Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » British Broadcorping Castration

British Broadcorping Castration

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11, 12, 13  Next

Go down  Message [Page 5 of 13]

121British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 13:16

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:Unless I'm doing something wrong £100k for 0.00075% value's the business massively more than £13.4m

Think of it this way if he's spent £100k for 0.00075% then if he had paid double that he would then have  0.00150% of it, double that again (£400k) he's up to 0.00300%, double it yet again, (£800k) 0.00600% and again (£1.6m) for 0.01200% and so on...

So he would have spent a number of millions just to own 1% of the business, valuing the whole business a hundred times more than that!

If the business was valued at £13.4m and say I bought £1m of it, I would have bought 13.4% of it so a tenth of that (£100k) would be 1.34% would it not.

Not that I've got a spare £100k with a daughter who spends money faster than I could earn it.  She is though environmentally aware and business naive like most her generation and I could see how people could well fete Vance for his image of being a 'green' businessman rather than look to understand how doggedly he's built his fortune on the back of it as such.

People tend only to see what is put in front of them and accept it as being so - you only have to look at all the conspiracy theories and how they spread like wildfire on social media and how even many people with professions (and you would have thought had a brain in their head), believe them too!

That's how it is theses days, probably was so in our days too but without the internet being available back then, being not so immediate or widespread.

As they say, 'there's one born every minute' and as WC Fields said 'never give a sucker an even break' and add to it social media, then is it any wonder people tend not to question what goes on for fear of being ridiculed and out of step with everyone else - look at the shit we endured for simply pointing out how Anderson in his actions of running a business that is close to or at insolvency actually wasn't raping and pillaging the club as the vast majority believed (and many still do!).

Sometimes I wonder if it's worth speaking up and doing the right thing, I imagine for someone younger and not financial secure like we are, who do live their lives on social media like their generation seem to do, standing against the crowd knowing you are right and they are under the wrong illusions, must be an incredibly hard thing to do and not a price worth paying for most of them - and I couldn't blame them for keeping their heads down instead.

Guess that's why we live in the world we now do!
Knock the percentage off and calculate it as a decimal and I think you'll get there, Sluffy. Decimals of percentages often cause a bit of confusion. It can be quite difficult to get your head around less than one tenth of one percent.

I do wonder if young Bellerin understood that it wasn't much of an investment but it seems that Vince wasn't for conceding much to his young admirer in return for his £100K. All a bit of a PR exercise in which the Beeb was a willing participant but £100K into the coffers is not to be sniffed at in present circs.

I still think that there are very few that understood what Ken Anderson's role was at BWFC. Maybe one or two from our efforts but not many.

122British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 13:36

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Sorry I haven't read too closely, but what is it Bellerin's being accused of here by Bob?

123British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 14:14

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry I haven't read too closely, but what is it Bellerin's being accused of here by Bob?
Well off people dodging tax. Really? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

124British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 14:52

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Knock the percentage off and calculate it as a decimal and I think you'll get there, Sluffy. Decimals of percentages often cause a bit of confusion. It can be quite difficult to get your head around less than one tenth of one percent.

I do wonder if young Bellerin understood that it wasn't much of an investment but it seems that Vince wasn't for conceding much to his young admirer in return for his £100K. All a bit of a PR exercise in which the Beeb was a willing participant but £100K into the coffers is not to be sniffed at in present circs.

I still think that there are very few that understood what Ken Anderson's role was at BWFC. Maybe one or two from our efforts but not many.

Thanks.

A very long time ago since I had to do sums like those but surely if £100k = 0.00075% then surely £200k would be 0.00075% + 0.00075% = 0.00150% would it not - and so on accordingly?

Anyway it's not important.

Seems to me that the football club has issued more shares (at £10 per share) - up from 10,275,000 on the 6th June 2016 - to 13,300,000 on the 8th April, 2020 and a further amount to the value of £100,000 yesterday (no doubt this is Bellerin's money I would assume).

