Slashdot Mirror
France Seeking $1.76 Billion In Back Taxes From Google (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader writes: According to a Reuters insider, France is seeking 1.6 billion euros in back taxes from Google, dwarfing what the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay. France apparently has no interest in striking the same 'sweetheart tax' deal that put the UK into a critical light when it revealed that the search giant would pay only 130 million pounds of tax, a $181.18 million settlement, for over 10 years in multi-billion dollar trade in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I really do hope they get their money. These corporations play all manner of shell company games, offshore trickery, you name it just to avoid paying taxes. If you owe it, pay it. Give unto Caesar what is Caesars. I will never again eat at Burger King in large part because of their tax inversion. More and more companies are doing this. I realize companies are beholden to the shareholders (sadly), but pay what you really owe. Stop with the tax tricks which are basically legal fraud.
France should try innovating instead of just being a leech on silicon valley revenue.
part of the leftist 'pay your fair share' crowd? They get what they deserve.
As usual, bad summary. The United Kingdom did not agree to pay anything. Google agreed to pay back taxes to the UK. The summary basically is saying that the UK agreed to pay back taxes to France. Way to go submitter and editor. That is clearly NOT what was meant.
France demanded reparations for all their soldiers killed by English bowmen.
If Google took in about 17 billion euros in revenue for 2015, how can all these countries demand a percentage of that total. Eventually it's going to add up to more than 100%. Why does France deserve 10% of it, will every other 27 EU members demand 10% too. Will Google have to pay 47.6 B in taxes on the 17 B revenue? It's madness
France Seeking $1.76 Billion In Back Taxes From Google
According to a Reuters insider, France is seeking 1.6 billion euros in back taxes from Google
Blimey. If it's slid that far between headline and summary, it'll be down to 0 by the morning.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I know the site has a pretty staunch libertarian lean, but its important to rememember: Google rakes in around 17 billion dollars per quarter.
france wants backtaxes for multiple years totalling ~2% of an entire years revenue.
Good people go to bed earlier.
2025, boardroom of a start-up company looking on where to invest, where to find customers, and where to set up offices:
Chris: Hey Jo, I've been looking at our European customer base. We haven't really been targeting them but there seems to be a lot of interest. You think we should look into setting up offices there?
Jo: It's worth a look, but we need to play this conservative. Remember how France and the UK squeezed huge tax settlements out of Google and other tech companies back when we were in high school?
Chris: Yeah, we'll have to go really slow on this and hire a tax advisor before we ever set foot in Europe. In the meantime, let's not target European customers and make sure that if we allow any third-party advertisements on our products that they are clearly NOT aimed at European customers.
Jo: *sigh* Well, hopefully we can work out something with the governments over there so we know ahead of time what the tax bill will be. We should pay our fair share of taxes, but there's no way we should set ourselves up for being blind-sided.
Chris: Well, you know, the nominal tax rate over there is pretty high. If we can't get some kind of up-front discount, we may just have to forgo that market entirely.
Jo: Agreed.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"France demanded reparations for all their soldiers killed by English bowmen."
England lost more soldiers fighting for France in one day on the Somme (WWI) than the English killed in the whole hundred years war
If Google took in about 17 billion euros in revenue for 2015 ... Why does France deserve 10% of it ...
France and Germany are the economic power houses of Europe. France, and presumably the others, are only taxing google on revenue earned in their respective jurisdictions. For the sake of argument, if 30% of Google's revenue is from French territory and France wants 33% of that then we get about 10% of google's total EU revenue.
How much does it add up to, when you include late fees, compound interest, inflation, punitive damages, and the megacorp discount?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
France is seeking 1.6 billion euros in back taxes from Google, dwarfing what the United Kingdom recently agreed to pay.
The UK owed France taxes? What's that got to do with Google?
... it's converting to metric system.
"France demanded reparations for all their soldiers killed by English bowmen."
England lost more soldiers fighting for France in one day on the Somme (WWI) than the English killed in the whole hundred years war
As someone who grew up around a family member who parachuted into Normandy I certainly understand the sentiment. However how many of those deaths were due to the incompetence of English generals?
A joke I learned from the old paratrooper:
At the start of a mission briefing an officer asks his men what is the number one killer of paratroopers?
One of the men responds, "sir, its generals, usually your own."
