't the solution.

Then a paragraph or two later, I started to write another idea...

I wrote:Either that, or give them something to do......

Then said tax revenue should be used to avoid the issue of anti-social behaviour.

In simpleton terms, Stu, this means that the two points I was making are completely unrelated to each other.

Now it is clear you are completely oblivious and brain dead to my request, but for God's sake, read posts a little bit more carefully. It can't hurt to say it a second time, after all, you didn't listen the first time round and it might begin to sink in.

Connor Sephton wrote:Now it is clear you are completely oblivious and brain dead to my request, but for God's sake, read posts a little bit more carefully. It can't hurt to say it a second time, after all, you didn't listen the first time round and it might begin to sink in.

Connor, I answered the two basic relevant points you made, in order, with clarity. There was no reason to open a debate at that time about youth funding in a discussion centred on increased tax on alcohol.

Childish insults towards me about the way you feel you were mis-represented by my response may win favour with some on here, but I'll not be drawn into further discussion about something I have offered an apology for and corrected as best I can.

StuartPlymouth wrote:(*desperately trying to keep the thread on track*)

Because you have never diverged from a topic in a thread, have you Stuart?

I agree with the argument that it is highly unfair to make everybody suffer because of the hoodies.

I would argue that the issue of under-age drinking is due to two core problems: a lack of amusement for young people and furthermore, a lack of general discipline to the youth of today.

I don't think more tax is needed - as has been stated, it is the Government's way of discouraging anything - let's tax it up! - however, I would argue that a stricter ID system needs to be in place, and although many establishments operate a "Challenge 21" policy, this is rarely, if ever, strictly enforced.

Connor Sephton wrote:

StuartPlymouth wrote:(*desperately trying to keep the thread on track*)

Because you have never diverged from a topic in a thread, have you Stuart?

That was a joke, intended and probably percieved as such by Sput! It related to a long brewing storm!

That was weird.

One minute, Lorns had a post here - and the next, she didn't.

Eerie.

OneThingsForSure wrote:I don't think more tax is needed - as has been stated, it is the Government's way of discouraging anything - let's tax it up! - however, I would argue that a stricter ID system needs to be in place, and although many establishments operate a "Challenge 21" policy, this is rarely, if ever, strictly enforced.

Let's all welcome Jacqui Smith MP to Metropol ID Cards for all! Fab!
(only joking 'OneThingsForSure')