All shares seemed to be paid up so I guess Ecotricity Group Ltd (owned by Vince) who has a significant shareholding of over 75% had put (all?) the money in but has since sold/given/transferred? these shares now a new company Green Britain Group Limited which Dale is the sole owner of and which took significant control from Ecotricity Group Ltd on the 21st September - the day before Bellerin put in his money!

As far as I understand from Bob, the revenue to Ecotricity is largely funded (or was?) by the government subsidies - ie mine and your money - but it would now seem on the face of it at least that Mr Vince has put himself in a position to sell FGR if he desired to do so bought by taxpayer money but any sale going directly to him personally now!

Maybe I've got my wires tangled somehow and this isn't actually the case (I don't want to get sued or anything!) but it does seem Mr Vince looks as though he could do personally very well out of all this at the taxpayers expense - and I think that's the root of why Bob's been on his tail so much particularly from when he threatened to put our club in a perilous position in respect of his dealings with Ken over the Doidge deal.

The Bellerin contribution of £100k for shares from a company he owns seemingly to avoid paying tax on his earnings, and 'trumpeted' by a corporation and individuals of that corporation who themselves have worked to manipulate ways of individual tax avoidance seems to be too much for Bob to stomach and hence the birth of this thread.

I think that's the position anyway!

Very Happy

125British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 14:56

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@boltonbonce wrote:
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry I haven't read too closely, but what is it Bellerin's being accused of here by Bob?
Well off people dodging tax. Really? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

I really don't think he does.

Bears do though, or are you suggesting the catholic church is led by a bear?

You're going to go to Hell for this if you are (and believe in such stuff!)

126British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 15:12

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
As Bonce says rich people will always find ways to minimise the tax they pay - or probably more accurate to say that teams of financial experts and accountants are paid a fortune to do that for the rich, who sit back and watch their money grow.

The only way to deal with it would be to put a government in place who are actually interested in tackling the issue. 

So if you voted Tory at the last election, you'd better put a sock in it Bobbo.

127British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 15:27

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Sluffy wrote:

I really don't think he does.

Bears do though, or are you suggesting the catholic church is led by a bear?

You're going to go to Hell for this if you are (and believe in such stuff!)



British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 5hY7d902K6kf2gPaCzZ2mupYE9AcwDd-En65QpnJri37uFXfS1Inu8y0qnv83hRZscg35pFdA0D0JOGcwuPo1ySK

128British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 15:42

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:As Bonce says rich people will always find ways to minimise the tax they pay - or probably more accurate to say that teams of financial experts and accountants are paid a fortune to do that for the rich, who sit back and watch their money grow.

The only way to deal with it would be to put a government in place who are actually interested in tackling the issue. 

So if you voted Tory at the last election, you'd better put a sock in it Bobbo.

Oh come on!

You don't have to be rich or vote Tory to avoid paying taxes - how about all those who want to be paid cash in hand - or those offering cash in hand - to save the taxman seeing his money?

And people fiddle their benefits - it's amazing how many people claim the single person Council Tax discount when they clearly aren't on their own.

People rich or poor, Tory or Labour can be dishonest - and are so.

It's only fools like me that seem to play by the rules but at least I don't need to keep looking over my shoulder all the time.

People do what they do, it's got nothing to do with politics or being rich, it's all about themselves finding ways to fiddle the system that educates their children, provides free health care, gives them a house over their heads and money in their pockets - or if you are rich and go private for all of those, a police force and army for a safe and security country to live in, roads to drive on, public lighting when its dark, a free refuse service, religious freedom, and a means to work and earn money in a safe environment and without being exploited.

Still doesn't stop them putting themselves first though and fuck everyone else.





129British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 15:45

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Sorry, you've missed my point.

I'm saying there's no point going after the individuals (rich or poor), while what they do is perfectly legal - in this instance Bellerin, or Lineker.

The only way to really clamp down is to close loopholes and change the law - which is on the government to do.

The Tories are not interested in doing this though.



Last edited by T.R.O.Y. on Wed Sep 23 2020, 16:14; edited 1 time in total

130British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 16:06

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:

Thanks.

A very long time ago since I had to do sums like those but surely if £100k = 0.00075% then surely £200k would be 0.00075% + 0.00075% = 0.00150% would it not - and so on accordingly?

Anyway it's not important.

Seems to me that the football club has issued more shares (at £10 per share) - up from 10,275,000 on the 6th June 2016 - to 13,300,000 on the 8th April, 2020 and a further amount to the value of £100,000 yesterday (no doubt this is Bellerin's money I would assume).

All shares seemed to be paid up so I guess Ecotricity Group Ltd (owned by Vince) who has a significant shareholding of over 75% had put (all?) the money in but has since sold/given/transferred? these shares now a new company Green Britain Group Limited which Dale is the sole owner of and which took significant control from Ecotricity Group Ltd on the 21st September - the day before Bellerin put in his money!

As far as I understand from Bob, the revenue to Ecotricity is largely funded (or was?) by the government subsidies - ie mine and your money - but it would now seem on the face of it at least that Mr Vince has put himself in a position to sell FGR if he desired to do so bought by taxpayer money but any sale going directly to him personally now!

Maybe I've got my wires tangled somehow and this isn't actually the case (I don't want to get sued or anything!) but it does seem Mr Vince looks as though he could do personally very well out of all this at the taxpayers expense - and I think that's the root of why Bob's been on his tail so much particularly from when he threatened to put our club in a perilous position in respect of his dealings with Ken over the Doidge deal.

The Bellerin contribution of £100k for shares from a company he owns seemingly to avoid paying tax on his earnings, and 'trumpeted' by a corporation and individuals of that corporation who themselves have worked to manipulate ways of individual tax avoidance seems to be too much for Bob to stomach and hence the birth of this thread.

I think that's the position anyway!

Very Happy
Had another look at this, Sluffy. I had thought that the previous shares were one pound shares issued at a premium but they are not. They are all £10 shares.

Bellerin (it must be him) has bought 10,000 shares for £100,000 and now owns 10,000 out of 1,340,704 shares in issue.

More than I first thought but still less than one percent.

The total money paid for the shares is £13,407,040, all but £100K of which has come from Ecotricity Group (EG). 

EG still owns more than 99% of FGR but FGR has actually lost more than that. 

The small surplus on FGR's balance sheet is the result of revaluations as is most of the surplus showing on EG's balance sheet.

EG is funded, not by Vince, but on debt and those debts have been enlarged by the amount spent on FGR.

So when you've stripped away the veneer, the only real equity investment in FGR is Bellerin's £100K.

If the shares in FGR were sold EG would get 99.25% and Bellerin 0.75%.

EG is owned by Green Britain Group which is wholly owned by Dale Vince.

Quite interesting if you like that sort of thing. A number of other interesting questions in there too but lets not get too complex in one posting.

P.S. There are different degrees of tax avoidance but its not this angle quite so much as the hypocrisy, shoddy journalism and the worship of the sleb culture that I find irritating. And I'm not too fond of public money being squandered, no questions asked, either.



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Wed Sep 23 2020, 16:27; edited 2 times in total

131British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 16:14

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry, you've missed my point.

I'm saying there's no point going after the individuals (rich or poor), while what they do is perfectly legal - in this instance Bellerin, or Lineker.

The only way to really clamp down is to close loopholes and change the law - which is what is on the government to do.

The Tories are not interested in doing this though.

Ah ok then, I now see what you are saying but apologies you not strictly correct in your assumption that it is the government being tardy/not actioning/putting up barriers to change the law on tax avoidance schemes, it's far more to do with HMRC proving in court they are in fact tax evasion schemes in the first instance.

I'm not aware of any British government of any political party not acting on HMRC recommendations over closing know loopholes or previously schemes claimed to be within the law as tax avoidance schemes, when in fact they were proved to have been set up to 'evade' tax payments.

For instance it was the Tory government of 2015 that closed the 'perfectly legal' loophole that enriched Vince by millions in the first place.

https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/13345912.strouds-dale-vince-hits-out-at-government-over-decision-to-end-wind-farm-subsidies/

132British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 16:28

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:Had another look at this, Sluffy. I had thought that the previous shares were one pound shares issued at a premium but they are not. They are all £10 shares.