The officer then asks what is the number two killer of paratroopers?
First they want to be treated like people and now that they are...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Careful, ponder who you're dealing with. Governments tend to already HAVE hitmen. And they even operate legally within their borders.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wait, what? Every businessman left France?
Wow, talk about an opportunity! No matter what market I want, I'd have a monopoly! Sure, tax is high, but hey, pass it on to the customer, who gives a shit about taxes?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sure, but those are 'governments'. On the other hand individual politicians who are pushing for this type of thing can be made an example of so that others would think twice.
You can't handle the truth.
Yaay go France. I wish the UK had more balls.
Alternatively maybe I can now "agree to pay" about 100th of my UK tax bill. and If not, why not?
Yeah, once you start paying for stuff, nobody lets you just get it for free anymore.
We should never have allowed government to get the idea that it deserved to be paid for any of the services it provides, they should be obligated to do it without compensation.
Then once we get the public entities used to this, it'll be simple to transfer this logic to the private.
And thus we will all be FREE again. After all, how can you be FREE if you have to PAY for ANYTHING at ALL?
So to be FREE, we must give up PAYMENT!
Just as an aside, my Father was at Dunkirk in 1940 in the BEF and had nothing but praise for the French. Americans joke about them being "Cheese eating surrender monkeys", but if the French 2nd Army hadn't fought on alone and unsupported for 2 days, my Dad probably would have been captured by the Germans, and the War might have been lost right there.
They war almost certainly wouldn't have been lost if you're father had been captured. The war wouldn't have even been lost if *all* of them had been captured. They were the ground soldiers. I guess you could say that the captured wouldn't have been in N. Africa but there were still plenty of troops if you look at the numbers.
To put N. Africa into scale and WWII numbers, the surrendering Germans were something like 225,000 - in pretty much one go. Would it have been tougher? Maybe, but probably not a hell of a lot. The folks from Dunkirk only made up something like 1/8 of the N. African soldiers.
Also, any American who holds such views about France is an idiot. We have our country because of France and some might say that gift cost the leader's heads. If they hold those views, they have no idea about WWII. If they hold those views, they sure as hell know nothing of the French Foreign Legion. I am American, by the way.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
To be fair we Americans are usually referring to French politicians and "elites" in such jokes, not ordinary citizens. We understand that there is often a great disparity in beliefs and actions between a nation's political/social/economic elites and the ordinary citizen ... whether that nation is France, Russia, China, Iran, etc.
Simple, create something called a Non Taxable Entity. i.e. a business that pays ZERO taxes.
HOWEVER
Any money coming into the country to that entity is taxed at 100%, that stops it being a tax haven harming other countries.
That entity has ZERO protection under law, i.e. no copyright/patent protection, no legal protection against theft, vandalism or other crimes against property, is uninsurable , and can not own property in that country. No payments made to that company are tax deductible, and contracts are unenforcible.
i.e. you pay no taxes, but from a legal POV, you do not legally exist either.
And that rule applies to ALL subsidiaries and other spin off companies, world wide.
And you have the the choice ONCE, it is permanently binding.
Business will be happier to pay taxes.
"IF" companies like this payed their fair share of tax the stock market wouldn't look as bloated plus that money would be injected into each countries economies, meaning better education, roads, welfare (not corporate welfare), health care, etc. There really is no excuse for "laws" that allow this type of tax avoidance and is the best thing for any country.
Yeah, good idea, Google starts the Cold Cash War.
roman_mir, I think you're getting more demented by the day.
So can individual corporations that try to sidestep governmental demands. Google is a big player, no doubt about that, but in none of its business areas it holds a monopoly. Not even a de facto one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The person you replied to is an Anaco-capitalist. (No, that does not mean Libertarian. They're diametrically opposed views, in all actuality.)
What they said, including the violence, is in-line with their beliefs. If nothing else, they're consistent and you've gotta respect that. They're sincere held beliefs which is a lot better than many have. Don't get me wrong, I think they're insane (but probably not retarded or stupid) and I think that anarchy will never reach the plateau that is assumed. I also think that capitalism doesn't reach a state of equilibrium on its own, much like all pure political or economic ideologies. (Government, like life, finds a way and there will be governance, even if just at the end of a barrel.)
