Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

There is not 1 oaf on this thread, 2 or 3 may be. :-))

you carry on chris .... promise i shall neither take it to heart nor be offended :-)

Well done cynic, at least nobody can accuse you of not having a sense of humour :0) GF would have destroyed at least six threads by now!

World record attempt of 80 pancakes

The bookies rarely get it wrong....


http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/most-seats

( . ) ( . )

Max.

Put your money on it.

Place a £1000 , reasonable return for less than 80 days.

I wouldn't bet a grand on any of the tossers Fred.

But I wouldn't say no to a small wager with your goodself, if we can find a suitable mechanism.

What say you?

Interesting, but unlikely!

If you two do decide on a bet I am prepared to hold the stake monies... for a small consideration of course -):

Telegraph loses extremely brilliant journalist..........

17 February 2015
Daily Telegraph's Peter Oborne resigns over HSBC coverage



Peter Oborne said newspapers had "a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth"

The chief political commentator of the Daily Telegraph has resigned from the paper, accusing it of a "form of fraud on its readers" for its coverage of HSBC and its Swiss tax-dodging scandal.

Peter Oborne claimed the paper did not give due prominence to the HSBC story because of commercial interests.

Newspapers had a "constitutional duty" to tell readers the truth, he said.

The Telegraph called Oborne's statement an "astonishing and unfounded attack, full of inaccuracy and innuendo".

In a lengthy statement published on the OpenDemocracy website, Mr Oborne said he had already resigned from the paper "as a matter of conscience" because a number of its editorial decisions.

Analysis
By BBC media and art correspondent David Sillito
The Telegraph describes it as astonishing. They are not alone.

Amongst responses from journalists and news executives it's described as "eye-popping", "stunning", "explosive" and from professor Jay Rosen at New York University "one of the most important things a journalist has written about journalism lately".

The Daily Telegraph is accused of a "sinister" betrayal of its readers.

Stories about HSBC, Tesco and China are said to be placed or sidelined for commercial reasons.

But this is not just a parting swipe at an employer by a disgruntled member of staff, it's an explosion of anger about an issue that is worrying journalists across the industry.

Newspapers are in a state of crisis. The Telegraph has seen its print sales drop by around half over the last 10 years.

The less we spend on papers, the more our news will have to be paid for by companies.

And in the online world, the clear boundaries between news and adverts do not feel quite so clear anymore. Many adverts are looking more and more like news stories.

But Peter Oborne has gone further, saying that "shadowy" executives are interfering on an "industrial scale" with basic news coverage.

This is strong stuff and the Telegraph denies it all - saying it's all unfounded and full of inaccuracy.

Of course, these are turbulent times. The Telegraph is, like almost every other paper, having to reinvent itself.

People are going to get upset. But whatever the truth of these particular allegations - there are issues here not limited to just one newspaper.

He said he had intended to "leave quietly" until he saw the paper's coverage of HSBC and its Swiss banking arm.

In comparison to the coverage of the story in other national newspapers, "you needed a microscope to find the Telegraph coverage", Mr Oborne said.

Mr Oborne said "after a lot of agony" he had come to the conclusion he had a "duty" to comment publicly, saying the Telegraph was a "significant part of Britain's civic architecture".

He said he had been told HSBC was an "extremely valuable" advertiser by what he called a "well-informed insider".

"A free press is essential to a healthy democracy," Mr Oborne said.

"There is a purpose to journalism, and it is not just to entertain. It is not to pander to political power, big corporations and rich men.

"Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth."

Mr Oborne later told Channel 4 News he believed he spoke "for the vast majority of Telegraph staff" in saying he had no confidence in Murdoch McLennan, the paper's chief executive, and the Barclay brothers who own the paper.

A Telegraph spokesman said the "distinction between advertising and our award-winning editorial operation has always been fundamental to our business".

They added: "We utterly refute any allegation to the contrary.

"It is a matter of huge regret that Peter Oborne, for nearly five years a contributor to the Telegraph, should have launched such an astonishing and unfounded attack, full of inaccuracy and innuendo, on his own paper."

max - they did with foinavon; they did with kinnock; they do with most race favourites

==============

chris - you're not as destructive as either of the banished either

the silence from this gov on tax avoidance is truly amazing . but when the tax avoiders are putting the cash in your pockets you are going to say fcuk all

this government is a rotten stinking corrupt government .
and makes me feel ashamed tat I have always voted tory never again
gutless arsewipes

it is extraordinary how most of you here fail to differentiate between perfectly legal AVOIDANCE and EVASION (illegal) or even "aggressive" avoidance (an HMRC fave)

I think most on here know the difference between AVOIDANCE and EVASION.

What I find hard to understand, is why tax law is written in such a way as to allow avoidance.

Surely the gov/taxman has enough legal talent on call to write no get out tax rules. No?

tax rules should be simple once you have used your allowance that's it
has for companies tax on all profits simple just make it that companies can
reinvest profits has long as it is used solely for the good of the company and not
to give out massive bonuses . but we all know that the people making the tax rules
firstly look at their own ends to use legal tax avoidance to save them money
were as the people on paye can not it stinks of corruption for the rich
Osborne the liar and crook gave hedge funds the free stamp duty then they are given 47m for the election . corruption and the sfo should investigate
and no tax paid if I gave some one cash the tax man would want to know

Perhaps, they are considering the "morality" and not the legality of some tax regulations.


Also, in a vague way perhaps considering the "intentional" favouring of certain groups within society.

I can remember the tightening up of company expenses in the late 70s and 80s and the grumblings and groans of those who enjoy the advantages of those "claims" and said "expenses" allowable because they had a "company". (Sometimes "family" companies.

It wasn't change in tax regulations, but the implementation of the rules which caused the rush to trusts.

(Also, can remember HMRC inspectors almost being banned from joining squash and tennis clubs or being treated like pariahs when they did.)

Although, taxation is always used for the "wrong" things and unbearable insult to the "hard working" it depends on what you consider the "wrong things".

But much tax is paid on "inherited not personally earned income from productive work".

George Osborne's trust comes to mind and Dodgy Daves "condemnation" of unemployed school leavers.

Also, interesting condemning of the "unemployed wasters or school leavers on the dole" when they were able to go the "Bullingdon Club" and drink Coke and reward the bar man by smashing up his place of work, expecting the daddies to bail them out and pay their bills.

I suppose the Mummies and Daddies were able to pay for suitable crammers and the right pathways or openings.

To some there appears a "protected group" who are able to utilise "legal" evasion and that is what sticks in the gullets of many.

Manuel,

Cast your mind back to 70s and 80s, how many meals in your establishment were paid for as "company" expenses, even though they were obviously or not so obviously "private" affairs.

.