Medway_garage's Forum Posts | Swinging Heaven

Join the most popular community of UK swingers now

medway_garage

Over 90 days ago

Bisexual Male, 40

0 miles · London

Profile Follows Forum

Meets Parties Stories

Forum

2 Nov 2010

Quote by GnV
So, you agree the austerity measures are a necessary component of the track towards restoring Britain to prosperity again.
Wonderful; we seem to have made some progress.

I do not take the Tories view on this as gospel either, easy to cook the books when you're in power, as I'm sure Labour did at the time also !
It would make more sense if the Tories actually took some 'real' action against the banks, remember them, the very people who caused the global meltdown, but then they would have to extract their tongues from the bankers rectums first !
And now back on subject please, which was Vodaphone.

2 Nov 2010

Quote by GnV
Was the ex Chief Secretary to the Treasury under the last Labour administration wrong then to leave a note to his successor to say that there was no money? Was there some money and GO lied? Where is it? Can you defend issuing cheques to fund schemes when there is no money to back them up in the dying days of a corrupt (your acceptance here or in another thread) administration in order to further political advantage in an election by an unelected Minister of State?
How can you defend such actions?
You are the one in denial defending the indefensible. I have no reason to comment further on that other than to remind myself of what happened to my (then future) self funded pension funds at the hands of GB

I totally agree with you, as I said they previously the last Labour administration were definitely corrupt,you get no arguement from me on that at all, where did I defend them ?

2 Nov 2010

Quote by GnV
So, you're not a Tory then? I assume you think Max is....

Quite possibly, he's being very cagey about It, he's entitled to his view If he is, don't agree with it though !
What do you agree with, if I may ask?
The fact that someone votes in a particular way at an election is not itself an indication of their leanings one way or the other.
My Mother told me that she voted Tory but that was probably because she liked the standing candidate at the time. My Father never told me who he voted for. She later voted for a candidate of an opposing political persuasion because he was championing the cause for the disabled (which she was) and indeed he still does from the Lords to this day. My Parents never owned their own home. They were Council House tenants from the day they married till the day they died. There is no shame in that.
My Wife's parents owned their own home for over 50 years before they died and by good fortune did not suffer the indignity of the prospect of having their home taken off them to pay care fees under a Labour administration; the party they both supported from an early beginning.
I believe I have a very balanced political view to be honest.
I have a healthy distrust of politicians from the left and the right, can't argue with what you've wrote above though,fair enough !
Anyway,were off topic so back to Osborne and the tax avoidance issue.

2 Nov 2010

Quote by GnV
Who has been on to the Treasury?

the journalist who wrote the article,Peter Oborne, but of course don't take his word for It,feel free to check yourself.

Quote by GnV
Where did I "pigeon hole" you as a Labour supporter? You do make a lot of suppositions, as Max has otherwise implied.

Quote by GnV
The poster started off ok and then when challenged on his left wing views, typically, went into the defence of the indefensible.

Although you never stated Labour,the term 'left wing' usually implies Labour,at least in the UK anyway.

2 Nov 2010

Quote by GnV
Im sensing hostility this morning...

Often the case here vamps when someone loses the high ground.
The poster started off ok and then when challenged on his left wing views, typically, went into the defence of the indefensible.
Very funny GnV lol

lol

So can you defend 'the indefensible' when the cuts come into action, I will be sure to remind you of that, when the country gets caught in the grip of these cuts ,I hope It doesn't happen to anyone in your family !
So you defend tax avoidance and loopholes for the rich, but are happy that the poor who need the services are facing the cuts,If i'm wrong please clarrify your position.

2 Nov 2010

Quote by GnV
So, you're not a Tory then? I assume you think Max is....

Quite possibly, he's being very cagey about It, he's entitled to his view If he is, don't agree with it though !

2 Nov 2010

Quote by GnV
Here's what George Osborne said during his spending review :‘Nor will fraud in the welfare system be tolerated anymore. We estimate that £5 billion is being lost this way each billion that others have to work long hours to pay in their week we published our plans to step up the fight to catch benefit cheats, and to deploy uncompromising penalties when they OF QUOTE
Osborne's Spending review speech,

Well in my book this certainly looks like George Osborne misleading paliament,Osborne says £5bn but the treasury and the DWP say , that's quite a difference !

