I guess reviewers just have to say something negative. I was spellbound by the performance of the Preludio. Yes, it was fast, but Hilary Hahn used her outstanding virtuosity to bring something new and dazzling to it. I've heard her recording of it dozens of times, and think it's probably the best recording I've heard of the piece - but live was on a completely different level. I'm a violinist, so maybe my judgement is coloured, but I honestly don't think there is another player in the world right now who could so completely overwhelm me with their performance as Hilary Hahn did on Thursday.

Which means to said low margin businesses, it's value less. So why bother?

No, I just imaged what it said. Of course I read the damned thing. I'd have a lot of sympathy for the position if the tax was based on profit, but this idiot wants it based on turnover. This means that capital intensive businesses could well be taxed out of existence. I can think of a lot of business whose margins are small, so a tax levied on turnover would wipe their profit out.

you obviously don't run a business

What a muppet. Tax based on turnover? If he'd said profit, it probably would have some support. But turnover? Idiot

I think you're a bit muddled here. The mechanisms you have listed here are not mechanisms put forward by Leavers - they are attempts by remainers to subvert brexit, which is why the Leavers in parliament are voting against them. You can pretend otherwise, but you'll fool no-one, probably not even yourself.

May has completely messed this up. She lost her courage following her disastrous 2017 election campaign and decided that the only way she could "deliver brexit" was to roll over to the EU. This meant that instead of the progress that David Davis had made, and his clear analytical thinking about tying the divorce bill to a trade agreement, went in the bin.

Had she had an ounce of courage, she would have followed through and we would have left on 29th March with a decent deal.

I rented some property out around twenty years ago. I took the advice of letting agent and permitted (and in fact welcomed) DSS tenants.

This wasn't because I'm all heart - it was a simple commercial decision. In those days, as a landlord, I had the choice of whether or not the DSS paid me directly, or gave the tenant the money who would then pass it on to the landlord.

I always went for the former - and the fact the DSS paid me direct meant I was more or less guaranteed getting paid, so it was a sound commercial decision.

I seem to recall (and no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that in order to "teach claimants financial management" the option for the DSS to pay the landlord direct was removed.

So now we have a somewhat uneducated and I suspect rather unexperienced-in-life councillor exhorting private landlords to not discriminate against DSS tenants and is proposing to legislate for this. But landlords need to make a profit - and let's not forget that the biggest reliever of poverty is capitalism (and therefore profit should not be a dirty word) - and they will no doubt have figured out through bitter experience that DSS tenants know exactly how to manage their money and paying rent isn't always a priority for all of them.

So I guess the main reason for this discrimination is not prejudice, it's simple commercial reality that DSS tenants are often troublesome. Reinstate the facility for the DSS to pay landlords direct, and the problem will go away.

What's slightly worrying is this councillor hasn't worked out that landlords can vote with their feet - as a society we need a vibrant rental sector, but his suggestion will cause more people to exist the market and reduce the number of privately rented properties.

Not only are you delusional. you have zero ability for introspection. Read through our exchange again, and you might just be able to see how you demonstrate conclusively that you live in an echo chamber.

You're clearly delusional. You make it clear you live in an echo chamber where dissenting voices aren't permitted and you cannot engage in debate without being unpleasant. But in your head, this equates to forming opinions from all sides. I was going to recommend you google "open mind" but there's no point as you wouldn't accept the definition, or do anything about your own lack of one.

Given the sentiments expressed in your reply, you come across as someone who is given his political opinions by Momentum.