Member Info for asimpleinvestor

"Seems your AI isn't intelligent enough to imagine that under a Reform Gov. instead of having ECHR rules imposed on us the UK would inevitably introduce a set of UKHR"

@Asperger1 We already have the UK Human Rights Act, which is entirely separate from the ECHR framework; we do not need another set of domestic laws. The fundamental problem isn't the text of the Act itself, but the specific legal jurisdiction where a complaint can be heard when a citizen is laying a case against their own government. Or did you not think that far ahead?

If a ruling government controls the domestic courts and removes the independent oversight of Strasbourg, any "UKHR" they introduce can simply be amended, ignored, or rewritten by that same government whenever it suits them. You do not need AI to explain what the Human Rights Act is; all you need to do is read the statute and understand the constitutional framework it is designed to operate within. Here is a link to the actual act and its framework feel free to inform which part of the act you disagree with and which parts you are happy to lose and more importantly the parts you would like to keep which you would lose if it was abolished.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42

Furthermore, it took eight years of careful planning, drafting, and cross-party agreement to securely embed the Human Rights Act into our constitutional framework. Yet you believe a Reform government could simply snap its fingers, abolish the convention, and seamlessly rewrite, debate, vote, send to the Lords, debate, send back to the lower house for a second reading, amend, debate, vote, send back to the upper house, agree amendments, vote, and send for Royal Assent?

And what adjustment period would be set to allow public institutions to retrain and prepare before it is finally enacted in law? Are we talking a week, a month, a year, or an entire parliament? In the meantime, citizens would be left completely devoid of public rights or legal protections of any kind. Do you see your flaw yet?

@Asperger1 I assume your "This week's observation" is part of your fantasy portfolio and has no bearing on reality, given that even basic AI can easily tear your claims apart.

If Reform ever achieved power and removed access to the ECHR, their supporters would quickly find themselves feeling like true 'strangers in their own country.' Reform is built on anti-immigration rhetoric, yet they fail to grasp that the Human Rights Act is what guarantees a citizen's fundamental right to the peaceful enjoyment of their own home and private life and of course the ability to voice objections.

By dismantling these frameworks, Reform would strip regular British citizens of the very legal protections needed to defend their properties and communities from local disruptions, crime, or the impact of illegal immigration. A vast number of their fellow citizens would inevitably look to leave for pastures that actually protect individual liberties, leaving Reform’s own base entirely exposed having willingly handed the state unchecked power while leaving themselves completely defenceless. Enjoy your fantasy.

@redboy33 I don't think you could count less than an hour after everybody has gone to bed pulling apart a post in all its parts as spending one's entire life preaching about everything but Lloyds. I'm not such what one's property portfolio, having a farm (I have a farm manager to run it) or indeed a disabled daughter (who is asleep) has to do with winding down after a hard day. However, the part you have forgotten is the posting is in response to another user on the same thread who has written far more over a longer period and yet you haven't written a single word about their own posts. Most of what I have written has an indirect inference to Lloyds as it does the entire financial and banking system you just need to utilise your intellect to understand why assuming of course you have one. Do you?

I think maybe Punters average is higher than the current price so he is getting ratty. Its a pity I green boxed him as he is hilarious when he is ratty a true comedian. Ask him to post the post I 'allegedly'made which he claims is defamatory. He loves posting it like its a badge of honour. If it truly was defamatory, he would make sure it never appeared on screen ever again but not our punter 🤣

"Trump/Iran War ceasefire - Deal signed!!! "

@Asperger1 The ink on that Islamabad Memorandum isn't even dry and the ceasefire is already fracturing. Just a week after signing it, both sides have traded strikes. Iran violated the agreement by launching drone attacks at cargo ships in the Strait of Hormuz to try and enforce unauthorized transit tolls, and the US has immediately retaliated by bombing Revolutionary Guard missile, drone, and radar sites. Neither side is actually adhering to the terms they just agreed to.

" Israel/Hamas peace deal???"

Do you not mean an Israel/Palestine peace deal? The UK government formally recognised the State of Palestine on 21 September 2025 alongside Canada and Australia, and the Palestinian Embassy officially opened in London in January 2026. The diplomatic framework is structured around a two-state solution between two sovereign nations, not just a localised agreement with a single militant faction.

Even so, the idea of a functional peace deal on the ground is an illusion. While the US brokered a 20-point peace framework and ceasefire back in October 2025 which did secure the release of the remaining Israeli hostages the agreement has been consistently violated by both sides.