But there is fraud, yes?
The total cost of fraud, not just in the DWP is higher, yes?
Where is GO wrong or has misled Parliament then? I'm sure you can Google something to support your wild claims that the ConDem Alliance is corrupt and that the previous administration lied when the previous Secretary to The Treasury left a clear note for his successor saying "there is no money".
I did like your posting style meds, but I'm modifying my view as we progress on the various matters you have raised.
Well maybe you don't like the fact that I am happy to challege the accepted view and counter It, If only there was more of that in the UK mainstream media, but of course you are entitled to your opinion,as I am mine.
Well if you read the Telegraph article,I'm sure It will answer you question, here's a quote from It:
QUOTE:George Osborne told MPs: ‘Nor will fraud in the welfare system be tolerated any more. We estimate that £5 billion a year is being lost in this way – £5 billion that others have to work long hours to pay in their taxes.’
However that figure is not true. I have now been onto the Treasury and it is clear that the real figure for fraud in the benefits system is £1.5 billion a year, or less than one third of the sum which Osborne claimed in his spending statement. It is true that there were benefit overpayments of some £5.2 billion in the last financial year (2009/10) but the majority of these according to HMRC figures were error rather than OF QUOTE

One thing I do agree with you on, is that the previous regime was corrupt as hell,you get no argument from me on that ! I don't understand how you can pigeonhole me as a Labour supporter as I've previously said, that I distrust ALL politicians !
Max however,dodged the question when I asked about his political affliation, by the way GnV what is yours ?

2 Nov 2010

Just got this email from the online protest group 36degrees, I thought some of you might like to read it;

Our campaign to challenge the Chancellor George Osborne about tax dodging is growing fast. Together, we're making sure there is a real debate about why rich individuals and companies get away with avoiding billions worth of tax. This weekend The Observer ran a big piece on our petition. We made tax dodging a headline issue, and the most discussed article in the Guardian website.
The more of us who get involved, the more chance we have to change the debate. We need to make sure our petition keeps on growing. That will prove to the media and the government that this issue isn't going to go away.
Please can you help the petition to grow even more by spreading the word?
Can you forward this email to your friends and family and ask them to sign? They can sign the petition here:

If you use Facebook, you can share the petition here:

Or if you use Twitter, you can tweet it here:

When we launched this campaign, the media was silent about tax cheats but full of stories about benefit cheats. Together, we're forcing tax dodging into the headlines. This weekend a comment piece in the Observer said we were wrong to challenge Osborne for using "legal" loopholes to avoid paying in tax. The writer, David Mitchell, said that "only saints and incompetents don't" avoid paying tax.
38 Degrees members were quick to respond on our Facebook page, pointing out "George Osborne represents the government's financial policies - including tax - that's why he is being targeted by 38 Degrees" We know that if the UK Chancellor is using accountants to find tax loopholes, it should be so that he can get the loopholes closed. How can we trust the Chancellor to take real action on tax avoidance when he's avoiding millions himself?
Politicians aren't going to take tax dodging seriously unless we make them. People-powered campaigning is the best way to force this issue up the agenda. So far nearly 15,000 of us have signed the petition. Please help the petition to grow even more by forwarding this email to your friends and family and asking them to sign. They can sign the petition here:
Please help spread the word in every way you can.
Thanks for being involved,
Johnny, David, Hannah and the 38 Degrees team
Notes:

2 Nov 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
I find this bit of the channel four news site helpful too.

Thanks for the link, I'll have a look at that later.

2 Nov 2010

Quote by vampanya
Medway, do you always make separate threads for each point you raise here?

Well they are completely different subjects, Iraq war/Osborne,Mitchell etc tax dodge and Osborne's false accusations about benefit fraud during the spending review,I did include the Vodaphone scandal in the tax dodge thread,but someone else made a separate thread for that one as well,so yes there is a bit of over lap, Max did talk a bit about benefit costs earler in the thread and it's nice to keep my Tory friend up to date with developments lol

lol

2 Nov 2010

Here's what George Osborne said during his spending review :‘Nor will fraud in the welfare system be tolerated anymore. We estimate that £5 billion is being lost this way each billion that others have to work long hours to pay in their week we published our plans to step up the fight to catch benefit cheats, and to deploy uncompromising penalties when they OF QUOTE
Osborne's Spending review speech,

Well in my book this certainly looks like George Osborne misleading paliament,Osborne says £5bn but the treasury and the DWP say , that's quite a difference !