So, yes... Yes I think they're horribly misguided and don't realize the horrible failure their ideology will result in - if implemented (we've seen it on small scales, it seldom works well). But... I do respect their consistency and that they're truly held beliefs - and that they're willing to take the guff that comes along with holding those beliefs. However, trying to reason with them is an exercise in futility.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I'm with you on the double taxation, and for many small businesses some of the money is even triple-taxed, after this owner spends WAY too much time dealing with way too much paperwork for many different kinds of taxes.
This part doesn't make sense to me, though:
> would silo off portions of it's operation that cost money, incorporate separately, then charge the original company exactly $1 over costs for services each year. Because that business made $1 instead of taking a multi-year loss it would not trigger any kind of review or audit
Suppose by before splitting, company A has $100 in revenue, and $80 in expenses, with the expenses attributable to division B. The company has $20 profit/ income, so they pay income tax on $20.
Suppose you split off department B into company B.
Company A still has $100 in sales and pays $80 to company B, so they still have a profit of $20 on which they pay income tax. Company B has no profit and thus pays no income tax. The income tax is the same either way.
Moreoever, with one company, they franchise tax and sales tax on the $100 in sales. By splitting, company A pays sales and franchise taxes on their $100 of sales AND company B has $80 of sales (to company A), which company B would then have to pay franchise and sales tax on. Splitting the company means they would pay MORE taxes, because they've created more taxable transactions.
"Cheese eating surrender monkeys" was a one-off joke about an uneducated *Scottish* character's opinion of France when he was forced into the position of substitute French teacher. It was an obvious over-the-top exaggeration of the thousand year long cross-channel rivalry and, to my recollection, was not repeated on the show.
Imagine all the people...
Frenchmen, when led be either a female or non-frenchmen, make perfectly good soldiers. Their is something about the french male however, that when given authority at the rank of General or higher, turns their brains into swiss cheese.
So if Google removes France from the Internet does it mean France would cease to exist
"The officer then asks what is the number two killer of paratroopers?" - politicians!
it was the professional backbone of the army that made that force. My grand father who also fought in the rear guard at Dunkirk had nothing but praise for the French troops. The French farmers however a different story - he said they would rather spill the milk churns than allow the troops a drink.
(waits)
Fines won't help you
Praying won't do you no good
Fines won't stop them
Paying won't avoid further theft
When the Google steals, you must jail them now
Oh oh woah
Come back when you're serious.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
However, trying to reason with them is an exercise in futility.
I am aware of that, hence the flippancy of my own response.
Apologies if it was not clear.
Judging by the amount of English people moving to France, and not many going the other way, I think you have your answer.
Maybe, but it gets constantly repeated by Americans because they enjoy making fun of French people (an inheritance of the French-English rivalry I suppose).
The person you replied to is an Anaco-capitalist. (No, that does not mean Libertarian. They're diametrically opposed views, in all actuality.)
I'm afraid you're still wrong. You're right that roman - in spite of his claims to the contrary - is absolutely not a libertarian. However, he isn't an anarchist, either. In reality, he is actually a closet fascist.
He shared a little more of his inner views on Saturday, when he came out plainly in favor of slavery:
Black slaves were slaves because under law they could be owned not because capitalism somehow allowed some people to own others. It is a rational decision to put signs like that out if most of your profits come from a class of people that have much more money and power. Catering to the laws (implicit and explicit) and to the sentiment of the majority makes business sense.
slaves who only work enough not to be beaten and killed and who will not participate in the business, will not offer creativity and any particular interest (nor should they) vs free work force, free as in liberty
There is no anarchy in slavery. What is in slavery is fascism. Roman is a big fan of fascism, just not smart enough to realize that it will lead to his own destruction.
Not eating would also be a number two killer.
*badoom tish*
Americans just place far too much emphasis on WW II. Prior to that war France was seen as great power you didn't want to mess with. But while it's true individual French soldiers and units fought bravely and effectively, as a whole the French army did not live up to expectations in 1940.
Obviously the Royal Navy could still have controlled the Channel, but a negotiated surrender would almost certainly have happened.
That still doesn't explain why more than half of American voters selected George W. Bush having already experienced four years of his presidency, nor why so many Republicans are currently choosing Donal Trump.
Oddly, they started doing that just when the U.S. was run by warmongering idiots and France held a foreign policy that was relatively sane.
"France demanded reparations for all their soldiers killed by English bowmen."
England lost more soldiers fighting for France in one day on the Somme (WWI) than the English killed in the whole hundred years war
Only cos' there were less people back then.
Maybe Osborne did give Google money and then claim to the press that they had paid a "substantial" value in back taxes to the treasury.
I guess the Eton curriculum doesn't cover the correct use of "substantial".
"Americans joke about them being 'Cheese eating surrender monkeys'" --- funny you should say that. I first heard that phrase from an Irishman.
I think it has more to do with WW1 (somewhat), WW2 (mostly) and Vietnam rather than then the English-French rivalry. Remember the French helped during the revolution and Napoleon sold us Louisiana and more.
% of population that votes: less than half
% of voter turnout: half again
Results go to Electoral College = May or may not even look at results of above.
More than half of American voters did *not* select George W. Bush. More than half the Electoral College did.
not really sure what thay has to do with anything. I mean how do we explain people voting for obama a second time?? I get the hopey changey thing in 08 but in 12???
again, this has nothing to do with anything, mod me and OP off topic
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
All that proves is that the half of the population that didn't vote was just as stupid as the half that voted for GWB -- so 75% of Americans are idiots by your reckoning.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The alternative was Romney. Even if you think Obama was no great shakes, at least he wasn't Mitt.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
And odd, because traditionally Scotland was an ally of France. The "thousand year long cross-channel rivalry" was between England and France, not Scotland and France.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Judging by the amount of English people moving to France, and not many going the other way, I think you have your answer.
Uh, there are hundreds of thousands of French people in the UK -- London is France's sixth biggest city.
(Written by an Englishman who moved to France).
Watch this Heartland Institute video
To be fair we Americans are usually referring to French politicians and "elites" in such jokes, not ordinary citizens. We understand that there is often a great disparity in beliefs and actions between a nation's political/social/economic elites and the ordinary citizen ... whether that nation is France, Russia, China, Iran, etc.
To be fair, some Americans are usually referring to French politicians and "elites" in such jokes, Most Americans don't know why they're joking about the French except as blind us versus them prejudice ingrained by the popular culture. I spoke to my dad that I was going on a trip to Paris and he and his friends said you couldn't pay them to go to Paris, yet they had no reason beyond "because, freedom fries" for why they harbor such. Even then, our "jokes" about WW2 are usually just taking cheap shots due to political reasons caused post war by De Gaulle and following administrations in pissing over the US, Britain, and NATO in an attempt to prove to the world they were still a greater power than Britain, followed more recently by lack of support in American adventurism in the middle east since the point was to pretty much kick out their oil companies so we could put ours into place in Iraq.
Perhaps France should pay back the US for protecting them under the US nuclear umbrella during the Cold War while they were eating crepes.
There were plenty of badly organized and equipped troops in Britain while the BEF was in France, training and equipping. Combine that with the naval defenses, and the fact that the ports that were threatened were rigged for demolition, and the Germans could not have successfully invaded Britain.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's worth noting that the French army adopted new and better tactics during the six-week battle, which is not something armies resigned to defeat do. The French defeat was because of a single gross miscalculation on the part of the French high command, although there were other weaknesses that contributed also.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Are you sure?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
I couldn't find any reliable figures, but appears to be similar both ways (around 200k). Perhaps more interesting is that there are 1.2million!!! Brits in Australia.
thats like saying, well I got aids...but at least I still got both legs
sorry voting against someone is retarded. write someone in, dont keep voting for the status quo
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Yup... We Davids know. *nods*
Even if they'd taken the entire group prisoner, Germany would still have not invaded the UK. Also, the Expeditionary Force was *not* almost all of the Army. They were still very much an empire at that point. Saying that the BEF was the entirety of the army is, well... Let's just say that it's rather disrespectful to the many, many others from India, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. As I recall, they were a part of the "UK" at the time.
I'm really not sure what to say... That's a rarity... However, it's rather disrespectful unless I'm missing something. I'm also pretty sure that there were troops, from Britain - and the Isles in general, all over the place. As in, all over the place - the Sun never set on the UK at that point. The colonies (or whatever they were calling them then) were still in existence and some of those people dedicated a lot of lives to WWII.
I really don't know what to say...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Were all the independents a bunch of crackpots? Why do so many Americans only feel like they can vote for candidates from the two biggest parties?
The OP said "We understand that there is often a great disparity in beliefs and actions between a nation's political/social/economic elites and the ordinary citizen". This isn't true if you live in a democracy and vote for those people, because they don't just miraculously get those jobs.
And incidentally, as one of the other replies points out: that statement is also wholly inaccurate. I've lived in the US (before that whole stupid, ignorant freedom fries thing that soured relations for a while) and heard American's joking about and bashing the French in ways that border on bigotry. How many times did I hear an American describe the French as smelly for instance? Baseless and normally uttered by people who've never known somebody from France or even been to France.
200k is hundreds of thousands.
Yes, it's possible the "6th biggest city" thing is bollocks, and you can argue endlessly about whether there are more brits outside the UK or frogs outside France but the initial claim "not many [French] going the other way [from France to the UK]" is obvious rubbish. Like I say, I say this as a Brit who moved (permanently) to France.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Randall Munroe did a What If? recently, and concluded that the Sun still doesn't set on the British Empire, but there's times when the only sunshine is on one small and (IIRC) fairly desolate place.
The Dominions had somewhat uncertain status as part of the UK. Australia didn't declare war on Germany, figuring that the British declaration covered them. Australia did declare war separately on Japan. I think the loss of Australian troops in the fall of Tobruk had something to do with that. The worse the Dominions felt treated, the more they wanted independence, apparently.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"...my Dad probably would have been captured by the Germans, and the War might have been lost right there."
Your Dad must have been a hell of a fighter !!
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Yeah, it was kind of odd. I'm not sure if NZ declared war on their own or not. I recall that India did not, they were covered as they were still in the UK. There were a few other (I can't help but call 'em this) colonies that fell into the same line. I want to say that Canada did not declare war on their own either?
As an aside, I'm sure you know this but someone else might come across our conversation, it's impressive to see what was done by Canada and Canadians during WWI and WWII. They're often overlooked in the books and movies. They've really contributed so much. I've had the opportunity to train and serve with them in joint activities. I don't normally have many bad things to say about anyone but I've got nothing bad to say about my experiences in having done so.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
However, in 1939 the New Zealand Army consisted of about 300 men.
I'm not sure if NZ declared war on their own or not.
I'm sure, (I'm a Kiwi). New Zealand declared war on Germany, and there has always been this legend that we actually declared war before Britain, which would have been embarrassing if they'd backed out, but no
Your Dad must have been a hell of a fighter !!
Yeah, might have phrased that badly.
He did wind up in the 2nd Parachute Regiment, and definitely killed German soldiers. That's something he had trouble living with.
To be fair, I think the population of NZ was only like 320 men at that time. ;-) They're not really covered in a lot of media and my memory is pretty fuzzy. So, I'll see what I can remember...
The ANZAC forces were a phenomenal asset. It must have been tough, emotionally, as many of them were brought away from their home soil at the same time Japan was heading their direction. Many people don't know how close Japan got to landing on Oz. Had Japan landed on Oz, things would have been bad. I want to say that Oz had some reservists who fought a rear-guard action off on Papua New Guinea?
Fortunately, the USMC was on the way. They and the USN, depleted though they were, managed to fend them off with a bit of help from some of the island folks who helped keep the Japanese busy. Quite a few Marines ended up in Oz for training and then they did some R&R and some hurry up and wait on Oz later in the war. The first (maybe) island that the Marines landed on was just north of Oz. I don't remember the name of that one either and I'm way too lazy to look.
But, what little there was for ANZAC troops got pulled away to North Africa, India, Hong Kong, Burma, Egypt, Palestine, and even to sit idle (for a spell) in in the British Isles. It was probably a good choice. They were lacking equipment and training. The US was already on the way by the time Japan was really speeding down towards that direction.
It was fairly well known that Japan was starting to spread themselves thin. It was also a bit of a risk that they took because if Japan had managed to land troops on Australia it would have been a pain in the ass to get them out of there and, worse, they'd have continued their abhorrent behaviors. The soldiers were a despicable group of people and it's odd that people try to make excuses for them. (As an aside, my own country and some citizens have done plenty of despicable things and I'm offended by their behavior and call it out when I can.)
Another thing that lots of people don't seem to know is really how close Japan came... I know I already mentioned it but they actually bombed a port and a town in N. Oz. (I forget the name, I think it might begin with the letter M? Port M.?) The citizens had about a dozen rifles or something like that between them. They had few vehicles. They were ordered to run away, as I recall. They'd already dug a bunch of holes and made bomb shelters but they were told to run away - I'm pretty sure. I seem to recall at least one documentary that mentions strafing but I might be conflating it with another attack.
Meh, I'm too lazy to Google. If you're unaware and are curious, I'm sure Google knows the rest of the story and can fix any mistakes in my memory. That should be fairly close to accurate. In all probability, someone knows the rest of the details.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Thanks. Did they declare war officially on Japan and Italy? And yes, yes it would have been rather unfortunate if the UK hadn't decided to go to war with them. I do think that might have been a history changer - but I've never actually given it any thought as to how that might have played out. Hmm... That's gonna take some pondering.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Port Moresby is in Papua New Guinea, technically it was under Australian administration at the time, but I doubt you were thinking of that.
You might be thinking of Darwin.
Yes, I think your right and it was Darwin. I actually did think that and then I was pretty sure it was wrong because it was too easy and the only town I can remember off the top of my head from that area of Australia. I think the Aussies were doing a retreat from Port Moresby or ended up doing one? I seem to recall that there weren't a whole lot of them and that some of them were particularly heroic.
I watch a lot of documentaries. It's pretty much all I watch and I've been watching them for many, many years. I don't really watch regular television very often - I don't even have it hooked up at my home. Which means that they're for entertainment. It's not a scholarly pursuit. Any learning is incidental and a bonus. I can usually remember the general idea, like geographic region, approximate dates, who was involved, maybe some names. I don't recall the specifics and I'm not a walking trivia book. I do admire the people who can do that. I can not. I am not even a historian.
So, yes... I think you're right. I'm way too lazy to go look. ;-) There's a good series called War in the Pacific. I imagine that goes over it. There are a few, not many, documentaries about the ANZAC involvement in WWII and *just* about their involvement. I've only come across a few of them in my travels. I'd like to see some more about the ANZAC, Indians, Polish, and Canada.
Tangentially related...
My current series is "The First World War." That's actually really good. I've seen it a bunch of times. The good thing about not remembering all the dates, names, times, and places? I can watch that series a dozen times and enjoy it and learn something new every time I watch it. If I knew everything, I'd have nothing left to live for. More or less, learning really isn't the goal. Yeah, I try to learn a little but it's really just to entertain myself. I also read a lot so I do learn quite a bit and I retain some of it.
Which leads me to this: If you're curious, I'm sure there's some documentaries on the subject at YouTube. I've bumped into a few of them but not many. There are probably more out there and I've just not found them. They changed the format in TV when the laws changed, sometime around 1986 or 87. I was never big on it before but they went to something like 12 minutes of commercials per hour long program. These days, even a trimmed PBS documentary is only 52 minutes.
Anyhow, I stopped watching much TV around that time (not a hipster, not on a moral crusade - kids still watched it. So, the internet has been a virtual cornucopia of goodness for me. I can find documentaries and even just pick one and let YouTube pick the next one for me and automatically play it. I can search and tick the playlist filter and get a bunch of playlists with similar content. That's something that I really appreciate. I pay for both Netflix and Hulu+ but I've seen all the good ones at Netflix, I only pay for Hulu+ because I keep forgetting to cancel it, and I'm almost always just happy with YouTube.
So, if you're curious about more of the history, just hit YouTube to find a good documentary. I put the subject in and then filter it for long results. That usually will find me something. I often just take that title name, search for that, and then filter the results for playlists. So, first long and then name and then playlist. *nods* There's bound to be something out there. I should probably do the same. I'll put it on my mental list, I've got to finish this series before I move on to the next one.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Google should have never paid a single cent to UK government
That is absolutely correct. We use pounds and pence over here in the UK, and that is what they should be paying their taxes to the UK government in.
CAPTCHA: "Evasion"
Your Dad must have been a hell of a fighter !!
Yeah, might have phrased that badly.
He did wind up in the 2nd Parachute Regiment, and definitely killed German soldiers. That's something he had trouble living with.
Not easy, I'm sure. I think we can all agree that it would have been better all around if the Germans had stayed home to start with.
As I'm sure your Dad knew, sometimes we do what needs to be done because there is no reasonable choice.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial