OneGuyFromBarlick

I think this is the best place for THIS. What are normal people to think when they see that a woman can get almost half a billion Pounds a year.
Is there any sense or reason in this obscene figure?

Ragged Trousered Philanthropist comes to mind. If people are daft enough to give her their money then should we be worried. I suppose the answer to this is yes. Is there something wrong with our education system or are the laws on 'On Line Gambling too lax'?

I suppose you're right Ken. Those points were made by someone defending her this morning, saying she is paying taxes and philanthropy.
As for on line gambling, I'd like all gambling to be taxed into oblivion...... It's as bad as drug addiction with some poor souls. Thank god it never attracted me.

See THIS BBC report on the sackings at Credit Suisse following losses in NY and London which have wiped out their trading profit. There is a link here to Greensill and Mr Cameron. One would imagine that Credit Suisse might be asking some searching questions.

Denise Coates (bet shop lady) - I agree with the High Pay Centre campaign group which said it was "appallingly inefficient for single individuals to hoard wealth in this way". But also and perhaps more importantly I think it's bad to let private individuals through philanthropy make the decisions about who deserves to receive funds. Better for the money to go into the public domain and the decisions be made by people appointed by our elected representatives, for example something like the Charity Commission.

Credit Suisse - just another problem around gambling. Like Denise Coates's victims, they're addicted to risky behaviour.

Tizer wrote: ↑06 Apr 2021, 09:14 Denise Coates (bet shop lady) - I agree with the High Pay Centre campaign group which said it was "appallingly inefficient for single individuals to hoard wealth in this way". But also and perhaps more importantly I think it's bad to let private individuals through philanthropy make the decisions about who deserves to receive funds. Better for the money to go into the public domain and the decisions be made by people appointed by our elected representatives, for example something like the Charity Commission.

Communist Party of China- CPC, 100 years old this month. Sounds like you'll be applying for membership?

China, just because a man is thirsty it doesn't mean he has to jump in the river!
Later. I've just been listening to a man called Paul Tucker who is an adviser on systemic risk in the financial sector being interviewed on Today about the latest failures in London and New York. He was clear and absolutely straightforward and made eminent common sense. He says that the great danger isn't the banks but these financial sideshows like hedge funds and the like. He says that the only time anyone notices them is when they fail and this needs addressing as a matter of urgency. Much more to it than this but the man is well worth seeking out!
(See this LINK. I should have recognised the name.)

chinatyke wrote: ↑06 Apr 2021, 15:38 Communist Party of China- CPC, 100 years old this month. Sounds like you'll be applying for membership?

I did say `decisions be made by people appointed by our elected representatives'!

It's Saturday and I am listening to 'Money Box'. This and the Now Show seem to be a Philip free zone....
There's a man on Money Box saying that it should be compulsory for a firm trading with the public to have a phone line where you could speak meaningfully with a human being. More and more are dispensing with this or making the service inaccessible by under-staffing it. He is absolutely right and we should beware sleepwalking into a situation where there are no phone lines and only arms length access via email or chat lines.

Stanley wrote: ↑10 Apr 2021, 11:23 It's Saturday and I am listening to 'Money Box'. This and the Now Show seem to be a Philip free zone....
There's a man on Money Box saying that it should be compulsory for a firm trading with the public to have a phone line where you could speak meaningfully with a human being. More and more are dispensing with this or making the service inaccessible by under-staffing it. He is absolutely right and we should beware sleepwalking into a situation where there are no phone lines and only arms length access via email or chat lines.

A UK address where letters can be sent I understand is obligatory if someone is taking orders or selling something. I dont think making a phone line compulsory is of itself worthwhile. Having a conversation with a company that the person at the other end correctly does what is requested and they have agreed would be useful though.

A lot of the big businesses have been shifting to automated customer service communications and it's causing a lot of negative comment, even among politicians. In many other cases you can get through to someone but only after having waded through all the pages of advice which usually don't contain what you're looking for. Chat lines are much better than email and often much quicker response than phone lines.

When I started my business in the early 1990s by law all my paperwork, promo material etc had to have a street address. When the web came along it seemed nobody thought to extend the law to web sites and emails too.

About ten years ago Balfour Beatty had the contract for refurbishing the mains water system in Barlick (More than that, 2006 actually!) . In the course of that I had a beef with them about reinstatement of an access hole in our back street and when I rang them found myself talking to the secretary of the CEO! It turned out that the bloke in charge didn't like call centres and wouldn't have one on his watch. I'll bet that had to change but it was refreshing at the time. (Yes, the hole got fixed very quickly!)

Tizer wrote: ↑11 Apr 2021, 10:29

When I started my business in the early 1990s by law all my paperwork, promo material etc had to have a street address. When the web came along it seemed nobody thought to extend the law to web sites and emails too.

I thought the law was drafted wide enough to cover all means of order solitictiation and similar.

The David Cameron scandal grows by the hour.

It seems that the scheme from Greensill was to enable NHS workers (colossal number of people) to be paid early .A sort of 'reverse Klarna'.

Totally pointless. Why would a third party be needed in the NHS payroll scheme. The best guarantor of the wage bill is H M Government. The only motive was to cream off commissions. Tens of millions in the case of Cameron. What benefit would there have been for any NHS worker?

The rules for lobbying set deliberately loose, and then ignored - bcause the MP's knew they would benefit a few years later. Where are the altruistic politicians when you need them? Paul Flynn, and Frank Field - I miss you both.

Eric Pickles says he is 'shocked'. That's Lord Eric who is the
Chair of ACOBA
The role of the Committee is to: provide independent advice to the Government on the application of the government’s Business Appointment Rules to the most senior members of the Civil Service, armed forces, diplomatic service, and intelligence agencies who wish to take up appointments within 2 years of leaving Crown service
provide independent advice directly to former ministers on appointments they wish to take up within 2 years of leaving government


Bullingdon Etonian Boris says he will set up a thorough enquiry into Bullingdon Etonian Dave. Do me a favour. What's the betting he suffers no consequences?

I'm angry . . . .for what good it will do.

I agree with everything you say David. It is so cynical, do a lot of harrumphing, set up a discussion on the sofa at Number Ten with a friendly 'independent' lawyer and job done. We've seen the same trick pulled scores of times.
As for the Greensill 'big idea', it was nothing but another cunning financial wheeze and only had one benefit, it fiddled money out of the government legally for the promoters.

Mrs P's comment "why when we all know it'll be a whitewash are we wasting more taxpayers money on it"?

And very understandable but we can't just stand on one side, we have to shout loudly when we see these tired old tricks being used time and time again.
if we shout loud enough they'll think it's a movement!

The Mat Hancock cock-up really all depends on the time line of events but having said that when I hear 'ministers do not allocate contracts' I suspect someone is trying to deflect attention away from the real issue. Contracts should be allocated through the Whitehall system but the nod nod wink wink is the thing that lights the fuse round a cup of coffee.

Mrs P's point was 'if your going to have an investigation then do it correctly'.

Back to the banks... Remember that the previous Help to Buy scheme was only available on brand new houses, not S/H ones? The new version of the Government scheme will be on both old and new houses. But the banks have finally realised that the exorbitant prices put on new homes will likely cause exposure of the banks and house-owners to too much risk...
`UK banks exclude new homes from low-deposit mortgage scheme: Lenders wary of helping first-time buyers of new-builds judged vulnerable to price falls' LINK
`Britain’s largest banks are refusing to provide low-deposit mortgages to buyers of new-build properties because of concerns about inflated prices, prompting warnings from housebuilders of a potential drop in the supply of new homes. The government will on Monday launch a new scheme designed to help buyers on to the housing ladder by encouraging banks to lend up to 95 per cent of a property’s value. The country’s largest banks have agreed to join the scheme, but have told brokers and developers that they will not lend against brand new homes..'.

Never saw this before - still find it hard to digest. I may need a lie down.

I got a refund from payal to my credit card, which resulted in a debit balance of 48p.

They say "trivial balance - written off" Outstanding balance zero.

Wow.

Those who can concentrate / keep awake long enough to read the Pendle housing commitment programme will see that their estimates on new housing prices includes a 17% minimum mark up value. Assuming a new build drops back to its nominal basic value a bank would be 12% in the red and the purchaser 17% in negative equity. The whole point of stimulating the housing market is to boost the additional spend on furniture etc: etc; but if they are already overpriced Ref Tizer + 40% price rise in 10 years, wages probably less than 5% after inflation then the housing market doesn't look too stable. The banks are not stupid when its their own money that's at risk.

Tripps wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 10:50 Never saw this before - still find it hard to digest. I may need a lie down.

I got a refund from payal to my credit card, which resulted in a debit balance of 48p.

They say "trivial balance - written off" Outstanding balance zero.

Wow.

Ebay have just changed from using Paypal for payments and deductions to direct into a bank account of your choice. No options, Paypal will be discontinued as a payment method next month I believe. I mention it because to set up and verify the nominated bank account, Ebay send two consecutive micro payments to your account, the value of which you have to confirm. Mine were 0.01p followed by 0.03p, all confirmed. You then get an email to say that the payments will be recovered over the next few days. Look after the pennies, ( or portion thereof) and the pounds will look after themselves.

"Mrs P's point was 'if your going to have an investigation then do it correctly'."
And quite right too Ken, a quiet chat on the sofa in Number 10 with a lawyer already connected to the Tory Party doesn't cut it.
Ebay and Paypal. I can remember when the customer had the choice of how to pay and the world seemed to go on quite nicely.
David, if my bank began to decide what was 'trivial' I would be complaining. I'd like them to be accurate and efficient, not easy going.
Peter, the housing market is and has been for a long time, a disgrace. The loans to first time buyers were always a mistake and were credited with jacking up house prices all round. As for Council Houses and houses available for low rent, forget it every target missed. The Tories see universal house ownership as the goal not affordable rents and yet take every opportunity to keep wages low. Look at the disconnect between 'The Living Wage' and the cost of housing. 60 years ago I was on a pitifully low wage and bought a house and seven acres of land with a loan from the bank. What went wrong? It's one of the biggest con tricks of all time.

Stanley wrote: ↑18 Apr 2021, 03:13 What went wrong? It's one of the biggest con tricks of all time.

You can only deal with the situation that applies at the time I'd say. That quote implies that there is a master plan to control it all. I'm still trying to find a word that covers it - where an outcome emerges from a very complex situation, and many say it was intended rather than serendipitous / random.

E.g. there is much less use of cash now - so the conspiracy theorists say that's what 'they' planned to happen.





.

PanBiker wrote: ↑17 Apr 2021, 14:56 Mine were 0.01p followed by 0.03p, all confirmed.

Do you really mean pennies, not £ or $?. If yes, then are we going to start seeing goods priced to the second decimal place? They'll be selling things at £9.9999 next!