Member Info for longtimeinvestor

Ant

Now when the EU referendum took place, the country voted to leave, with that vote being about 7% greater than the remain vote.

I am afraid getting 30% of votes does not warrant saying that the country voted for Labours 'change' . Also as I have already indicated, it is a completely blind 'change' - all to be revealed at a later date.

Ant

''For the last time, and be told''

oh dear oh dear.

''Labour won''

and?

what has that got to do with me correcting you?

yet once more -

have you got an understanding problem.

You said that the country voted for Labours 'change' and I corrected you .

You really should learn not to continue responding when there is NO debate to have.

Labour won a landslide in terms of seats, but 'the country' did not vote for Labour's 'change' -only about 30% of the voting country- and many things of which will turn out not to have been in their manifesto.

End of

Ant

re 19:49

First of all I didn't realise that you were DCB and secondly - incorrect (again)

Ant

''Not sure what your point is?''

point?

have you got an understanding problem.

Once again -

You said that the country voted for Labours 'change' and I corrected you .

You really should learn not to continue responding when there is NO debate to have.

Labour won a landslide in terms of seats, but 'the country' did not vote for Labour's 'change' -only about 30% of the voting country- and many things of which will turn out not to have been in their manifesto.

End of

DCB

''I find the numbers above truly shocking!''

That is because as has been demonstrated on endless occasions, you are not the brightest spark and also once again shows your memory problems.

I have been through this particular 'Apples and Oranges' situation a few times already in the past.

With your malfunctioning memory, maybe you can try to work out it out yourself now.

Ant

''I really do not want a debate about the b loo dy obvious''

You said that the country voted for Labours 'change' and I corrected you .

End of

You really shroud learn not to continue responding when there is NO debate to have.

BAT yet another 42 week high

Carclo up - reached another multi year high - 7 fold increase from April low

HLN reached another all time high

National Grid up - now comfortably above £10 again ( post big 645p RI )

SSE reached another all time high

Tesco reached another 10 year high

Lloyds continues to be sold at a cheap level .

Fewer votes, that should read

Ant

''that’s what the country voted for, like it or not.''

Incorrect - About 30% of those who voted (less than the Corbyn Socialists received)

Ant

''Private landlords currently do not pay NI on their income- this is a massive potential target come October.''

and where would that end - why just income from property investment?. why not savings income, why not share investment income, why not private pension income.

NI should be abolished - it had started on that path with Conservative policy.

They were to abolish it for the self employed and also make a further cut to 6% for others after the already made cuts from 12%.

Ant

''Everyone was warned in the 80’s and 90’s our pensions would need topping up''

?? - what planet are you on.

There needs to be a transition away from a taxpayer funded state pension, but the compulsion for employers to provide a pension with compulsory contributions did not start until 2012. So perhaps 40 years from now, all pensioners will be a bit more comfortable in old age.

Of course GB decimated pension funds with his tax grab resulting in a big drop in expected annual returns, with final salary schemes virtually phased out completely over a period of time following.

I have said before - there are many tiny islands in the British Isles that immigrants could be put on . They can be supplied with just a tent and very basic food, until such a time they wish to depart the UK.

Much better option than that Hotels/ flats with all mod cons.

I cannot believe the gullibility of some people.

''40 small boats and engines being seized, which could have been used to transport 2,400 people across the Channel…''

That's like saying X amount of cocaine has been seized that could have supplied a 1,000 people for a month.

Trouble is many X amounts are always still available for the addicts.

''...Ms Cooper said the last two months had seen "encouraging progress, with significant seizures of boats and equipment in Europe"…''

what a plonker - even specifying 'two months' makes her even more of a plonker.

It is a shame that there are so many dumb people to lap this nonsense up.

Https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes

GS

what is it you do not understand.

The UK has legal routes - a crossing in a dinghy is not one of them - in other words, illegal.

A migrant arriving on a dinghy is guilty of an offence under section 24 of the Act if he “knowingly enters the UK … without leave”

People entering England on a dinghy are illegal entrants into the country.

They dispose docs/phones - an act from people with something to hide. Many young Islamist being implanted into the West like a Trojan horse.

Mv

As you say, mainly young men , many of whom could be violent criminals, ISIS 'soldiers' etc etc

Mv

''why would a genuine Bona Fide person living in fear destroy any documentation that would prove ''

precisely - disposal of docs/phones - just another reason why they are illegal - they know what they are doing .

Gs

''Therefore the act of entering a country is not illegal if you intend to claim asylum''

A migrant arriving on a dinghy is guilty of an offence under section 24 of the Act if he “knowingly enters the UK … without leave”

GS

''It is not illegal to enter another country IF ''

People entering England on dinghies from France are all ILLEGAL.

They are not in any exempt category under the 1971 immigration act.

They have not been given entry clearance.

Shame I didn't sell them all at over £4 rather than some.