Bellerin (it must be him) has bought 10,000 shares for £100,000 and now owns 10,000 out of 1,340,704 shares in issue.

More than I first thought but still less than one percent.

The total money paid for the shares is £13,407,040, all but £100K of which has come from Ecotricity Group (EG). 

EG still owns more than 99% of FGR but FGR has actually lost more than that. 

The small surplus on FGR's balance sheet is the result of revaluations as is most of the surplus showing on EG's balance sheet.

EG is funded, not by Vince, but on debt and those debts have been enlarged by the amount spent on FGR.

So when you've stripped away the veneer, the only real equity investment in FGR is Bellerin's £100K.

If the shares in FGR were sold EG would get 99.25% and Bellerin 0.75%.

EG is owned by Green Britain Group which is wholly owned by Dale Vince.

Quite interesting if you like that sort of thing. A number of other interesting questions in there too but lets not get too complex in one posting.

Yes, thank you, that makes a great deal more sense to me now.

I've not bothered to look what the debt is nor what the clubs assets are valued at but if they are in surplus Vince would own 99.25% of them!

Still not bad after no putting a single penny of his own money into the club!

Maybe with the virus and Bellerin's interest perhaps he's looking for an exit strategy to rid himself of the club which I doubt will be trading at a self sustainable level anytime soon.

I guess you might say he's considering pulling up his drawbridge of his castle possibly?

British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 23E2389200000578-2865950-image-m-12_1418086476963

133British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 16:41

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:

Ah ok then, I now see what you are saying but apologies you not strictly correct in your assumption that it is the government being tardy/not actioning/putting up barriers to change the law on tax avoidance schemes, it's far more to do with HMRC proving in court they are in fact tax evasion schemes in the first instance.

I'm not aware of any British government of any political party not acting on HMRC recommendations over closing know loopholes or previously schemes claimed to be within the law as tax avoidance schemes, when in fact they were proved to have been set up to 'evade' tax payments.

For instance it was the Tory government of 2015 that closed the 'perfectly legal' loophole that enriched Vince by millions in the first place.

https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/13345912.strouds-dale-vince-hits-out-at-government-over-decision-to-end-wind-farm-subsidies/

Sorry, now im confused. You said it's not on the government to close tax loopholes. Then send a link showing where the government have closed tax loopholes?

134British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 17:28

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:

Ah ok then, I now see what you are saying but apologies you not strictly correct in your assumption that it is the government being tardy/not actioning/putting up barriers to change the law on tax avoidance schemes, it's far more to do with HMRC proving in court they are in fact tax evasion schemes in the first instance.

I'm not aware of any British government of any political party not acting on HMRC recommendations over closing know loopholes or previously schemes claimed to be within the law as tax avoidance schemes, when in fact they were proved to have been set up to 'evade' tax payments.

For instance it was the Tory government of 2015 that closed the 'perfectly legal' loophole that enriched Vince by millions in the first place.

https://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/13345912.strouds-dale-vince-hits-out-at-government-over-decision-to-end-wind-farm-subsidies/

Sorry, now im confused. You said it's not on the government to close tax loopholes. Then send a link showing where the government have closed tax loopholes?

Think of there being two separate elements, one being deliberate evasion based on schemes purportedly designed to be tax avoidance schemes and the second where governments have set up schemes such as subsidies to encourage people to participate.

The first aims to use existing laws and regulations and work within them to design ways of helping their clients to avoid paying tax, some are designed in such a way however that they are structured in such a way to deliberately seek to evade tax, which of course is illegal.

The second whilst being entirely legal may be subject to manipulation by some in ways that had not been thought of - and not the intended aim of the scheme itself.

The former way can only be resolved by taking the tax 'avoidance' scheme to court and prove it was an intended 'evasion' scheme - in order to recover the lost tax revenue, the later being an unintended consequence of the scheme that had not been considered as profligate with taxpayers money.

In the former case HMRC would redraft the tax regulations to outlaw those types of evasion issues for the future and pass it into legislation at the first appropriate time thereafter (probably the budget) and in the later the Department involved would  redraft and amend the appropriate legislation in the law brining about the subsidies in the first place - in Vince's case, closing it down in its entirety.

In neither case the government as such will 'close' down the 'loopholes', the former would be done by the courts, the latter by Parliament on voting for the amendment to the existing Act.

Sorry if I've confused you by oversimplifying in my original reply (and to an extent this one as well) but if you did scroll down to the bottom of the link I sent you, you will note that both the article and myself in my posts use the term 'government' as a colloquialism as such with the correct reference we both should have said in this particular instance being The Department of Energy and Climate Change and which as I've mentioned above would be subject to a vote in Parliament.

Governments put forwards 'policies' but it is Parliament that votes them into law and thus closes the loopholes/change in direction.

I hope that makes things a little bit clearer?

If not I sent you the following link previous (or one identical to it) which might do a much better job than I have -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#United_Kingdom

135British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 18:57

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Okay, thanks but I don’t think that clarification negates the point.

I don’t think this government see closing tax loopholes as a priority.

136British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 20:23

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Okay, thanks but I don’t think that clarification negates the point.

I don’t think this government see closing tax loopholes as a priority.

You're absolutely right.

I think with Covid and Brexit they've got more urgent thinks to deal with right now.

137British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 20:34

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Sure, but I’m talking about the ideology of conservatism, and the Tory party’s record since 2010.

If bob’s so concerned about tax loopholes being shut, he’d best not vote Tory.

138British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 20:59

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sure, but I’m talking about the ideology of conservatism, and the Tory party’s record since 2010.

If bob’s so concerned about tax loopholes being shut, he’d best not vote Tory.

I've no idea how he votes, that's his personal business anyway and the ideology of the Conservative party (as I was taught anyway), was to be the party of LOW taxation and therefore one where tax evasion and loopholes would be at a minimum anyway!

If anything the link I posted about Vince earlier was the Tory party shutting a 'loophole' created by the Labour Party in the first place!!!

Which in view of our conversation is somewhat ironic don't you think?

Well I did anyway!

Come on you've got to laugh at life sometimes!

Very Happy

139British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 21:11

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
The story’s about the Tories not wanting to pay subsidies to support wind farming any more. They did that because their priority is to cut government spending over supporting low carbon power.

They did not cut it to close a tax loophole.

140British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 22:09

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:The story’s about the Tories not wanting to pay subsidies to support wind farming any more. They did that because their priority is to cut government spending over supporting low carbon power.

They did not cut it to close a tax loophole.

To be honest I have no interest in wind farms, Ecotricity, Dale Vince, FGR, Bellerin, politics, the Conservative Party, Tax loopholes, Gary Lineker, Sue Barker, MOTD, QoS and more or less everything else on this thread so why I'm even bothering to reply is strictly out of courtesy to you.

All I know from the article itself is that the subsidies were removed a year earlier than planned and only for land based wind farming and NOT offshore wind farming and the reason being was two fold, first to push them to become self sustainable rather than rely on government subsidies and secondly to allow local authorities powers to grant/refuse planning permissions for proposed wind farms in their areas.

If the reason was to cut spending over low carbon power then surely they would have reduced subsidies for ALL wind farms and not just land based ones?

At which point I bow out of something that happened four years ago before a world pandemic hit and well before Brexit becomes a reality but which is clearly a burning issue for yourself and clearly something the Tory party should have high up on their political agenda in your opinion.

I was going to post the following somewhere but I guess here's as good as place as anywhere seeing your political mantra seems to have started again -

The office smells of new paint.

The leader of the opposition's lair in one of Parliament's more faded buildings still has the same vintage Labour posters on the walls, but the decorators have been to in to freshen up the place.

What Sir Keir Starmer is aiming for is more than a bit of smartening-up. Above all right now, five months into post, the Labour leader wants to draw a line under all the controversies of the Corbyn era, to draw the bitterness out of the party's quarrels and to shout as loudly as he can to the public that things have changed.

