Vodafone protests

30 Oct 2010

Following on from
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/338924.html posted by medway_garage

What do you guys think of this, the Government cancelled Vodafone's tax bill, an outstanding tax bill of £6bn,a sum which would've prevented nearly all the cuts to all the welfare recipients in Britain !
Why aren't the newspapers reporting any of this

and

Besides the reported UK tax 'bill/agreement' already mentioned, Indian tax authorities have given Vodafone 30 days to pay a 112bn rupee ($ , ) tax bill, as part of an ongoing tax dispute.

just spotted this.....
Campaigners claiming Vodafone has been let off an unpaid tax bill of £6bn have blockaded several shops. Four shops in central London and others in Glasgow, Oxford and elsewhere were forced to close because of the demonstrations, sparked by a campaign on Twitter and Facebook.
One of the campaigners, Ed Brompton, said: "We've succeeded in closing three shops in Oxford Street and one in Tottenham Court Road. There is also action going on in Manchester and elsewhere."He said: "This money - £6bn - could be spent on schools, housing and hospitals. But instead it is going to go to the shareholders, a few people who are already rich."
A Vodafone spokesman said there had been protests outside a small number of UK stores and added: "We temporarily closed some of them and diverted customers to other locations so they were not inconvenienced."
more information on this story via
Should customers and the public protest in this way about a company's activities ?

30 Oct 2010

As Medway_Garage said in his related post, anyone can protest as long as it's done in a legal fashion. However, as I have already said, there is no proof of this allegation that I can see, other than the claim made by Private Eye, so I'm afraid IMO, Ed Brompton is protesting over nothing. Let's hope these protests do not result in Vodaphone staff being intimidated or losing jobs.

30 Oct 2010

Quote by Max777
As Medway_Garage said in his related post, anyone can protest as long as it's done in a legal fashion. However, as I have already said, there is no proof of this allegation that I can see, other than the claim made by Private Eye, so I'm afraid IMO, Ed Brompton is protesting over nothing. Let's hope these protests do not result in Vodaphone staff being intimidated or even worse, losing jobs.

Im with Max on this one :thumbup:

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 medway_garage
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.

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

Curse of the Gnome, strikes again lol

1 Nov 2010

Quote by medway_garage
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 and the trashy article you quoted only last week.........

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 medway_garage
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 ?
Perhaps they do not feel they need to justify them selves to a paper, or maybe the legal action will be in the pipeline, who knows dunno

1 Nov 2010

I was asking you to provide another source other than Private Eye but it looks like you have adopted the mindset that Private Eye/Guardian/Independent have printed the story so it must be true...despite the fact that the latter two base their articles on Private Eye.
Here is another paragraph from the article you provided a link to:
The details of this case are complex. Not all, of course, are in the public domain. Whether or not £6bn of tax was in total owed or not will never really be known. But what seems much more likely is that Vodafone had expected to pay much more than the it will finally settle. Reports suggest that they had put aside at least to cover the payment and they must, as a result, be laughing all the way to the bank.
Hmmm, so it may not be true then?
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?

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 medway_garage
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

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

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 medway_garage
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

Very good Max, guilty as charged on that one lol. So you're claiming no political bias, really, go back and reread your posts !
Sorry mate, as I said in the other thread........can't be arsed, don't do trolls.

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 medway_garage
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

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 medway_garage
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

2 Nov 2010

This reminds me - I'm due an upgrade. Do I get a fab new phone or reduce my monthly contract by £10 a month and hope the phone i have will last another year? Tough one!

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

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

Im sensing hostility this morning...

2 Nov 2010

Quote by vampanya
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.

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

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 medway_garage
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

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.
Don't try to second guess me meds.. you'll become even more frustrated than you are now!
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!
And please; don't try to personalise this by tugging at heartstrings by referring to my kith and kin. That has fuck all to do with you (and me too, for that matter). They are perfectly capable of looking after themselves and making their own judgement on these matters without outside interference. That's the measure of the way they were brought up.

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 medway_garage
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 ?
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.

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 medway_garage
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.

You keep referring to the "Tories" but the Government of Britain, if you hadn't noticed, is an alliance.
And the person responsible for the conduct of the Banks, in the main, is the Business Secretary who, if you hadn't noticed that either, is the very able Liberal Democrat Dr Cable who has voiced many concerns about Banks and has made significant headway in influencing the Alliance towards a point of view.
How far are you prepared to go to suggest the length of Dr Cable's tongue?