2 Nov 2010

Quote by Max777
Oh, and for those that think otherwise, housing benefit costs run to some £20 billion annually.

Max looks like your goldenboy George Osborne has been caught exagerating the scale of housing benefit cheats, Osborne says £5bn..........the treasury and the DWP say !
Here's what George Osborne said during his spending review :‘Nor will fraud in the welfare system be tolerated anymore. We estimate that £5 billion is being lost this way each billion that others have to work long hours to pay in their week we published our plans to step up the fight to catch benefit cheats, and to deploy uncompromising penalties when they OF QUOTE
Osborne's Spending review speech,

Looks like Osborne has been caught misleading paliament and the public during his spending review speech, or maybe he's just not very good at sums !

Since when has overpayment of housing benefit been classed as fraud ! If this is the case maybe the actual figure of is inncorrect as well, it would be nice to see how they break down that figure !

2 Nov 2010

Quote by Max777
Sorry mate, as I said in the other thread........can't be arsed, don't do trolls.

So I'm a troll because I dare to challenge your true blue views, aaah I see, I wondered when 'the other side' would resort to name calling. Well fair enough you're entitled to your view.I look forward to your defence of the cuts........................then again !
Err no......It's actually me challenging your post re Vodaphone, that is until I realised that your contribution consisted of copying and pasting other peoples postings on other forums.......and postings from people who obviously have no idea as to what they are talking about at that. Kind of makes the whole thing pointless, don't you think? dunno

dunno

And here's Max accusing me of being a troll lol !,I thought you had gone,but you're back like a good little Tory lapdog, but then the Tories need people like you,to defend them as they start their dream plan of dismantling the welfare luck on that one...........................oh but then,you can't be arsed can you,how convenient !
I admit I did use 'one' post from elsewhere which I shouldn't've, but it was late and 'I' couldn't be arsed, you seem to be using this as to discredit my other posts, well I'll lay down a challenge for you show me 'one' other post i've supposedly cut and pasted, happy hunting because you won't find one ! And don't be smart and say links and quotes because you've done the same in your responses.

2 Nov 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Sorry mate, as I said in the other thread........can't be arsed, don't do trolls.

So I'm a troll because I dare to challenge your true blue views, aaah I see, I wondered when 'the other side' would resort to name calling. Well fair enough you're entitled to your view.I look forward to your defence of the cuts........................then again !
To be fair medway_garage, he only asked for evidence except an excerpt from Private Eye. You haven't shown any, or at least none that I have seen.
You could be right, but until you can show where these claims are coming from then I can't go to your way of thinking.
Dave_Notts
I would love to be able to show you proof, but like I said, silence could well mean guilt from Vodaphone, surely if 'Private Eye' printed those allegations and It affects their business, then they would want to take them to court, to disprove the allegations affecting their and politicians are very litigous in this country, so It's strange to hear that nothing has happened,but only time will tell, maybe more information will come to light....one way or the other !

2 Nov 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Thanks for the information.
However I was talking generally about intervening or not, not the rights or wrongs of this war or any other example that can brought up about the Americans, Russians, British, Japanese, etc.
Lets get back to basics and look at a hyperthetical question and not Iraq or Germany.
Country A is killing its population. Country B can intervene or appease. What is the right way?
Add to this two different hypothesis.
If appeasement was allowed to run its course and Country A killed 1,000,000 of its citizens.
If Country B intervened and deposed Country A and cost the lives of 250,000 of Country A's citizens is that worth it or was it right or wrong?
Dave_Notts

