Member Info for Scubamike

Dividend gains are irrelevant for CGT purposes.

I was refering to your CGT calculation when wanting to Bed & ISA

@ICL1960

£20,000 (your ISA allowance) would have bought c20408 shares @ £0.98

selling at £1.02 would give you a <£817 profit (less any transaction fees - at least £100 stamp duty on purchase).

Why would you pay CGT on this, as the CGT allowance is £3,000 for 26/27

Unless you've made other gains which is relevant.

Makes a change from tax that has never been collected being redirected back to the Tory (also Tory mk2) parties.

Strange that there were "not enough shares".

I bought just shy of 40m at 11:08:57.

Small beans, but clearly enough shares around to fill it.

Thanks for clarifying

Excuse my ignorance, but who would the group action be directed against?

It's my understanding that as the share capital in Wood Group has been cancelled, the legal entity "Wood Group" no longer exists.

If the action is against the directors, would there be any point as there is unlikely to be any meaningful reparations. The directors simply declare themselves bankrupt (after protecting their assets).

My shares still showing (EQI)

Still no response to my rebuttal of your "facts".

Have you tried to understand photographic exposures?

Maybe read up about space suits too, and the protection they give.

Still thinking you know more about van Allen belts than James van Allen?

You are completely devoid of critical thinking, just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it didn't happen. Listen to those that know better (that doesn't include Kim Kardashian).

Are you an anti-vax, brexit supporting, reform voter too? strange that you should talk about people being fooled.

@Graff, You're a moron.

No country has been to the moon since the 70's because there was no political will to do so. That you don't understand the science is why you should stay quiet, Instead you insist on publically announcing to the world that you are a fool.

The earth's magnetic field protects us from solar particles, but it is the protection from stripping out atmosphere that's the real protection.

You try to sound scientific and throw in scientific terms to sound plausible, but to anyone with elementry scientific knowledge your views are childish and born of ignorance.

You seem to think you know more about the van Allen belts that James van Allen himself. Bravo.

You think the scientific minds that put 12 humans on the surface of the Moon are idiots who didn't think of every single little thing that you point out.

You neglected to answer my previous rebuttal of your "facts", why was that? Have you read up on photographic exposures yet?

You even think your being clever with your mloon" comment. Hint: Your not and it's not.

Your views on the Moon landings are as out of touch with reality as your 60-90p rival bidder.

I'd love to drive a model T ford, but we don't have the technology to build them anymore.

I've never had any accidents in Nottingham, but I can assure you I've been there a lot.

Have had accidents closer to home though.

You mean:

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"

If your going to quote literature, at least get it right.

No holes, no discrepancies. Only hearsay, easily disproven comments by people who want to appear more important and give the impression they are holders of forbiden knowledge.

(stuck h" key)

You've convinced me.

If the well known genius scientist Kim Kardashian says it was faked, who am I (with my Pysics and Astronomy degree). to argue.

Seeing as the most hazerdous parts of spaceflight are at takeoff and landing it follows that any accidents are much more likely to happen close to earth.

the lunar landing and takeoff used far less powerful rocket engines due to the 1/6th surface gravity of the moon, and as such are far less prone to failures.

it's very clever of you to use "Mloon" rather than Moon. Have you any other gems?

Any and all of your "facts" can be disproven by simple science, but it looks like you are beyond rational explainations.

"9) If they really had gone to the mloon, which would have been one the greatest achievements by mankind, they would have declared a bank holiday to celebrate it. But there is NO such holiday. Cus they never went."

Don't remember a bank holiday for VE day either, nor for the Trinity test, nor the defeat of the Spanish armada.

They can't have happened either.

Anyone with the most basic exposure to science, or with the most basic level of common sense realises that you are talking about something you have no knowledge of.

1: you realise that the command module and LEM just coast to the moon. There is nothing to do. do you think they're out there pushing it?

2: All the important stuff is still there. Some blueprints have been lost, but do you think they've saved the blueprints for the Model T ford? Obsolete technology is rarely saved.

3: Learn a little about photographic exposure. If they had wanted to get the stars to show up everything else would have been overexposed. The stars were not what they were trying to photograph.

4: No accidents so it didn't happen? I can't have driven my car this morning because there was no accident.

5: Crosshairs bleed into bright objects. it's photographic exposure again, but you've already proven you don't understand that concept.

6: The list goes on and on.... gaslighting.

7: The different lunar missions had different mission objectives.

8: Bernie Madoff has no bearing on this.

9: etc etc.... repeat of 6, and you are still gaslighting.

Every single consipiracy theory has been knocked flat by scientists and experts in other fields. Only those that want to think they are privy to "special knowledge" gives them more that a cursory glance, because they are that easily disproven.

I'd call you want you are, but I was always toaught not to mock the afflicted.

"The furthest humans can safely travel today is not ceo but LEO. Low Earth Orbit. "

James van Allen might argue that point.

Still waiting to hear what your expert qualifications are.

But just continue gaslighting if that's what floats your boat.

Stupid?

You're the one that needs to resport to emojis. Instead of adressing the question, you resort to ad hominum attacks, then run away with your "bye" comment.

Just because a government doesn't move to increase the value of a share you own they're incompetent?

Perfectly clear?

To you?

Enlighten us as to your qualifications in Economics, I'm assuming they are much higher than Reeves for you to be dismissing her so.

Your use of childish emojis shows your level.