For what I can see those who believe that it is appear to be motivated for purely vindictive reasons, and nothing else
is slagging me off proving to be far more fun
😕
All the government are doing is giving them back money that they were getting back prior to the VAT changes ....
Call me a cynic but I feel its a tad more sinister than that. The obvious solution would have been to maintain the VAT exemption rather than all the palaver of giving it back after taking it.
But what they have done is to change what had previously been a [i]right[/i] into now a [i]privilege[/i], ie "we don't have to give you this money, but we will, because we're nice like that".
Which is very handy when dealing with an organisation which was once regarded as "the Tory Party at prayer", but is now one of the most vocal opponent of the government's divisive economic and social policies. Specially when you are expecting significant economic and social upheavals in the future.
The one where someone asks you to clarify your opinion, you do, they tell you that they aren't satisfied with your answer, you realise that they won't be satisfied with any answer until you agree with them, you think to yourself "I can't be arsed to argue yet again with someone over religion", you inform that you have no obligation to justify your opinion to them personally ?
Calm down dear! It was not the answer that I questioned, it was that you seemed to have answered a different question. All I asked is at what point you would like the VAT amnesty to stop. You made the statement:
What I think is possibly a disgrace is that the government now presumably wants to charge churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples, for repairs they carry out, just to raise revenue for their spending.
If that is a full and exhaustive list then fine. All I asked was that if it is not, how far should it extend. It's not a witch hunt, just a debate over the original subject, something that you requested we should return to but seem unwilling in which to participate.
I will be happy with a differing opinion (see point 1 raised earlier) but as you will not clarify what your opinion is it becomes a little difficult to either agree or disagree.
Rogerthecat, you appear to be under the impression that he has an obligation to justify his opinions to you - He doesn't.
He's not accountable to you.
😆
crikey - Member😆
Hilarious. Now grow up - it's getting tedious.
Have you got something to say on the topic ?
I don't mind the ridicule btw, it helps me in my messianic mission ..... we all have our crosses to bear
[img] 
[/img]
It's just a bit pointless.
[i]Hilarious. Now grow up - it's getting tedious for me.[/i]
Sorry Grandad ernie, but I'm not accountable to you.
😆
😆
😆
😆
And back to the subject.
So Ernie, where should the VAT relief cease, in your opinion?
The vast majority of media coverage of this issue has been lazy and incorrect.
The VAT issue is in relation to listed buildings, not ecclesiastical buildings per se.
Moreover, the issue is the removal of the VAT exemption for [i]alterations[/i] to listed buildings [b]not[/b] renovations or repairs.
Counter-intuitively, repairs to listed buildings are already subect to VAT just like other building works. The change now brings alterations in line with that, and some may say that is a good thing as it removes an incentive to muck about with listed buildings by altering them at the same time as repairing them, to try and save VAT
So Ernie, where should the VAT relief cease, in your opinion?
Well I have already answered your question : [i]"how far do you extend that list of faith and exemption - do you include Scientology?"[/i]
I can repeat it again if you want, but since you didn't like my answer the first time, then I can't imagine that you'll like it now, but anyway :
[i]I don't "draw the line" on any religion - everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe imo as long as they don't engage in criminal activity. [/i]
If it helps I can add : whichever way the exemption was previously applied, I see no reason why that can't be maintained.
Ernie, all I wanted was a simple answer to my question, one example response could have been:
"I think that the VAT exemption should apply to any consecrated building. The act of consecration being accepted by an independent organisation. The one suggested in an earlier post seems to fit the bill."
or
"I think that the VAT exemption should be applied to any building that can show use by anyone claiming to be of some faith with more than one adherent."
I asked this question:
"Also, how far do you extend that list of faith and exemption - do you include Scientology? Where do you draw the line? It is genuine question, I am curious how far you believe this should apply."
This:
"I don't "draw the line" on any religion - everyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe imo as long as they don't engage in criminal activity."
Answers a different question.
Ernie, I give up. All I wanted was a simple answer to a reasonable question about your original statement but this seems to be too difficult.
Hamishthecat - nifty update - in that case I agree with you. It's an anomaly that needs to be removed to better protect the architectural heritage. Disappointing to find that there isn't some Machiavellian plot to persecute the poorer members of society though. 😀
do you include Scientology? Where do you draw the line?
"I don't "draw the line" on any religion
I hate to interject on a private tiff, but didn't the latter answer the former?
No as the whole question was about drawing the line on where the VAT relief should end not on religion per se.
Hope that helps.
Hope that helps
No, not really. I still think you had a reasonable answer. But I'll keep out of it.
TBH I really could not care, but Ernie can be so pedantic with others on so many threads I haev watched, and is so often like a dog with a bone it is tantamount to bullying when someone presents him with an answer he does not like. Not a particularly nice trait in anyone, hoped he may see a parallel. Guess not.
but Ernie can be so pedantic with others......
Oh is that what you're trying to do !
Well you can be as pedantic as you want with me. I won't mind 8)
I don't think you've quite got over me pulling you up yesterday when you tried to ridicule bowglie, have you ?
TBH I really could not care
I think you do, you big tease you 😀
Ernie, I am sure I have done far more to earn rebuke than make light of another's comment on here. In that specific case I think you were reading far more into it than was ever intended, but hay, you police the forum in a way that you see fit.
I really don't care Ernie, honestly I don't.
In that specific case I think you were reading far more into it than was ever intended
I didn't read anything into it at all. I merely challenged your ridicule of bowglie's rather valid point. I now see that me doing so has got right up your nose, what with you wanting to 'get back at me' on this thread a day later. It's funny how precious you appear to be about receiving any criticism, when you obviously don't mind dishing it out .... don't you think ?
[i]They don't like it up 'em Captain Mainwaring.[/i]
Don't forget that churches have historically proved very useful places to hide during Zombie attacks/Nazi invasions/Scary Fog/The second World War.
I think we should keep them instead of them all getting turned into curry houses. Can I say that out loud?
I think you overestimate the importance of anything you may post regarding me or, in turn, anything I may post. It's an internet chat forum on a website about bikes, there is a real world outside!
However, you do seem to be very reluctant to answer a direct and simple question. Could it be that you realise that your position is not one that can be substantiated. It looks even more foolish when the reality of the situation is pointed out by Hamishthecat.
😆
you do seem to be very reluctant to answer a direct and simple question. Could it be that you realise that your position is not one that can be substantiated.
Or maybe I just realised right from the start that you simply wanted to have an argument with me on this thread, and that whatever answer I gave you clearly wasn't going to satisfy you.
I think I might have been vindicated on that one - wotchew reckon ?
I have never seen a thread in which your view was not vindicated by you
HTH
HTH
Thanks it does.
Or maybe I just realised right from the start that you simply wanted to have an argument with me on this thread, and that whatever answer I gave you clearly wasn't going to satisfy you.I think I might have been vindicated on that one - wotchew reckon ?
Clearly it has descended into one now, perhaps if you were able to provide a simple answer to a reasonable question this thread would have ended several pages ago. Ernie you twist and turn like a twisty turny thing. Go on, I dare you, provide a proper answer, you know one that actually says something.
Kit - some churches are locked when no-one's around, sadly. Little ones in villages often.
As for keeping them open - that'd be lovely. There are dozens of de-consecrated churches in Cardiff that are either offices, houses or pound shops. I'd love it if they were secular places you could just go and chill out. Most of them are Victorian neo-gothic but some look really interesting and I'd love to see inside.