The situation remains deeply fractured. The International Stabilisation Force (ISF) meant to police the area has completely stalled, with almost no foreign troop commitments. Currently, Hamas still maintains strict administrative control over roughly 40% of Gaza and refuses to disarm, while the Israel Defence Forces control the rest, separated by the military 'Yellow Line'. With Israel continuing to execute regular precision air strikes against remaining Hamas commanders and expanding its perimeter, the peace framework has essentially collapsed into a frozen, volatile conflict.

Any talk of a viable Russia/Ukraine peace deal is entirely detached from the reality on the ground.

"Farage living rent-free in Starmer's head lol"

I think maybe Burnham is living rent free in Farages head and both Starmer and Burnham all living rent free in yours. What isn't living there is common sense and basic intelligence

"deport all illegal immigrants"

@Asperger1 If you look closely at the actual mechanics of Reform UK's platform for removing illegal immigrants, the financial and logistical math completely breaks down. Their leadership has openly floated using financial incentives effectively taxpayer-funded payouts ranging from £1,000 up to £50,000 to encourage illegal overstayers and undocumented migrants to self-deport voluntarily.

Not only is this a massive, contradictory drain on the British taxpayer, but we also know it doesn't work because the Tories already tried variations of these voluntary return and re-integration schemes over their 14 years in office, and the numbers remained stagnant.

Furthermore, what happens if the individual refuses the cash, though an American student on an out of date student visa may happily accept £50k to go home or what happens if their country of origin simply blocks their return? Under international law, you cannot legally or physically deport someone to another sovereign state without that nation's explicit administrative consent. Without rigorous cross-border cooperation, Reform’s strategy boils down to an expensive, failed recycling of old Tory policies that stalls the moment another country says 'no'.

More to the point, the entire premise ignores reality: the issue is already being resolved. Under Labour, overall net migration has nearly halved, dropping sharply to 171,000, while the latest figures for the first half of 2026 show small boat arrivals have already fallen by 38% year-on-year. The current administration's enforcement frameworks are delivering organic reductions without resorting to unworkable taxpayer-funded gimmicks.

"Exit ECHR"

@Asperger1 That demand overlooks how the system actually functions. Individuals do not bypass our legal system for Strasbourg; under the Human Rights Act, all alleged rights violations are dealt with directly within British courts and tribunals first. Recourse to the European Court of Human Rights is an external safety net, available only after exhausting all domestic legal remedies, specifically to protect a citizen if the British government itself has breached its obligations. Removing this mechanism means allowing the state to police its own actions without independent external oversight. Do you seriously want your fundamental legal protections to be controlled exclusively by the sitting government of the day, rather than an independent tribunal?

We are not talking about the rights of immigrants here; we are talking about your own human rights the very liberties this country has fought for over decades. You are advocating for your own personal protections to be stripped away, leaving them vulnerable to being altered or removed by whatever a sitting government decides is best for itself, even if that decision is directly detrimental to you, your family, your home, or your freedom of expression.

"Reeves coming after your Pensions and ISA's,"

@Asperger1 That claim completely misrepresents the policy changes. The State Pension has actually increased, and the overarching annual ISA allowance remains intact at £20,000. Under the upcoming changes, those over 65 face zero restrictions and can continue putting their entire £20,000 allowance into cash ISAs. For those under 65, the cash ISA component limit adjusts to £12,000 to incentivise investment, but the Stocks and Shares allowance stays at £20,000. As for the flat 22% tax on uninvested cash held within a Stocks and Shares ISA, this is simply a targeted anti-circumvention rule designed to prevent people from using investment accounts purely as tax-free cash savings vehicles indefinitely, effectively reverting to the structural terms of a stocks ISA prior to 2014.

"Labour still on course to crash our economy, fuel prices out of control, Food prices rising, Inflation rise, cusp of recession?"

@Asperger1 If you want to identify the structural drivers of current price pressures, you need to look at global external shocks rather than domestic policy. The recent conflict in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz directly caused the spike in global oil and fuel prices. Similarly, climate-driven adverse weather and subsequent crop failures are the primary causes behind volatile food prices globally. Despite these severe external headwinds, UK inflation has actually fallen significantly from its previous peaks to 2.8%, and the economy continues to grow, with Q1 GDP rising by 0.6% meaning the UK is not in a recession.

"Small boat landings cross 200,000 under Starmer's Labour, "

@Asperger1 That figure conflates the historical cumulative total with the current administration's timeline. The 200,000 figure represents the total number of recorded small boat arrivals since records began in 2018, spanning multiple administrations. Over 110,000 of those arrivals occurred between 2018 and the end of 2023 under the previous government. Total arrivals under the current Labour government since July 2024 stand at approximately 75,000. Furthermore, official Home Office data for 2026 shows a year-on-year decline of over 30% compared to the same period in 2025

"Welcome to Labours BENEFIT BRITAIN !!!"

@Asperger1 As opposed to a Tory 'benefit Britain', or a Reform one if they were to win a general election? Either way, approximately 55% of those currently receiving welfare are pensioners, and that figure is projected to rise toward 65% by 2029. I would be interested to know exactly how Reform intend to reduce the number of citizens claiming the state pension, as they have stated it will keep the triple lock thus expanding the welfare bill still further. Furthermore, Reform have stated they want to dismantle net-zero policies and the associated infrastructure, which currently supports nearly one million jobs. Implementing that policy would expand the welfare bill rather than reduce it. People highlight current political chaos, yet no one can explain how Reform's contradictory policies would avoid creating immediate economic instability if they took office. Their platform simply lacks structural cohesion.

Quote "Compulsory Digital ID's"

@Asperger1 You are confusing a digital ID with a mandatory document. Digital IDs are entirely voluntary, not compulsory. A digital ID is simply a digital wallet used to securely hold existing, separate forms of identification; it is not a brand-new, standalone document. Furthermore, this infrastructure is not a Labour invention; the framework and the Digital Identity Trust Framework were originally established under the previous Conservative government.

@Asperger1 Under the UK parliamentary system, general elections vote for local constituency MPs, not the Prime Minister directly. Labour won a majority of seats, so when a PM resigns mid-term, the governing party retains its democratic mandate and elects a new leader. By participating in a First Past the Post election, voters accept these structural rules. If you dislike your current MP, you can vote against them next time. If it is the electoral system itself you object to, the appropriate route is to petition the government for reform or withhold your vote as a form of protest until a system you support is introduced.

@Nappers

No, that’s not how it works.

Blue and red trades are simply printed above or below the mid‑price at the time of reporting. That’s all the colour means — it’s not a buy/sell confirmation.

A black trade appears when the LSE feed cannot classify the trade because of delayed reporting, off‑book execution, or conditions that prevent the algorithm from determining whether it was above or below the mid. In those cases the system defaults to neutral.

The trade feed comes directly from the London Stock Exchange, and the colour‑coding is just the LSE’s own best‑guess algorithm. In reality, none of the colours reliably tell you whether the trade was a buy or a sell — especially black, which is printed neutral by design.

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but most of the claims being made here go well beyond what the article actually states. There’s one genuinely meaningful datapoint in the piece, and the rest is interpretation layered on top of it.

1. The only verifiable commercial fact in the article is the Whitespace/Saga deployment with the Royal Navy.

The text confirms that Saga was deployed on Oracle Roving Edge Devices to support classified RN workloads during Operation HIGHMAST . That’s solid validation and worth acknowledging. But it’s also the only part of the post that is factual rather than speculative.

2. There is no evidence that Oracle has “handed ALRT a pre‑filtered pipeline of 10 companies.”

That claim appears repeatedly in the post , but the article itself does not state that Oracle is exclusively feeding ALRT ten companies, nor that these companies are contractually tied to ALRT. It’s an ecosystem announcement, not a bespoke sourcing agreement.

3. The idea that ALRT becomes “the app store for defence tech” is metaphor, not fact.

That line is the poster’s own analogy . There is no commercial structure, exclusivity, or revenue model described that would justify that interpretation.

4. Claims about “fast‑tracking companies through defence procurement” are overstated.

The article quotes Oracle’s SVP saying defence organisations need faster paths to deployment , but nothing in the text says ALRT can bypass MOD/DoD security gates or accelerate accreditation for third‑party companies. The post’s leap to “ALRT becomes the rapid‑deployment gateway for the entire alliance”. ALRT becomes the rapid-deployment gateway for the entire alliance. is not supported by the source.

5. The capital raise explanation is speculation.

The post asserts the £5m raise was done because of this supposed Oracle pipeline . The article does not say this, and the RNS certainly didn’t. It’s narrative‑building, not evidence.

In short:

Real, material datapoint: Saga/Whitespace deployment with the Royal Navy.

Everything else: interpretation, extrapolation, or outright hype.

Happy to back genuine progress, but it’s important to separate what the article actually says from what people would like it to imply.

Rubbish, the only ones who knows who is selling is the broker and the seller and even then its just numbers on a screen. Remember for every seller there is at least one buyer.

The high-tax era of the 1950s/60s proves that heavy taxation can work if it is explicitly weaponised for long-term capital investment rather than just day to day state survival.

Back then, top tax rates funded the birth of the NHS, cleared slums for social housing, built our motorways, and expanded free universities. Crucially, it worked because the economy was growing at 2.5–3% annually, allowing the state to easily pay down a massive 230% WWII debt mountain.

A high tax model could kickstart 2026 Britain through a modern Keynesian approach: the state acting as the investor of last resort. It works via three mechanisms:

The Multiplier Effect: Pouring tax revenues directly into green energy grids, modern transport, and digital infrastructure generates up to £2 of private economic activity for every £1 spent.

Fixing Productivity: Aggressively funding the NHS gets millions of long term sick people back into the workforce, while subsidized childcare unlocks massive labour supply.

Crowding-In Capital: State co-investment in high risk sectors like AI, biotech, and carbon capture derisks those industries, attracting billions in private venture capital.

The logic reverses supply side theory: you don't cut taxes to get growth; you tax strategically to build a healthy, educated workforce on world-class infrastructure. This builds a high-productivity economy, expanding the economic pie so rapidly that the tax burden eventually falls organically as a percentage of a much larger GDP, as occurred in post war Britain.

The majority of the wealthy are for higher taxes, but just as with everything, you always get a vocal minority, which is who people listen to. The funniest thing is that most who are against these higher tax levels are the ones it wouldn't affect. They fear it would cause an exodus of high-net-worth individuals who pay low taxes due to the number of loopholes available to them. Tax to the truly wealthy is an inconvenience; it doesn't really affect your life in the same way as what you receive in your pay packet affects those on the 20%/40% tax brackets. Bills are paid and income after tax is way above inflation, so wealth continues to grow.

Increasing taxes on income through tiered levels to 75%–90% and increasing CGT wouldn't change that. Income and capital gains taxes only account for a very small percentage of a high net worth individual's total economic power, which is built on asset growth. The wealthy are upwardly mobile they don't need the excuse of moving due to a tax regime; they're much more likely to do so if there is a militant or volatile political regime in charge of the country. I know quite a few wealthy people who are making plans to leave by 2029 if Reform gets into government, and they're supposedly a low-tax party. Political stability and social cohesion matter far more to capital than marginal tax rates.

@skier1 "Tax more, grow less" sounds simple, but the 2026 reality is a structural trap.

Our current 37% tax burden isn't funding state growth; it's barely keeping the lights on. We have a 95% debt-to-GDP mountain with high interest costs, alongside an ageing population heavily straining the NHS and pensions.

"Fiscal drag" (frozen tax thresholds) is a massive disincentive to productivity, pushing everyday workers into high brackets, while rising corporation and NI taxes choke business investment.

However, cutting taxes isn't an easy fix. If we slash the tax burden to stimulate the private sector, the outcome would be a massive, immediate fiscal black hole. Without matching (and politically toxic) spending cuts to public services or pensions, it would force a spike in unfunded borrowing, risking a financial market crash and higher mortgage rates.

The growth-to-tax ratio since 1900 shows we are a tenfold richer economy today, but 2026 Britain is trapped between needing lower taxes to grow and being shackled to the immense liabilities of a modern welfare state.

If you have a better solution whereby, we can reduce taxes and still cover public services, debt repayments, expansion of defence, the state safety net including pensions and all the other liabilities we have in 2026 I'm all ears, but one-line posts don't provide answers they just produce more questions without easy answers.

Quote "Remember the rolling stones exiting the UK in terms of Domicile for tax as the government wanted to take up to 95% of their hard earned..."

Not quite the whole story is it. When the band fled to the South of France in April 1971, they did not just leave to avoid future tax; they were facing a massive retrospective tax bill. Due to severe financial mismanagement by their early representation (including Allen Klein), the band discovered they owed hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Inland Revenue money they simply did not have. They gradually paid off the outstanding historical UK tax debts in full. This cleared them of criminal liability or the threat of asset seizure, allowing them to visit the UK for brief periods without being arrested.