egg

HL have some shockers on their wealth shortlist. Example. They back Baillie Gifford Managed which has been awful over the past 5 years, albeit it's had a solid last year or so. Managed funds like M&G Managed Growth, and countless others, consistently blow it out of the water. Sounds like you've done it well. I've got friends who manage their pots really well and If I was 10 years younger I think I'd keep self investing, but I want to put my feet up relatively soon, so needed to leave it to someone else. I'll miss the excitement of it though.

Yep. Awful defender. Bree at RB should be one of Still's easier choices.

It's Turk's money, so whether he goes DIY or pays someone is up to him. I can only speak from experience, and I reckon my retirement would be arriving a couple of years sooner if I'd acknowledged sooner that others are better at managing my cash than me!

I'd caution against suggesting to someone to pick a managed fund. I've got loads of managed funds, and had others which I've ditched. The performance between them is so variable it's ridiculous. I spread my risk, and research via Trustnet and others, but I've got it wrong big time. I don't think people can safely pick between managed funds which may be, for example, US focused as against UK focused, 20% bonds or more, or all stock. It's an absolute minefield and a decent IFA will have access to decent people to pick the managed funds, and change when necessary.

I hadn't noticed that, cheers. You'd expect the BBC to get it's own headline right!

One property, no. A portfolio, yes, and only then with limited company ownership, especially for higher rate tax payers. One or two, in your own name, ain't great in void periods, and mortgage interest is not tax deductable. Own within a company and the mortgage interest is tax deductable, and the profits can be used to fund tax deductable pension payments. Far more sensible than paying tax on rent on non company owned property.

Although I agree with that, some managed funds are rubbish, and some attract chunky fees on top of the HL platform. I've enjoyed managing mine, but I've had to concede that I'm shit at it and cost myself a lot of money with some of my choices.

For me, it's about the unjustness of a process against the other fella, being used as a device for Torode to be found "guilty" in his absence, and without having an opportunity to state his case. That's wholly unfair. I don't have an issue with investigations happening years after the event, justice has to catch up with people. It just has to be a fair process, and the punishment proportional. Sacking Torode feels strong.

I currently use HL for my SIPP (I consolidated too) and it is a decent platform. The platform fee is high though, and do you really trust yourself to make sound investment decisions? I've made all sorts of mistakes and am in the process of handing mine over to an IFA. I'd ignore the last 2 months. It's not growth as such, it's mostly wiping out earlier losses after Trump's nonsense. If you've got a decent pot, I'd suggest finding a recommended IFA and leaving them to it - it shouldn't cost much if any more than the HL platform fees.

Unless I'm missing something, the allegation against Torode was found to be factually correct as part of a process that didn't involve him. Feels very odd.

Nobody from this side of the channel is stopping boats coming across open water and people claiming asylum.

No chance the Corbyn figure is correct, but I don't doubt that Reform are there or thereabouts. The masses are backing them, sadly.

I think it's the best in a long time, although I'd have preferred to see the stripes carry on over the shoulder and down the back.

One kid will have been to a cafe where a few Hamas blokes had a chat, or some similar pathetic excuse to take out all of them. Also today, so far, at least 20 Palestinians killed after Israeli forces bombed a house in the Nuseirat camp; drones have targeted a group of Palestinians at a public market in Gaza killing at least a dozen people and wounding many more; two Palestinian women have been killed in an Israeli strike on a tent camp for displaced people in al-Mawasi in southern Gaza. Yesterday at least 110 Palestinians were killed, including 34 who were shot near the only functioning food distribution site. Appalling, and it won't stop

Great list. Under the Pressure is immense. Almost 9 minutes of brilliance.

"Be tougher". Yeah, that clarifies what they should have done. Nice detail mate👏 I'm glad you're irritated. It comes from people giving the kind of half arsed answers that you specialise in.

I've given a far more comprehensive answer than your vague answer. The issue last year wasn't that we weren't "tougher" (a bollox vague term), but that it wasn't a multi year deal, and that the door was left open. As I've said, not tying that up was a failure.

Ooh, I can't be specific Hypo. Just be tough. In all seriousness, how can any of us say how negotiations will go. Obviously we want it sorted asap on the best terms.

I thought you meant answer something I haven't answered. I've addressed this. You can repackage it all you like, but the answer is still to have a deal. The government can be tough too, whatever the fuck that means.

What questions?

Agreed. I think they'll have little or no sympathy this time. Hearing the union spokeswoman yesterday saying how the public won't be happy that doctors are earning £x per hour misses the rather obvious point that they settled for it last year. Dinlo's.

Ha! An answer, of sorts, thank you. The choice, I suspect, was cash or strikes. You favoured more strikes, I get that. I favoured a deal. Where I suspect we agree is the deal seemingly not looking beyond the next 12 months wasn't wise.

Cheeky sod! You still won't say what they should have done last time apart from to have been"tougher", which is vaguer than vague.

What does "tougher" mean? Less money so the strikes continued? The same money but make them wait a bit longer for it? You're still not giving an actual answer.

We agree. They needed to settle, and they doctors are now taking the piss. Common sense says that last time they'd have struck a future proof deal (or at least for a few years). If the deal didn't cover this year, there has to be a deal, but nothing like the daft number being demanded.