Member Info for asimpleinvestor

The problem with AB is that people only hear about his accomplishments but don't hear about all the half finished projects with his name attached littering Greater Manchester and the completed projects such as the Manchester equivalent of the Ulez zone that he changed his mind about leaving the infrastructure to rot unused but that still cost a total of £37.73 million. He even spent close to £200,000 to have stickers stuck to signs telling people he had changed his mind followed by £600,000 to have the signs taken down that he had spent money on to put up.

To back up the point I unblocked him just now for a couple of minutes, checked through his posting histroy and found the 'abhorrent post in question that he redistributed to LSE chat yet again just two days ago on LLoyds chat that he has himself admitted to not holding and only went there to wran others of my terrible posting. Strange that when you look at my posting history you are faced with courteous posts and not an insult in sight will most on topic whatever that topic happened to be at the time. Anyway, back to the point . Here is a link to the thread:

https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.html?ShareTicker=LLOY&share=Lloyds&thread=E0AC0E10-E350-4F80-AC1F-4EA62EB46684

I blocked Punter ages ago, he still follows me around like a hurt puppy, tossing insults left and right. Whenever I post on a thread, it’s not long before he shows up. Once, when I accused him of stalking, he suggested I might be following him, but his own posting logs clearly show his posts come after mine, not before. You should ask him to produce the supposedly abhorrent post he claims I made, which the moderators removed for being indecent. He said he showed it to his solicitor with the intent to sue, but she apparently couldn’t stop laughing enough to respond after she saw his posting log. It’s so “abhorrent” that he enjoys repeating it over and over again as if its a badge of honour. Maybe it is.

Clear as mud then. Time will give us the answer

They're still in my shares ISA on HL but the value has been zeroed and my invest account with T212 is still showing them as active. The London Stock Exchange still has it listed on AIM as suspended so not delisted yet. I assume we will know one way or another shortly.

@jme1976 You are actively trying to save face, but you are still confusing private corporate data access with public open-source searching.

Statutory undertakers (like EE, National Grid, or water authorities) have access to land ownership maps, land registries, and GIS tracking databases. They use this data to identify land management boundaries for planning infrastructure such as installing a 5G box on an existing telecommunications mast. In theory GDPR protects privacy but as we all know if we know somebody who works for somebody who works for a company that accesses land as part of their job they can access this information as its a requirement for both health & safety and to carry out their tasks.

Even DEFRA as part of their Data confidentiality and disclosure protection Statement explicitly tells keepers not to give out their CPH numbers precisely because they are not matters of public record they are protected, internal security codes used strictly for official documents and biosecurity tracking but you know this already so why are you attempting to have me breach DEFRA rules?

@GangsterPugs You have room to talk reading your posting logs.

For anyone unclear on what a CPH (County Parish Holding) number actually identifies, DEFRA and the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) spell it out very simply. A CPH is an internal location identifier used within government systems for disease control and livestock tracking it is not a matter of public record, nor is it a standard postal address registry. However, information can be obtained by official bodies so the farm identifier stays private. my number starts with 17 which signifies county is followed by 095 which signifies parish but my last four digits stays between me and DEFRA which signifies farm.

A CPH number identifies:

The Specific Land/Buildings: The exact geographic location where livestock are kept, mapped directly to the specific National Grid field numbers submitted during registration.

The Registered Keeper: The individual or entity responsible for the animals, linked internally to a Single Business Identifier (SBI) or Customer Reference Number (CRN).

The Activity: The specific species kept on that land (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, poultry, etc.).

The Tenure: Whether the land is owned, rented, or forms part of an existing agricultural holding.

I do know how to answer that but you know as well as I do that identifies my farm as well as my livestock and there is no way on this planet I am going to share my home address to everybody who uses this forum. You could however answer my original question couldn't you.

My average in Sandisk is $27.69 which i bought last year before the monumental rise, and I bought my Micron investment just last week for $927.17. I’m not worried they rise as quickly as they fall. If the fundamentals look good tomorrow night, everything should retrace back to the highs; if not, it’s likely already settled at the new floor.

He has only been sworn in as an MP it will be some time before he has the power to do anything like that. Get a grip man!

