Sir Ralph

Straight red that. Ungentlemanly conduct

But of a question as to why we didn’t give him a new contract and loan him - aware that is subject to the player agreeing

Fair enough

I wonder whether the bad press will hit the donations. I’m not advocating that but I think it may

You can’t get sacked there that the great thing

Dealing in facts - which crimes has he been convicted of. If he hasn’t he isn’t a criminal - great news that people are donating to these parties. Light at the end of the tunnel in Europe

When I was younger I worked there for a year that was enough for me

I thought we had a breakthrough yesterday as you managed around 6-7 words. 🤩 Today only one though. 🥲

To be fair, the comments were more about insults. You are pretty polite even though we disagree.

This is their standard tactic. They let you have your say for a bit and then attack on mass and name call. I think many of them are unemployed or have cushty jobs in the public sector (hence why they are on here all the time) but they think that by name calling in numbers it somehow makes your points invalid. The tolerant 'centrists'!

I dont think he is saying Blackrock encouraged the war or influenced government (he said that weapons companies like countries joining Nato - the unintended impact was the Ukraine conflict) but that once it started, Blackrocks influence on matters and the financial benefits is dodgy. He stated a number of facts about things that have happened, that are not a matter of opinion - they happended or they didnt. You can say its bollocks but if you cant point to why the stated facts are incorrect thats your problem. Dont debate me but dont comment on things you dont want to back up either.

Ok you can say what he said is rubbish but of what he said, which part is incorrect? I dont think he is saying Blackrock encouraged the war or influenced government (he said that weapons companies like countries joining Nato - the unintended impact was the Ukraine conflict) but that once it started, Blackrocks influence on matters and the financial benefits is dodgy

I don’t think all wars are started because of financial gain (albeit some could be). However once they start, bearing in mind the sums of money and the power plays involved, it’s not surprising there is corruption at the highest levels unfortunately and that’s where decision making by politicians can become too influenced by different factors. I also don’t think it’s specific to people on one side of the political spectrum

Not Gary?. Capitalism obviously isn’t flawless and should be called out when there are issues. Doesn’t mean that, in my opinion, it’s still by far the best system. Unfortunately regardless of the system human nature means that money and power corrupt.

What do you think of it? He makes links and suggests motivation for the continuation of the war and government contract and sales assets decisions.

I thought is was interesting regarding the potential links and essentially corruption. I have checked it out and what he says has basis. In my opinion western leaders ignored putin and dismissed the Ukraine / nato issue for too many years. We should have done better to address the issue. The video does provide an indication as to the motivation in some quarters to encourage Ukraine NATO membership and the benefits of war to certain parties.

v12044gd0000cmd0ltnog65qh6mst7tg.mp4

Ok the Tax Justice Network - very balanced. Anyway that article is from July 2025 only one year after Labour got into power likely using information from less than one year in power. This is out of date. The Adam Smith Institute and the recent Wealth Club survey are more up to date evidence which have a more appropriate period in which to really assess the impacts. For example some people I know that left had just left or were getting ready to leave last summer so wouldn’t have been picked up at the time of your article.

You really are evidence that the education system in this country has failed. What do you mean I don’t have the data? The article is an evidenced based document which states that millionaires have estimated to be reduced to 442k, a reduction of 7% in a year. This is a modelled estimate as (weirdly) the government doesn’t produce figures to support either sides argument. However, in the absence of exact figures from the government it forms an informed evidence base of what is happening (I appreciate this might be difficult for you to understand). My personal experience is that a lot of people have left hence why this started. I was challenged that this was not the case and few people had left. Where is the evidence for their statement that fewer people have left?

The article I provided shows the number of UK millionaires is estimated to have fallen by 7% in a year, to its lowest level since the financial crisis. This includes people who have fallen below the £1m threshold but clearly states a significant portion is because of an anti wealth environment. Equally to support your claim, there are no official figures showing that fewer millionaires are leaving. Where is your evidence to support that claim?

You sound like my wife. Do it now! I don’t like what they have done but they are obligated so they aren’t traitors.

Whether they are doing this the right way or not, they are getting a lot of attention on the particular issue. Main story on sky, the bbc, politicians commenting about them and this forum.

No that’s a wolf not a lapdog. Try again. Good boy

What are you going on about? @tdmickey3is and abusive little lapdog that was my point. He lacks education, class and runs around liking all of his masters posts and trying to back them up with (if we are lucky) three word comments. Embarrassing

You are the most abusive, inarticulate little lapdog of some of the posters on here.