This means, in contrast to his oh-so-careful language during the leadership campaign, that he is being blunt - very blunt.

On Tuesday, he told the party and the public that Labour deserved to lose the last election.

On Wednesday, he told us that the party had "betrayed" voters by failing to win and "gifted the Tories a decade or more in power".

Drawing a line under the last five years in order to move on is achingly obviously his priority. Many on Labour's left are irritated by his now very public attitude to the past. But for some of Sir Keir's backers, they are annoying precisely the right people.

What is less clear is the kind of conclusions the Labour leader wants the public to draw about what he would actually do if he won power.

His attack on the government is on competence. His increasingly harsh criticism of the prime minister, of his character.

The job is huge to get Labour in the kind of state it needs to be in 2024, and it's understandable that right now he is reluctant to give more than vaguely pleasant sounding promises about his and the party's values. There are four years to the next general election after all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54273797

In fact he's just saying what I've said a number of times before on here namely that people voted Tory NOT for Johnson but because they DIDN'T WANT Corbyn!

Johnson was seen to be the LEAST WORST option.

As the saying goes - sometimes we get what we deserve!

Power to the people and all that!



Very Happy

141British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 22:46

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
I’m a Labour Party member, think Starmer is doing fine so far but hasn’t needed to do much. Interestingly he’s winning over a lot of swing voters looking for a more steady ‘central’ option, which can only be a good thing. I’d prefer someone more left wing but it’s more important to be in power.

I don’t see the relevance to my point though. Do you actually have any points to make in relation to my response to Bob - because it feels like this is just drifting now.

142British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Wed Sep 23 2020, 23:31

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:I’m a Labour Party member, think Starmer is doing fine so far but hasn’t needed to do much. Interestingly he’s winning over a lot of swing voters looking for a more steady ‘central’ option, which can only be a good thing. I’d prefer someone more left wing but it’s more important to be in power.

I don’t see the relevance to my point though. Do you actually have any points to make in relation to my response to Bob - because it feels like this is just drifting now.

Bob can speak for himself, I only chipped in because you seemed initially to me to suggest only the Tory's didn't play straight and when you clarified your remark, seemed to suggest the government was somehow purposely turning a blind eye of sorts to tax avoidance/government wastage of subsidies, to which I again attempted to enlighten you about how such matters work in practice rather than under the global banner of 'government'.

Personally I think Labour has thrown away a generation of power with the Corbyn ideological experiment as I would have expected Burnham to have rightfully become Labour Party leader and played a major role in supporting Remain in the referendum even possibly tilting the result in its favour - as opposed to Corbyn and Labours virtual anonymity during the campaigning leading up to the vote and even if the result had remained the same Burnham stood a chance of defeating the ineffectual May at the snap election and even if he had gone at that time and replaced, Starmer would have been preferable to Johnson than most I would suggest at the last election where Labour was crushed to death.

Instead as Starmer himself said, it looks as though Labour will be out of power for the next decade at least.

Was all that worth it for a left-wing ideological sojourn in opposition power that anyone with half a brain could tell you was completely unelectable by the vast majority of the electorate???

Christ you didn't need any Russian meddling in the elections or referendum when you had Corbyn and the Corbynistas standing against you to achieve a guaranteed win.

A wasted opportunity and the most damaging passage of political carnage in my lifetime, with an unwanted Brexit and right wing political activists dismantling/wrecking the Civil Service and moving towards Presidential type rule rather than Parliamentary democracy.

A hefty price to pay to try out a left wing dream that was doomed from the start.

I have hopes for Starmer but the damage has already been done.

I did like this bit of what you said though...

@T.R.O.Y. wrote:I’d prefer someone more left wing but it’s more important to be in power.

First rule of politics - do what it takes to achieve power - see you're learning!

Very Happy

143British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Thu Sep 24 2020, 07:17

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
You haven’t ‘enlightened’ this debate though Sluffy, you’ve misread something and then quibbled over definitions and are now trying to drag the focus onto Corbyn in a last ditch attempt to get off topic.

Ultimately the government are responsible for closing tax loopholes, so if Bob’s so worried he should start by voting for a party concerned with changing that. Its the only way he’ll make a difference on the issue.

Equally, if you feel so strongly about the Labour party’s recent direction you should start by at least using your democratic right to a vote, or even better join the Labour Party and get involved - it’s very easy to do nothing, sit on the fence and criticise in hindsight - but ultimately you have an opportunity to do something with your opinions at the ballot box and you’ve decided not to take that option, so why should I take you seriously on this?

144British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Thu Sep 24 2020, 10:09

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
T.R.O.Y. is wasting your time, Sluffy, but Rishi Sunak's about to make an announcement today which should be interesting.

One of the first things he did as Chancellor was to slash the lifetime Entrepreneur Relief allowance from £10m to £1m. Not giving you any clues but can you guess who had already taken advantage of the £10m giveaway?

145British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Thu Sep 24 2020, 10:43

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Talk of "enlightening" others is patronising.

146British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Thu Sep 24 2020, 10:49

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:

Yes, thank you, that makes a great deal more sense to me now.

I've not bothered to look what the debt is nor what the clubs assets are valued at but if they are in surplus Vince would own 99.25% of them!

Still not bad after no putting a single penny of his own money into the club!

Maybe with the virus and Bellerin's interest perhaps he's looking for an exit strategy to rid himself of the club which I doubt will be trading at a self sustainable level anytime soon.

I guess you might say he's considering pulling up his drawbridge of his castle possibly?

British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 23E2389200000578-2865950-image-m-12_1418086476963
He says he's got another FGR 'investor' lined up, Sluffy. Wait for the announcement through the usual channels sans the nitty gritty.

147British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Thu Sep 24 2020, 11:51

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:You haven’t ‘enlightened’ this debate though Sluffy, you’ve misread something and then quibbled over definitions and are now trying to drag the focus onto Corbyn in a last ditch attempt to get off topic.

Ultimately the government are responsible for closing tax loopholes, so if Bob’s so worried he should start by voting for a party concerned with changing that. Its the only way he’ll make a difference on the issue.

Equally, if you feel so strongly about the Labour party’s recent direction you should start by at least using your democratic right to a vote, or even better join the Labour Party and get involved - it’s very easy to do nothing, sit on the fence and criticise in hindsight - but ultimately you have an opportunity to do something with your opinions at the ballot box and you’ve decided not to take that option, so why should I take you seriously on this?

I see you're back to arguing again just for arguing sake.

Your default position.

The way you present yourself on here is the everything's the Tory's fault and everything would be better under a left wing Labour Party.

That's just pure idealism and a total naivety about the real world we live in.

Starmer knows that and that's why he's dumped that part of his party as quickly and as decisively as he could.  Kinnock did the same thing years ago too.

Don't blame me and the millions of other voters - particularly in heartland Labour seats who abstained or voted Tory because Corbyn and his followers (which I assume you are) wanted to build a left wing socialist utopia here that people simply have never wanted.

Hasn't the penny dropped yet that if the electorate REPEATEDLY vote for people such as Johnson given an alternative choice of one other - Corbyn or his ilk - think Thatcher against Foot from a generation back also, then you've learned nothing other that prove Einstein's saying is correct - “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

I don't want any part of electing in a loony left government any more than vote for Boris, that's why I don't bother with politics, you are both as bad as each other.  

As for judging what I do/don't do then here's another saying that if you might do well to ponder on 'first remove the plank out of your own eye so you can see clearly before taking the speck of dust out of my, (or anyone else's), eye'.

148British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Thu Sep 24 2020, 11:56

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Why is the left 'Loony'?  I find it offensive.

149British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Thu Sep 24 2020, 12:02

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@boltonbonce wrote:Why is the left 'Loony'?  I find it offensive.

Have you read your posts back to yourself?

150British Broadcorping Castration - Page 5 Empty Re: British Broadcorping Castration on Thu Sep 24 2020, 12:04

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Natasha Whittam wrote:

Have you read your posts back to yourself?
Razz

Back to top  Message [Page 5 of 13]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11, 12, 13  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum