Another job for a Labourite I see...

http://order-order.com/2016/04/13/pienaar-new-bbc-deputy-pol-ed/

OGH – all those years as a reporter when you should have been in front of the camera.

From the last thread'...

I'm still waiting from the pb Universe for a good reason why someone (or company) would invest offshore other than being a criminal laundering cash or a tax avoider? This is entirely a selfish request. As a UK resident I need to put some money in a fund with low management costs and offers good returns. Simple links would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.

FPT

I've thought for quite a while that I am a convinced Leaver. Yesterday I realised that actually my head is a Don't Know.

It's only my heart that says Leave, and the only reason is that we were taken in on a lie. I realised this when someone posted on here a comment about the Sir Edward Heath interview admitting that he lied.

But that was then, this is now. Politicians always seem to have some subterfuge or other even if it doesn't amount to an outright lie. We are where we are, and my head doesn't know what would be the best route to take.

For starters, I am ignoring all the propaganda & unpleasant personalities on both sides.

Sir Edward left a legacy of poison for his cherished project, I'm afraid.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Another job for a Labourite I see...

http://order-order.com/2016/04/13/pienaar-new-bbc-deputy-pol-ed/

Yeah, the BBC is stuffed full of lefties.

Unless you count Andrew "Thatcher's confidante" Neil.

Or Laura "offered job as Cameron's spin doctor" Kuenssberg.

Or James "went to Eton with Cameron" Landale.

Or Nick "head of Tory society at university" Robinson.

Danny565 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Another job for a Labourite I see...

http://order-order.com/2016/04/13/pienaar-new-bbc-deputy-pol-ed/

Yeah, the BBC is stuffed full of lefties.

Unless you count Andrew "Thatcher's confidante" Neil.

Or Laura "offered job as Cameron's spin doctor" Kuenssberg.

Or James "went to Eton with Cameron" Landale.

Or Nick "head of Tory society at university" Robinson.

Fixed for you

Neil is most likely right of centre, but nobody thinks he doesn't give Tories a massive hard time...

Kuenssberg who offered advice to Team Corbyn...

Landale has been booted for some strange reason (too Tory?) from politics job, hence why he has a replacement.

Robinson offered job by Ed Miliband (as was Pienaar).

Newsnight Team...lefty, lefty, lefty, lefty, lefty, lefty...every single one of them since Paxman went. More Guardian than the Guardian these days. Chance to replace a left, offered to Sun guy, gets veto'ed, lets go for the Guardian guy.

Danny565 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Another job for a Labourite I see...

http://order-order.com/2016/04/13/pienaar-new-bbc-deputy-pol-ed/

Yeah, the BBC is stuffed full of lefties.
Unless you count Andrew "Thatcher's confidante" Neil.
...

Andrew Neil's Sunday Times was a very strong opponent of Thatcher for at least the last 3 or 4 years she was in charge. Also "Opposition to perceived public school and Oxbridge attitudes was a hallmark of Neil's Sunday Times editorship."

oh and Mr Pienaar was being openly talked about joining Labour as its head of comms (either Brown or Ed Miliband - I forget which).

FrancisUrquhart said:

Danny565 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Another job for a Labourite I see...

http://order-order.com/2016/04/13/pienaar-new-bbc-deputy-pol-ed/

Yeah, the BBC is stuffed full of lefties.

Unless you count Andrew "Thatcher's confidante" Neil.

Or Laura "offered job as Cameron's spin doctor" Kuenssberg.

Or James "went to Eton with Cameron" Landale.

Or Nick "head of Tory society at university" Robinson.

Fixed for you

Neil is most likely right of centre, but nobody thinks he doesn't give Tories a massive hard time...

Kuenssberg who offered advice to Team Corbyn...

Landale has been booted for some strange reason (too Tory?) from politics job, hence why he has a replacement.

Robinson offered job by Ed Miliband (as was Pienaar).

Neil gives everyone a hard time, no matter what party. But you can't say rightwingers' private opinions don't matter if they "give Tories a hard time" onscreen, yet lefties' private views should disqualify from being on the BBC even if they (like Neil) are neutral on screen and give their favoured politicians a hard time when doing their job.

And Kuenssberg "offering advice" to Team Corbyn.....please. It's kind of political journos jobs to talk to the party spin doctors. There are various reports/pictures of Nick Robinson having dinner with Cameron's press staff, if you really want to go down that route.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Danny565 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Another job for a Labourite I see...

http://order-order.com/2016/04/13/pienaar-new-bbc-deputy-pol-ed/

Yeah, the BBC is stuffed full of lefties.
Unless you count Andrew "Thatcher's confidante" Neil.
...

Andrew Neil's Sunday Times was a very strong opponent of Thatcher for at least the last 3 or 4 years she was in charge. Also "Opposition to perceived public school and Oxbridge attitudes was a hallmark of Neil's Sunday Times editorship."

oh and Mr Pienaar was being openly talked about joining Labour as its head of comms (either Brown or Ed Miliband - I forget which).

For the record, I'd work for any of the political parties so long as they paid well enough. I'm flexible like that.

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Danny565 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Another job for a Labourite I see...

http://order-order.com/2016/04/13/pienaar-new-bbc-deputy-pol-ed/

Yeah, the BBC is stuffed full of lefties.
Unless you count Andrew "Thatcher's confidante" Neil.
...

Andrew Neil's Sunday Times was a very strong opponent of Thatcher for at least the last 3 or 4 years she was in charge. Also "Opposition to perceived public school and Oxbridge attitudes was a hallmark of Neil's Sunday Times editorship."

oh and Mr Pienaar was being openly talked about joining Labour as its head of comms (either Brown or Ed Miliband - I forget which).

For the record, I'd work for any of the political parties so long as they paid well enough. I'm flexible like that.

BNP? Britain First? SWP?

EPG said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Danny565 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Another job for a Labourite I see...

http://order-order.com/2016/04/13/pienaar-new-bbc-deputy-pol-ed/

Yeah, the BBC is stuffed full of lefties.

Unless you count Andrew "Thatcher's confidante" Neil.

Or Laura "offered job as Cameron's spin doctor" Kuenssberg.

Or James "went to Eton with Cameron" Landale.

Or Nick "head of Tory society at university" Robinson.

Fixed for you

Neil is most likely right of centre, but nobody thinks he doesn't give Tories a massive hard time...

Kuenssberg who offered advice to Team Corbyn...

Landale has been booted for some strange reason (too Tory?) from politics job, hence why he has a replacement.

Robinson offered job by Ed Miliband (as was Pienaar).

Newsnight Team...lefty, lefty, lefty, lefty, lefty, lefty...every single one of them since Paxman went. More Guardian than the Guardian these days. Chance to replace a left, offered to Sun guy, gets veto'ed, lets go for the Guardian guy.

So it's OK to be a Tory (Neil) but not OK to be Labour (Lefty lefty lefty)

No, I am "giving" you Neil leans Tory. But the rest don't. And Newsnight is just a joke now, every single one of them are lefy with most ex-Guardian, there is absolutely no balance there. Then when the editor says ok lets hire a right wing guy, the higher up veto it and they hire YET another Guardianista.

Watched the US part of the podcast. The truth is that Clinton's lead is virtually insurmountable, because of the Superdelegates.

To try and persuade superdelegates to switch to Sanders, democratic voters would need a list of them plus contact information.

Here it is -

superdelegatelist.com

tyson said:

You've just answered my question- unless you have some fetish interest in say Peruvian warrants, or North Korean debt- and so are honest and declare it, then the people who invest offshore are criminals laundering money or tax avoiders. Unless, that is you live in said country like I did.

Cameron was at his terrible and cynical worst when he said millions invest offshore. More like 99% of folk are clueless about offshore funds, so he can say what he likes.

At it's best Cameron's family wealth was made by enticing funds from investors to avoid exchange controls. At its worse, it was fund a designed to attract monies from criminal and tax avoiders. Whichever, I wouldn't be too proud about it.

rcs1000 said:

tyson said:

From the last thread'...

I'm still waiting from the pb Universe for a good reason why someone (or company) would invest offshore other than being a criminal laundering cash or a tax avoider? This is entirely a selfish request. As a UK resident I need to put some money in a fund with low management costs and offers good returns. Simple links would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.

I'm sorry, but the decisions should - as much as possible - be left to the individual. Government oversight should be minimal.

If I want to invest in Bolivian shares, or Iranian shares, or North Korean debt (yes it exists, no they're not keeping up on their interest payments), then surely that is my business.

Of course, if people invest abroad, and have taxable income, and fail to declare it, that is a criminal offence and should be severely punished. But the government, simply, should not be in the business of banning things, simply because you don't understand why someone would want to do something.

Maybe the government should publish a list of things people are allowed to do. Maybe that would work better.

(Actually, with the "avoid drugs, m'kay" bill they are heading down that route already.)

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Danny565 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Another job for a Labourite I see...

http://order-order.com/2016/04/13/pienaar-new-bbc-deputy-pol-ed/

Yeah, the BBC is stuffed full of lefties.
Unless you count Andrew "Thatcher's confidante" Neil.
...

Andrew Neil's Sunday Times was a very strong opponent of Thatcher for at least the last 3 or 4 years she was in charge. Also "Opposition to perceived public school and Oxbridge attitudes was a hallmark of Neil's Sunday Times editorship."

oh and Mr Pienaar was being openly talked about joining Labour as its head of comms (either Brown or Ed Miliband - I forget which).

For the record, I'd work for any of the political parties so long as they paid well enough. I'm flexible like that.

BNP? Britain First? SWP?

Yes, of course.

They'd have to pay really well, mind.

I have this vision of you being the embattled UKIP spin doctor from that CH4 spoof battle bus thing they did during the GE.

Assuming I was paid well enough, I would work my socks off for any of the extremist parties - Britain First, the SWP, or the Greens - but I can't guarantee that I'd be any good.

slade said:

I crossed the Equator by sea for the first time today and witnessed the Neptune ceremony. Also went to a lecture on Space Law and the Equator by the leading expert on the field. Fascinating stuff - centred around the claim by the Group of 77 ( made up of all states with equatorial territories) who claim that all space above their land mass is their sovereign territory. But the crucial question is where does space begin and end?

Croydon

I think anyone (or company) who has invested in an offshore fund should be named, and their tax returns published online. Namely, that a requirement of investing offshore is that you should publish your tax return and be named- as per the Panama papers.

The problem with getting people to show their tax returns is that we still only see what they are prepared to show the state.

Cameron really has shown us what he wants to show us.

rcs1000 said:

tyson said:

You've just answered my question- unless you have some fetish interest in say Peruvian warrants, or North Korean debt- and so are honest and declare it, then the people who invest offshore are criminals laundering money or tax avoiders. Unless, that is you live in said country like I did.

Cameron was at his terrible and cynical worst when he said millions invest offshore. More like 99% of folk are clueless about offshore funds, so he can say what he likes.

At it's best Cameron's family wealth was made by enticing funds from investors to avoid exchange controls. At its worse, it was fund a designed to attract monies from criminal and tax avoiders. Whichever, I wouldn't be too proud about it.

rcs1000 said:

tyson said:

From the last thread'...

I'm still waiting from the pb Universe for a good reason why someone (or company) would invest offshore other than being a criminal laundering cash or a tax avoider? This is entirely a selfish request. As a UK resident I need to put some money in a fund with low management costs and offers good returns. Simple links would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.

I'm sorry, but the decisions should - as much as possible - be left to the individual. Government oversight should be minimal.

If I want to invest in Bolivian shares, or Iranian shares, or North Korean debt (yes it exists, no they're not keeping up on their interest payments), then surely that is my business.

Of course, if people invest abroad, and have taxable income, and fail to declare it, that is a criminal offence and should be severely punished. But the government, simply, should not be in the business of banning things, simply because you don't understand why someone would want to do something.

Maybe the government should publish a list of things people are allowed to do. Maybe that would work better.

(Actually, with the "avoid drugs, m'kay" bill they are heading down that route already.)

On topic:- a big fan of OGH elbowing Mr Pedley out of the show he founded, like a true Eastenders villain.

hunchman said:

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

To add to my previous post: there's nothing WRONG with Tories working for the BBC, but the idea that it's universally full of lefties doesn't really bear scrutiny.

Yes, it does.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490047/Facebook-reveals-BBC-liberal-hotbed.html

I personally LIKE the BBC, not least because I know zillions of people who work there, and they are good friends. But they are ALL lefties.

And they've sat for 13 months on documents given to them by Gordon Bowden in respect of 788 790 Finchley Road .......nothing to see here, move along licence payers. ....yeah right when senor bbc execs are implicated in the fraud, theft and money laundering.

Why would he give them the documents then?

tyson said:

You've just answered my question- unless you have some fetish interest in say Peruvian warrants, or North Korean debt- and so are honest and declare it, then the people who invest offshore are criminals laundering money or tax avoiders. Unless, that is you live in said country like I did.

Cameron was at his terrible and cynical worst when he said millions invest offshore. More like 99% of folk are clueless about offshore funds, so he can say what he likes.

At it's best Cameron's family wealth was made by enticing funds from investors to avoid exchange controls. At its worse, it was fund a designed to attract monies from criminal and tax avoiders. Whichever, I wouldn't be too proud about it.

rcs1000 said:

tyson said:

From the last thread'...

I'm still waiting from the pb Universe for a good reason why someone (or company) would invest offshore other than being a criminal laundering cash or a tax avoider? This is entirely a selfish request. As a UK resident I need to put some money in a fund with low management costs and offers good returns. Simple links would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.

I'm sorry, but the decisions should - as much as possible - be left to the individual. Government oversight should be minimal.

If I want to invest in Bolivian shares, or Iranian shares, or North Korean debt (yes it exists, no they're not keeping up on their interest payments), then surely that is my business.

Of course, if people invest abroad, and have taxable income, and fail to declare it, that is a criminal offence and should be severely punished. But the government, simply, should not be in the business of banning things, simply because you don't understand why someone would want to do something.

You are being utterly absurd.

If I think that shares in Singapore are going to go up in value so I invest in Singapore shares which am I: criminal or a tax avoider?

Besides it makes perfect sense (especially if saving for the long term eg pensions) to have a diverse portfolio of investments.

The trick with a great red wine is to take the air out and cork it after the first (or at a hedonistic most 2nd glass)- it gets better if anything the days after. And then to carry on with plonk.

The law of diminishing returns was probably designed for red wine.

Easier said than done mind. I've been know to demolish a great bottle of wine in my time. 50 mins is slow.

SeanT said:

I just drank a bottle of Barolo in about 50 minutes. By myself.

Help.

But good red wine is so LOVELY.

Really, absurd??

I can invest in Singapore shares through UK investment funds- I can spend all day researching and choose the best Singapore based investment funds looking at their returns and management costs. There are gazillions of UK based funds investing in whatever you want- Singapore being one.

If I was to invest in a Singapore single company on their stock market I would have to meet their requirements, and most likely demonstrate some kind off residency.

Or I could invest in an offshore fund specialising in Singapore (or Singapore based)- and pay a higher management charge, and most likely get lower returns.

But if you know some Singapore funds that have great returns and low management costs give me the link. I'm happy to diversify.



I'm sorry, but the decisions should - as much as possible - be left to the individual. Government oversight should be minimal.

If I want to invest in Bolivian shares, or Iranian shares, or North Korean debt (yes it exists, no they're not keeping up on their interest payments), then surely that is my business.

Of course, if people invest abroad, and have taxable income, and fail to declare it, that is a criminal offence and should be severely punished. But the government, simply, should not be in the business of banning things, simply because you don't understand why someone would want to do something.


You are being utterly absurd.

If I think that shares in Singapore are going to go up in value so I invest in Singapore shares which am I: criminal or a tax avoider?

Besides it makes perfect sense (especially if saving for the long term eg pensions) to have a diverse portfolio of investments.

runnymede said:

Is it 'pub bore impersonation night' on here this evening? A couple of excellent entries...

I hope I'm not guilty

Interesting show, especially the Paul Ryan discussion.

I laid off around half of my Ryan POTUS position at between 40-100

I'm not tempted to lay the rest off at current odds.

Anyway, given the remaining primaries seem quite predicable (and are priced into the market) now, I've greened out for just-about five figures on Hillary/Sanders/Trump/Cruz/Kasich, with a mid 5 figure payout on all the possible GOP non-runners and low six figures on Paul Ryan. I'm pretty pleased with that and I'm calling it a day.

FWIW, IMO, the GOP odds should be something like; (betfair in brackets)

Trump 60% (50%)
Cruz 30% (33%)
Kasich 4% (7.5%)
Ryan 2% (0.7%)
Other 4%

And POTUS;

Hillary 75% (66%)
Sanders 2.5% (6%)
Biden 0.5% (1%)
Trump 10% (12.5%)
Cruz 7% (7%)
Kasich 2% (2.5%)
Ryan 1% (0.5%)
Other 2%

If there is value in the current odds it's probably in laying POTUS sanders and/or backing POTUS hillary.

I'm not playing though, I've cashed out. Good luck to those who continue to bet on this crazy game.

I'll have to remind my Uncle the next time I see him that his memories have been clouded by 70's propaganda.

This is his testimony about the war- he is obviously a serial fantasist. I'll let him know next time I see him

https://soundcloud.com/parko58/edited-interview-with-jan

RodCrosby said:

ThreeQuidder said:

RodCrosby said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FPT

NickPalmer said:

O/T: In Berlin (oddly for the first time) for a

Great place, Berlin. Hotel Adlon, Cafe Adler, the Brecht Restaurant, the site of the Fuhrerbunker (not on any map!), the site of Stuffenberg's last stand on 20th July. Checkpoint Charlie Museum. A day trip out to Potsdam. Bits of the Wall were still there when I was there.

Didn't notice a 'Holocaust' Museum. In my 767-page Encyclopedia of World War Two (Secker & Warburg, 1978) there's no mention of a 'Holocaust' in any case.

Odd that...

Let me guess: it didn't happen in Liverpool so it didn't happen at all, right?

It's a neologism, relentlessly battered into people's skulls by the likes of Janner from the late seventies onwards. I prefer facts to propaganda.

On the topic of Liverpool, smart-alec, some of them actually claim the alien Jews who where interned by this country in the camp on its outskirts, were "Holocaust victims." Go figure...

RodCrosby said:

tyson said:

So what would you say to my Uncle who lost his mother, three sisters, grandparents, and two aunties who all suddenly disappeared at Aushwitz. Carless I guess.

RodCrosby said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FPT

NickPalmer said:

O/T: In Berlin (oddly for the first time) for a conference and afterwards went for a few hours round the centre. Really overwhelming history, with dozens of towering buildings, plaques and artistic displays commemorating massive events - the Brandenburg Gate, the Reichstag, Kennedy's speech, the Soviet war memorial... I went round the Holocaust museum, which is very well done - as you go in, you see a lot of anonymous concrete blocks, like forgotten tombs - then it takes you through the awful story, with commentaries and notes from survivors and the lost, and then you emerge, and at the exit the concrete blocks are 7 foot high with narrow passages to thread your way back to street normality.

I know it's all been said before, but the museum is worthwhile for quietly bringing it home.

If you have time visit the "Topography of Terror" near Checkpoint Charlie. It is an excellent museum of how the Nazis gradually established control of Berlin, with many political murders of Communists, Socialists, Trade Unionists etc in the 1930s. All an essential prelude to establishing the state that would attempt to kill so many others. Of great interest to anyone interested in politics, and how demogogues slide the boundary of what is acceptable until horror becomes mundane.

Berlin is a fascinating and beautiful city. Hard to believe the horrors that lie buried.

Great place, Berlin. Hotel Adlon, Cafe Adler, the Brecht Restaurant, the site of the Fuhrerbunker (not on any map!), the site of Stuffenberg's last stand on 20th July. Checkpoint Charlie Museum. A day trip out to Potsdam. Bits of the Wall were still there when I was there.

Didn't notice a 'Holocaust' Museum. In my 767-page Encyclopedia of World War Two (Secker & Warburg, 1978) there's no mention of a 'Holocaust' in any case.

Odd that...

Well, without being facetious, I would say "Keep Looking!" Plenty of people who lost touch with relatives during the war, including Auschwitz - thinking they were dead - were re-united decades later, although obviously the grand-parents, etc would be long dead. People do die, of natural causes, wherever they happen to be...

People also died in vast numbers of unnatural causes in WW2.

Eastern and Central Europe are full of ghosts.

RodCrosby said:

tyson said:

So what would you say to my Uncle who lost his mother, three sisters, grandparents, and two aunties who all suddenly disappeared at Aushwitz. Carless I guess.

RodCrosby said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FPT

NickPalmer said:

O/T: In Berlin (oddly for the first time) for a conference and afterwards went for a few hours round the centre. Really overwhelming history, with dozens of towering buildings, plaques and artistic displays commemorating massive events - the Brandenburg Gate, the Reichstag, Kennedy's speech, the Soviet war memorial... I went round the Holocaust museum, which is very well done - as you go in, you see a lot of anonymous concrete blocks, like forgotten tombs - then it takes you through the awful story, with commentaries and notes from survivors and the lost, and then you emerge, and at the exit the concrete blocks are 7 foot high with narrow passages to thread your way back to street normality.

What really struck me about the exhibition was how completely random the Holocaust was - pictures of ordinary families in the 1920s going about their business, and footnotes that, say, 11 of the 13 people in the picture had been killed. It's like these cases you read about where a madman shoots a dozen random passers-by, escalated to nearly the whole continent.

I know it's all been said before, but the museum is worthwhile for quietly bringing it home.

If you have time visit the "Topography of Terror" near Checkpoint Charlie. It is an excellent museum of how the Nazis gradually established control of Berlin, with many political murders of Communists, Socialists, Trade Unionists etc in the 1930s. All an essential prelude to establishing the state that would attempt to kill so many others. Of great interest to anyone interested in politics, and how demogogues slide the boundary of what is acceptable until horror becomes mundane.

Berlin is a fascinating and beautiful city. Hard to believe the horrors that lie buried.

Great place, Berlin. Hotel Adlon, Cafe Adler, the Brecht Restaurant, the site of the Fuhrerbunker (not on any map!), the site of Stuffenberg's last stand on 20th July. Checkpoint Charlie Museum. A day trip out to Potsdam. Bits of the Wall were still there when I was there.

Didn't notice a 'Holocaust' Museum. In my 767-page Encyclopedia of World War Two (Secker & Warburg, 1978) there's no mention of a 'Holocaust' in any case.

Odd that...

Well, without being facetious, I would say "Keep Looking!" Plenty of people who lost touch with relatives during the war, including Auschwitz - thinking they were dead - were re-united decades later, although obviously the grand-parents, etc would be long dead. People do die, of natural causes, wherever they happen to be...

Please stop it Rod

No more discussion on holocaust denial - you know the rules Rod

Fenster said:

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

FPT

NickPalmer said:

O/T: In Berlin (oddly for the first time) for a conference and afterwards went for a few hours round the centre. Really overwhelming history, with dozens of towering buildings, plaques and artistic displays commemorating massive events - the Brandenburg Gate, the Reichstag, Kennedy's speech, the Soviet war memorial... I went round the Holocaust museum, which is very well done - as you go in, you see a lot of anonymous concrete blocks, like forgotten tombs - then it takes you through the awful story, with commentaries and notes from survivors and the lost, and then you emerge, and at the exit the concrete blocks are 7 foot high with narrow passages to thread your way back to street normality.

What really struck me about the exhibition was how completely random the Holocaust was - pictures of ordinary families in the 1920s going about their business, and footnotes that, say, 11 of the 13 people in the picture had been killed. It's like these cases you read about where a madman shoots a dozen random passers-by, escalated to nearly the whole continent.

I know it's all been said before, but the museum is worthwhile for quietly bringing it home.

If you have time visit the excellent "Topography of

Berlin is a fascinating and beautiful city. Hard to believe the horrors that lie buried.

What I loved about Berlin is the holes. The shrapnel scars and bomb wounds, visible in almost every building pre 1945. You can see these in London, from the Blitz and the V1 campaign, and I love spotting them (Bloomsbury is good for this) but Berlin has millions of these war-wounds.

On my first visit there I took Antony Beevor's extraordinary BERLIN, with me, to read, and I wandered around even as I stopped off in cafes and cars to rip through his compelling Gotterdammerung prose. It was like reading Tolkien on a walking tour of Mordor with Bilbo Baggins.

My best butty, who has drug-partied all over Europe, said the nightclubs in Berlin are absolutely bonkers. Stomp-dancing vikings, sweating headbanging pill head lesbians snogging at the bar, blokes dressed in full sexy lingerie, skinheads doing hippy, trippy Haight Ashbury finger dancing, the lot.

He said he was off his tree for three full days and saw none of the historic sights.

Not my scene, but I can believe it.

