Mrs Roops

No I do that and well hidden they are, even from him.

Nonsense, one punter alone has articulated a Google connection and myself four times in the last ten days, and that's just one punter. During that time not one peep from me. Good luck on finding a Googlewhack from the discourse BTW, call if you need help...

Of course!* *E&OE and Without Prejudice. Statement subject to Experian report and full financial disclosure

Point of order; you've appended two links to back up your POV but the second link is merely reporting on what was said in the first link, moreover the Grauniad's lefty outrage is outrageous as they were less than tax-responsible when they booked a £300+ million profit into a Cayman Islands tax shelter realised by the sale of the Autotrader magazine back in 2008. That said, the Tax Justice Network's research has a reputation for impartiality, accuracy and thoroughness - it's the analysis that sometimes goes awry. With international corporates most of the money sent offshore is restricted to off-balance sheet income, but, and it's a very big but, the capital has to appear in consolidated P&L accounts to support the balance sheet and share price and more importantly fund (either directly or by leverage) the dividend which of course is taxable. TJN''s answer is of course the socialist's wet-dream, a world-wide unitary tax rate, but as ever, pipe-dreams rarely pass muster with the practicalities. One hundred and ninety-five countries, each with different needs and circumstances, are never going to agree on a one size fits all tax rate. The answer, which to be fair, the UK is working to albeit at a snail's pace, is the issue of beneficial ownership. Large corporates can't hide behind a tropical island palm leaf but individuals can via a complex web of nominated accounts and Limited Liability Partnerships. Cracking the issue of beneficial ownerships will go some way in eradicating tax evasion. Combating tax avoidance OTOH depends on how smart individual tax agencies are and as HMRC and other regulatory financial agencies have found out, the British are world leaders in financial engineering.

Never mind that, where's my sodding car?

Wouldn't you be wanting to use your formula to minimise the chance of a Googlewhack? Maximising creates wriggle room and provides an exponential increase of tangents to deviate and deflect. I've always found that punters who throw in the Google thang are either admitting they're in a corner and have run out of answers or it's used as a convenient fig leaf to hide their own shortcomings. Contrary to the CC myth, I opine and comment on a narrow range of subjects otherwise I keep out of the discourse as a matter of respect to the expertise of others. I mean, should you be throwing a thromby about a certain brand of perforator or rubber stamp rack then who am I to intervene?

I don't think 'Killer was questioning the rule, rather he was saying that he wasn't offended. Aside from that you seem to have got your knickers in a twist. I have said in the past that anyone querying a decision or rule is quite welcome to raise the issue in a sensible way. Punters abusively barking out demands are simply going to be ignored at best, maybe kicked in the gonads or in extreme cases where a complainant is so enraged to the point of losing control, be coolered for the night.

Let's see now, workable internal combustion engine, contraceptive pill, Bakelite (the first plastic) Jpeg image compression - I'm sure there are others.

'cos they're lying.

So you can't substantiate but will run your alcohol-powered muggy mouth anyway. Far from being a minority, you're a fully signed up member of the silent majority, one of the sheeple who's only vocal when alone or late at night with his device switched on to InPrivate mode. No guessing needed on who wears the trousers in your household...

This is the only friendly warning you'll receive. We take a dim view of punters making sexual references to other members' family and relatives.

Interesting you see ovulation as "gross" You need to lighten up.

So you're avoiding the question...Okaaay.

Yeah amazing, still ovulating...at my age!

...which reminds me of one of my fave Weebl ditties

Well that's another debate considering the whole nature/nurture theory has recently been turned on its head (again)

That's for me to know and for you to wonder as you clearly have no idea. Always the victim in my eyes? Care to substantiate or are you just running your stupid mouth again?

I appreciate that, however Punkers is cherry picking to suit his oddball agenda.

You know what a site like this is up against. Use common sense, or would you prefer we take a heavy handed approach and strike out every racial, homophobic and non-pc slur, sleight and pejorative?

...and misleading. The only thing statisticians can agree is there remains a question as to what constitutes being defined as "gay" - its not as binary as you would think. Another accepted factor is that people lie when answering these sort of surveys.

We try to impose a light touch in moderating. That becomes difficult when punters get carried away. This is not a closed site.

Can we veer away from the Keith Lard type of narrative? Cheers.

Whilst not wishing to further reduce my rapidly diminishing band of admirers, my Welsh lilt has all but disappeared and I am in fact naturally raven haired.

As far as I am aware, Ms Swinson is straight, not gay.