It depends on many factors,if country B, had a record of intervening in over 72 countries since the end of WW2, I say it has no right to judge others ! It does however depend on the situation, but NOT for finacial gain .
The UK and US have appeased plenty of dictators, and stood by and offered no help to the civilian populations,So why do we get involved in Iraq ? Why not North Korea ? why didn't the UK intervene in Indonesia for the genocide in East Timor,how about Chile, 35,000 murdered no help from the UK or US.......why ! ,Indonesia was buying British weapons and using them in the genocide.........at exatly the same time as Robin Cook was crowing about Britain's 'ethical foreign policy',more on that in a bit.]The UK has actively engaged in arming dictators in various regime's, and here's the hillarous bit, these dictators have defaulted in their payments ,who do you think picks up the bill,the British tax payer !
The UK has a history of being friendly with dictators,Saddam was once on the Christmas card list ,Idi Amin too ! At the same time as Robin Cook's 'ethical foreign policy' debate, It was revealed that the UK was selling arms and jets to General Suharto in Indonesia,to enable him to commit genocide against the people of East Timor,the media totally ignored this in the UK until Mark Thomas screened footage of a massacre smuggled out of the country and managed to trick an Indonesian General into admitting that they were using British made weapons to torture East Timorese, MT even managed to get it all on film at an arms fair in Greece.;

We have a history of using dictators for political gain, Saddam as monterous as he was,is just another in a very long line, during the Thatcher years, we were very friendly with him, he was being used by the UK and US as a proxy to attack Iran,funny then that we should use him, as he was still killing his own people at that time too, yet we were quite happy to fund him !

1 Nov 2010

Quote by Max777
Sorry mate, as I said in the other thread........can't be arsed, don't do trolls.

So I'm a troll because I dare to challenge your true blue views, aaah I see, I wondered when 'the other side' would resort to name calling. Well fair enough you're entitled to your view.I look forward to your defence of the cuts........................then again !

1 Nov 2010

Quote by Max777
As for legal action, the Private Eye article was published about 6 weeks ago and the Independent one last week. Until the protests at the weekend, they were just biased political articles. If Vodaphone's business is affected, maybe they will take legal action, who knows?
Now that I've answered your question, how about you answering the one that you have now ducked twice?

And of course you have no political bias Max lol !
Well I admit It certainly looks like 'Private Eye' broke the story but this does not mean It is inncorrect, possibly they have a mole within HMRC,It wouldn't be the first time they've broke a story.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, It was neither evasion or avoidance, they withheld paying tax, and when it came time for HMRC to look at their outstanding bill of £6bn it was decided it was ok for them not to pay. This sounds inexplicable on the part of the government until you realise Andy Halford is both a financial advisor to Vodafone and a corporation tax advisor to the treasury.............What a coincidence!
The Government looking out for the rich at the expense of everyone else?!? Who'd have thought....
I've had a look at some sources online, looks like protesters want to target other tax avoiders such as Topshop, Barclays and Tesco, could be an interesting few months !
I have no political bias in this matter.
So Vodaphone just withheld tax and Andy Halford is a financial advisor?
You really shouldn't believe every thing you read on internet forums......or make sure you copy and paste from a reliable source. wink

wink

Very good Max,Of course it should read Financial Director ,doh ! Ok,So you're claiming no political bias, really, go back and reread your posts !

1 Nov 2010

Quote by Max777
You shouldn't make assumtions, you could be very wrong!

I could be, but couldn't you also be wrong about the £6bn figure and the other things I've highlighted ! Max I detect a get out clause so you don't have to defend the cuts lol !
Nah, no point in trying to debate with someone who just copies and pastes from other internet forums. lol

lol

Very good response,so we'll be expecting you to defend the cuts then !

1 Nov 2010

Chancellor George Osborne caught grossly exaggerating the scale of benefit fraud in his spending review, if he needs money, perhaps he should have a look at tax avoiders,such as Barcleys,BHS,Topshop,Vodaphone and certain front bench Tory politicians, a mirror would be useful for this !

A bit worrying looks like the Chancellor of the Exchequer isn't good at sums !

1 Nov 2010

Quote by Max777
You shouldn't make assumtions, you could be very wrong!

I could be, but couldn't you also be wrong about the £6bn figure and the other things I've highlighted ! Max I detect a get out clause so you don't have to defend the cuts lol !

1 Nov 2010

Quote by Max777
You obviously want to believe this story, so there is really no point trying to have a reasoned debate on the issue.
My final comment however, is to re-ask a question which you haven't yet answered. If what you claim is true, why have we heard absolutely nothing from the opposition front benches on the matter?

Reasoned debate lol, very good Max! I have been doing exactly the same thing as you've been doing,just holding up a mirror to show you the opposite are very obviously a true blue conservative,to the core, which is fine If that's what you believe.I hope you've got plenty of time to defend the cuts when they come. I on the other hand have a distrust of all politians, I have been very vocal in my condemnation of Blair's policies .
Good point about the lack of questions from the opposition bench,could be many reasons, weak leadership,Labour guilty of similar activities, who knows ! Time will tell !

1 Nov 2010

Quote by Max777
As for legal action, the Private Eye article was published about 6 weeks ago and the Independent one last week. Until the protests at the weekend, they were just biased political articles. If Vodaphone's business is affected, maybe they will take legal action, who knows?
Now that I've answered your question, how about you answering the one that you have now ducked twice?

And of course you have no political bias Max lol !
Well I admit It certainly looks like 'Private Eye' broke the story but this does not mean It is inncorrect, possibly they have a mole within HMRC,It wouldn't be the first time they've broke a story.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, It was neither evasion or avoidance, they withheld paying tax, and when it came time for HMRC to look at their outstanding bill of £6bn it was decided it was ok for them not to pay. This sounds inexplicable on the part of the government until you realise Andy Halford is both a financial advisor to Vodafone and a corporation tax advisor to the treasury.............What a coincidence!
The Government looking out for the rich at the expense of everyone else?!? Who'd have thought....
I've had a look at some sources online, looks like protesters want to target other tax avoiders such as Topshop, Barclays and Tesco, could be an interesting few months !

1 Nov 2010

Quote by Max777
As I previously said, If they've got nothing to hide, make the documents public ,then there will be no problem with protestors,If they refuse to do this,then they can expect more trouble.
Max might be right about the figure being lower than the £6bn ,but If this is the case plenty of media outlets have been reporting it as such, so where did they get the figure from ?

Private Eye.
I'm sure there's other sources as well, but If It isn't true,as Max claims, why hasn't there been any legal action against Private Eye ?
I have looked damned hard and can't find any other source. If you are so sure, let's have your proof. The Private Eye article was only published in September.........
If it's not true then they should sue the newspapers involved, but of course they won't, which is telling !
And Max don't be ridiclous,I'm not a newspaper editor, it's entirely down to the parties involved to provided the proof !
Again I ask the question,why hasn't there been any legal action against Private Eye ?

1 Nov 2010

Quote by Max777
As I previously said, If they've got nothing to hide, make the documents public ,then there will be no problem with protestors,If they refuse to do this,then they can expect more trouble.
Max might be right about the figure being lower than the £6bn ,but If this is the case plenty of media outlets have been reporting it as such, so where did they get the figure from ?

Private Eye.
I'm sure there's other sources as well, but If It isn't true,as Max claims, why hasn't there been any legal action against Private Eye ?

1 Nov 2010

Quote by Max777
Also, you do realise that Ian Hislop is the most sued man in English legal history and as far as I can tell, he has won only 2 of his court cases. Not exactly a reliable witness then!

If 'Private Eye' etc don't take on these stories,who will.....not the right wing toilet papers that's for sure !
So, If what you claim is correct,we should be expecting legal action against 'Private Eye','The Independent' and 'The Guardian'................mmmmmmm, nothing yet, I wonder why ????????

1 Nov 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Luckily I am not a person who ever has to make that decision but a regime change, whether legal or not, is sometimes desireable/needed and it happens. I am neither supporting it or condeming it. It just happens.
Now if a country, whether western or not, intervenes they will be vilified. If they do not then they will also be vilified. So whats the answer? Either way people are going to die. Just glad I do not have to make the decision
Dave_Notts

OK let me play devils advocate,If Hitler wanted a regime change in this country and there was a 'insurency' against it,would Hitler be right or the Insurgents ?
If a middle eastern country wanted regime change in the US, would that make them right ?,would THAT be acceptable! After all as you say QUOTE'regime change, whether legal or not, is sometimes desireable/needed and it happens'END OF QUOTE,or is it only justified when it's the 'bad' guys, the US has interviened in 72 different countries since the end of WW2 !
Breaking The Silence:Truth and Lies In the War On Terror

This country was not killing its own people, so it is not the same comparison.
To compare we could look at us appeasing Hitler then going to war with Hitler. Which one was right? He was killing his own people at that time. Should we have appeased or gone to war? That is the same comparison between Iraq and Germany but not the examples you have stated.
Dave_Notts
Well firstly the reason we invaded Iraq was not 'regime change', but in fact to disarm Saddam,something we needed a second resolution from the U.N to do 'legally', something we didn't even was purely about the WMD's......which, as has now been revealed, were never even there !
Right Ok, if I can just go back to what you said about 'appeasment or going to war', this is not the only way the U.S has instituted 'regime change',have you never heard of the events of, Sept 11th 1973 ?
Let me enlighten you, this was when the CIA helped to overthrow an elected leader in Chile ,who by the way, killed no one ! His palace was bombed by aircraft and the country was handed over to the US backed puppet dictator General was NO appeasment only the murder of 35,000 people,but this is just one example there are plenty more.

The US intervention

Interesting quotes from Pinochet apologists Thatcher,Hague,Clarke etc

For more information about how the US, ,murder and destroy in the name of so called 'democracy' have a look at some of these John Pilger documentaries:
Breaking The Silence;Truth And Lies In The War On Terror

The War On Democracy

Cambodia:Year Zero

Q&A with John Pilger

31 Oct 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Luckily I am not a person who ever has to make that decision but a regime change, whether legal or not, is sometimes desireable/needed and it happens. I am neither supporting it or condeming it. It just happens.
Now if a country, whether western or not, intervenes they will be vilified. If they do not then they will also be vilified. So whats the answer? Either way people are going to die. Just glad I do not have to make the decision
Dave_Notts

OK let me play devils advocate,If Hitler wanted a regime change in this country and there was a 'insurency' against it,would Hitler be right or the Insurgents ?
If a middle eastern country wanted regime change in the US, would that make them right ?,would THAT be acceptable! After all as you say QUOTE'regime change, whether legal or not, is sometimes desireable/needed and it happens'END OF QUOTE,or is it only justified when it's the 'bad' guys, the US has interviened in 72 different countries since the end of WW2 !
Breaking The Silence:Truth and Lies In the War On Terror

31 Oct 2010

Quote by Max777
So you think Vodaphone should publish what is probably very commercially sensitive information just to satisfy you? Why not ask Private Eye to publish the proof of their claim? I suspect you will have a very long wait?

Not to satisfy me,but to satisfy the protesters who are closing their shops !
Good point about 'Private Eye',might be worth a try,probably get nowhere as you say,but you never know !
As far as the quotes on the £6bn go,you take your choice on that,right wing press lower figure,left wing press higher figure....neither is probably correct,unless proof is provided.

Quote by Max777
Of course if Vodaphone and HMRC have agreed Vodaphone's liabilty, it's a done deal. What do you expect it would be?

It may well be a done deal, but then because of the publicity this case is starting to generate,they have to justify this double standard to the public and people who buy their products, who I imagine will see this in very different terms !

30 Oct 2010

As I previously said, If they've got nothing to hide, make the documents public ,then there will be no problem with protestors,If they refuse to do this,then they can expect more trouble.
Max might be right about the figure being lower than the £6bn ,but If this is the case plenty of media outlets have been reporting it as such, so where did they get the figure from ?

30 Oct 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Where has this figure come from of 1.5 million? The only figure I could find ran from 100,000 - 600,000 excess deaths.
Whatever the figure, it is still horrendous. Yet, there was death in that country numbering thousands each year when it was stable.
Western Governments will be vilified if they go to war or not go to war. Sometimes a regime change is needed to prevent more deaths in the future. It is a horrible logic but one that is there all the same. Something like this will happen again and again and the biggest government/country of the day will be expected to help out. It would be nice to have no military and put all the resources into the civil population, but that will never happen because of mans greed.
Dave_Notts

Depends what you mean by 'regime change',is US intervention in South America justified,why should local populations put up with It,for example murdering elected leaders just because they don't fit with the United Stated very limited view of the a look at this documentary about US intervention in South America;