Berlin is a weird and wonderful place. You can take the S bahn to Wannsee and be on a delightful city beach, looking at the house where the extermination of European Jewry was planned.

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/720352683513786368

@FrancisUrquhart Olive oil?

The story of Jezza and his tax return AGAIN....

Jeremy Corbyn failed to declare a third pension on his HMRC tax form, it has emerged, as he refused to disclose documents regarding his full tax declaration last night.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/jeremy-corbyn-failed-to-declare-third-pension-on-tax-return/

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/720356168049102850

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/720356195786043392

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/720356203734249472

As if his job isn't a difficult enough at the moment Sajid Javid is named in the latest issue of IS' English language magazine as the kind of person IS supporters should kill.

He joins high profile Muslim Muhammad Abdul Bari, Baroness Warsi, private sector big shot and appointed diversity worthy Waqar Azmi, and the Lib Dems Ajmal Masroor.

If that wasn't an exciting enough read there is an article slagging off the UK & US for their policy on hostages, i.e. not paying up when nice European countries do pay up.

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/720358522253361152

@Foxinsoxuk

I'd love to visit one day. Like SeanT I read Beevor's Berlin with a horrified fascination. It's a book that leaves you despising the SS and NKVD but admiring the incredible selfless bravery of the common soldier, particularly the Wermacht soldiers who, starved and exhausted, fought to the death to save the trapped civilians in Berlin (the Wenck story, where he sent his troops back into Berlin in an act of suicidal sacrifice, is quite remarkable). What people suffer in war is hard to compute; justI unimaginable.

My wife is going to Limoges (sp?) in France in a few weeks. She's staying near a village where the SS massacred the population for apparently no reason, gunning down women and kids without mercy. The village is left in situ in memoriam to that day and she's going to visit it.

I was less squeamish once and devoured books like Hitler's Willing Executioners and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich without so much as a twitch of a muscle, but since having children I find it hard to stomach the evil, grisly reality - so visits like that are currently off the menu for me. Watching my two young innocent children living such charmed, comfy lives is hard to equate with what the European kids of the 1940s witnessed. It's nuts. Frighteningly nuts.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/720356168049102850

With those figures I would say the Locals look better for Labour everyday.

Fox- you are making my point for me. I know there are plenty of funds that invest overseas- that are UK based. I invest in obscure mineral companies, emerging economies and whatnot through some obscure UK funds- but these are UK funds. That is exactly my point- there are so many funds out there you can invest in- but these are all home based. My portfolio is actually very diverse. So why do you need to invest in an offshore based fund.

Also, whenever you invest in an individual shares, you are doing this as a UK resident I guess. If you want to invest in an overseas company on their stock market, you will have to comply to their residency requirements.

So why, when you can invest in UK based funds with overseas interests, would you want to invest directly in an overseas fund which probably costs more and has worse returns?

foxinsoxuk said:

@ tyson

If you want to invest offshore there are plenty of UK funds that will do it. My Hargreaves - Lansdowne ISA lists plenty, and it is possible to buy individual foreign shares too on some exchanges. There must be other reasons for people to move money offshore.

Personally I like to choose my own shares so that I can avoid unethical companies rather than go with Trusts. It also reduces the amount paid in charges, but each to their own.

REMAIN have lost what once was said to be their Unique Selling Point Cameron.

To help REMAIN and help the Conservative party, Cameron just has to STFU about the EU.

What Roger's friends would call the truth behind the offering.

Cameron has made a very bad misjudgement on the EU

FrancisUrquhart said:

The story of Jezza and his tax return AGAIN....

Jeremy Corbyn failed to declare a third pension on his HMRC tax form, it has emerged, as he refused to disclose documents regarding his full tax declaration last night.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/jeremy-corbyn-failed-to-declare-third-pension-on-tax-return/

From the in short section of that article Jezza paid 18 912 in tax (an overall rate of 27%) on £70 795. On the back of an envelope this works out at :

0% of £10 000
20% of £32 000
40% of £30 000

Roughly £18000

If there was indeed tax deducted at source in the various pensions then the figures do not add up as a higher proportion would be at the 40% rate and the tax bill on his HoC return significantly higher.

I smell a rat.

runnymede said:

Cameron has made a very bad misjudgement on the EU

He's only got himself to blame, his renegotiation was utterly shit.