You initially said it was something that concerned you directly, but now it’s just an example, which doesn’t answer the original question. You seem like someone who doesn’t understand questions, let alone know how to answer them.

I do wish that was true but currently stocks on tech that covers the AI revolution have dropped around 5%-8% today on the cautioned results of Micron Technology tomorrow. I say cautioned as this is due to Broadcom hitting its own target but not beating the targets set by the market

@jme1976 You are fundamentally confusing a Potentially Exempt Transfer (PET) with a Chargeable Lifetime Transfer (CLT).

The 20% vs. 7-Year Rule: Standard discretionary trusts trigger an immediate 20% CLT lifetime entry charge if you transfer assets above your Nil-Rate Band. However, lifetime transfers into a qualifying s.89 Disabled Person’s Trust are explicitly treated as PETs. This means the immediate 20% tax is completely bypassed on entry.

The 7-Year Timeline: Yes, like any standard lifetime gift to an individual or a DPT, you must survive seven years for it to fall entirely outside the estate. But even if the settlor passes away before then, the tax liability doesn't just hit a flat 40% immediately it benefits from taper relief, reducing the tax burden on a sliding scale if death occurs between years 3 and 7. More importantly, look at how fast you are moving your own goalposts.

In your previous comment, you explicitly stated your parents' estate was "over £2m in assets." When I proved to you that a farming couple can pass down up to £5 million completely tax-free under the current threshold, you suddenly inflated the farm's value to £7 million just to keep your grievance alive.

So which is it? Is it a £2 million estate (which is entirely safe), or a £7 million estate?

You accused me of being a "fantasist," yet you are the one changing your family's asset values mid-debate and misapplying basic trust entry laws. I have structured my estate to ensure my daughter's lifelong security through legal wrappers that reduce liability. "Spend a penny to save a pound," so to speak. Each person is responsible for their own tax affairs, and if others haven't planned ahead, that is their lookout.

I assume punter is in the room by your choice of words. I think maybe he will post something he finds abhorrent that he says I have shared as his abhorrence goes as far as reposting at every opportunity he can. I used to find him funny but now i prefer looking at the little green boxes. He threatened to sue but his solicitor laughed at him after reading his posting log.

i don't pay iht i'm alive and our assets are currently held inside a family trust, so they are not part of my personal estate for the 40% inheritance tax. the trust is still within the iht relevant property regime, meaning it would normally face 10‑year and exit charges. these haven't changed for years and like it or not tax is a part of life.

as stated previously were in the process of transferring these assets into a disabled person’s trust under ihta 1984 s.89. a dpt is exempt from the relevant property regime, so there are no 10‑year charges, no exit charges, and the assets remain permanently outside our estate. any tax is instead charged at our daughter’s basic rate. this structure ring‑fences the assets for her long‑term care and protects them from inheritance tax so why should i be worrying.

so i will ask you for a fourth time, because you seem entirely unable to grasp it: which part of "what affects you personally" are you struggling to understand?

i have structured my affairs so that these macro policy shifts don't disrupt my family's security. i couldn't care less about the thousands of people it might affect, just as they couldn't care less about what affects me. these options or similar options are open to everybody and each person is responsible for their own tax affairs.

as for your claim that it’s "too late" for people to put their assets into a trust: that is utter poppy****. you can establish a trust and transfer assets into it at any time. better yet, if the beneficiary is disabled lifetime transfers into a qualifying s.89 disabled person's trust are treated as potentially exempt transfers (pets), completely bypassing the immediate 20% lifetime entry charge.

you accused me of not being a landowner or a farmer simply because i refuse to join in on your emotional panic. i don't need to stand on a hilltop shouting about headlines because, unlike you, i have actually taken the practical, legal steps to secure my estate to reduce liability. spend a penny to save a pound so's to speak.

you are, of course, allowed to be concerned about how things affect the country on any thread other than one that explicitly asks a person experience specific question. although if choosing to expand across the macroclimate being factual rather than rhetorical should be the forefront of your argument rather than omitted from it.

in relation to quote "was the rape gang enquiry all lies?", two points. first, it wasn't a "rape gang" enquiry; it was a grooming gang enquiry. second, the definitive home office research reviews into group-based child sexual exploitation showed that the vast majority of perpetrators across the uk (85%) were white british and white european, reflecting national demographics. so you tell me was the official government data all lies, or was it factual? i believe it was factual.

I make grammatical errors constantly as I'm dyslexic so I pass my posts through AI to clean them up. You can blame AI for that one lol

@jme1976 What earnings? I’m retired. My farming estate and other business interests are structured as limited companies, and my stock portfolio is entirely reinvested.

Under UK corporate law, if a company retains and reinvests its profits rather than distributing them, or rolls returns straight back into the portfolio, there is no personal income tax to pay. You only face personal tax on what you actually draw down.

So I ask: whose 80% are you talking about? Because it certainly isn't mine.

Now, in relation to my earlier question: this is what actual personal experience looks like. My estate and capital are held within family trusts and structured to transfer into a Disabled Person’s Trust. They are legally ringfenced entities that qualify for special tax treatment meaning they are exempt from standard ten-year trust charges, taxed at the beneficiary's personal allowance rates, and entirely protected from state welfare means-testing.

If we were discussing generic text about national exposure, the way other people manage or spend their gains would obviously be different; they might open themselves up to personal Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, and a myriad of other levies. But none of that macro theory affects me, because my personal experiences are personal to me not to your headlines.

@jme1976 So, reading between the lines: your own life is perfectly fine, and you haven't personally experienced any of these dire straits. If you had, you’d be sharing those firsthand experiences rather than throwing insults at the person asking the question.

You gave a list of macro political headlines, not personal experiences. Let's look at them:

IHT: Inheritance Tax doesn’t affect your daily life; it affects your beneficiaries after you're gone.

Business Rates: Unless you run a business, this doesn't touch you. Even if you do, roughly 35% to 38% of all commercial properties in England receive Small Business Rates Relief, with over 750,000 claiming a full 100% exemption. Has your specific business been hit?

Secure Borders: We have border controls, and we are an island surrounded by the sea. How has this physically disrupted your week?

Safety in Cities: Are you a woman? More to the point, when have major cities ever been completely crime-free? I'm a man and I don't feel entirely safe in our cities either even when I lived in one they have been high-crime areas for centuries.

Social Media Arrests & "Corrupt" Judges: Have you personally been arrested for a post, or stood in front of a judge who took a bribe? If not, you are reacting to news stories, not personal experience.

Government and Farmers: Are you a farmer? I actually own a farming estate myself, and my direct dealings with DEFRA contradict your point entirely.

My questions were highly specific: what have you personally noticed in your own life that shows the country is in dire straits, and what is your practical solution to fix it?

You couldn't answer the first, which means your ideas on the second (overhauling Whitehall) are just abstract theories. You're reacting to what you are told to be angry about, not what is actually happening in front of your eyes.

@BeardedDragon The data indicates that the highest and lowest spending points over the past 50 years occurred under Conservative administrations, primarily because they held power during both the height of the Cold War and the peak of post-2010 fiscal consolidation.

The highest level of spending occurred under the Conservatives during the mid-1980s, when the budget peaked at over 4.5% to 5% of GDP due to late-Cold War rearmament and the Falklands Conflict.

The lowest level of spending occurred under the Conservatives in 2018, when defence spending fell to its lowest modern proportion of national income at 1.94% of GDP following the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review austerity measures.

Labour's spending occupied the middle ground, rising steadily in real terms during the 2000s to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (averaging around 2.5% of GDP) and rising again under current 2025/2026 projections, but without reaching either the historical highs of the 1980s or the low baseline of 2018

Labour has pledged a 2.5% target fixed for this parliament from the current 2.4%, the government has set a longer-term ambition to reach 3% of GDP during the next parliament, alongside a treaty commitment to target 3.5% of GDP by 2035 in line with wider NATO agreements.

Reform UK pledges to legally mandate a rapid acceleration of defence spending, targeting 2.5% of GDP by Year 3 of a parliament, and increasing it to 3% of GDP by Year 6 so as the next general election falls in 2029 that equates to 2.5% by 2032 and 3% by 2036

The Conservatives have pledge 3% by 2030 but hasn't gone beyond that figure or date.

Overall, this suggests as far as defence and defence budgets go our best option falls in line with Labour being in charge rather than waiting until Labour lose power.