| Starmer's principled positioning .... 09:15 - May 12 with 9546 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
How many highly principled, yet varying, positions on the same subjects is it OK to have?
Asking for a friend. |  |
| |  |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 14:32 - May 14 with 902 views | Herbivore |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 12:49 - May 14 by nrb1985 |
Wasn't really aimed at you , given I think I could tell you the sky is blue but because of my profession or who my clients are you'd argue until your last breathe that wasn't the case.
Problem is, there won't be official figures for 2 years - so until then you can maintain whatever position you want.
However, the naivety in your response is there for all to see - because there's a lawyer from Charles Russell quoted as saying ~60% of his clients have or are leaving. I would say mine are there or there abouts too and the chap from Mischcon on the youtube clip I sent you said he would say at least 40% of his clients are off too. Are we all lying? If so, to what end? So I can one up somebody on a football message board perhaps?
Just to re iterate, myself, the lawyers and the advisors, have no vested interest here as we will manage their wealth and assist them wherever they reside.
Also in the article, as well as me countless times yesterday, they reference the glaring deficiencies in the Warwick paper (upon which the Govt policy and OBR forecasts are based to some extent) re the IHT issue - I wonder what self interest you think the journalist has in bringing that forward? Paid off by the Milan tourist board perhaps? Promised a year's supply of limoncello and panettone? Or like Liz Truss do you believe that Bloomberg and the FT are part of some shadowy cabal designed to undermine the government?
I don't think there can be much debate that, at present and among sensible people, it looks utterly fanciful to think that 10-20% only will go.
Regardless, this isn't really meant for your consumption and more for the slightly less swivelled eyed among the forum. [Post edited 14 May 12:56]
|
None of that addresses my response. All of it makes you sound like a dick. |  |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 14:52 - May 14 with 850 views | nrb1985 |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 14:32 - May 14 by Herbivore |
None of that addresses my response. All of it makes you sound like a dick. |
No idea why I didn't do this yesterday, but just had a look at your posting history.
Blimey, one of them is actually called "Fck the rich". Now it all makes sense.
Talk about tarring people with the same brush with that post!! Because nobody from the "poorer" cohorts of our society has ever done anything even vaguely as appalling? I dread to think the reaction if anybody ever posted something on here called "Fck the poor". Rightly they would probably be banned.
You are as awful as the people on the right who say things like "Muslim rape gangs".
I may come across as a d!ck but you come across as somebody green with envy, with a chip on your shoulder the size of Karl Marx beard and with the politics of a sixth former. [Post edited 14 May 14:58]
|  | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:02 - May 14 with 829 views | Herbivore |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 14:52 - May 14 by nrb1985 |
No idea why I didn't do this yesterday, but just had a look at your posting history.
Blimey, one of them is actually called "Fck the rich". Now it all makes sense.
Talk about tarring people with the same brush with that post!! Because nobody from the "poorer" cohorts of our society has ever done anything even vaguely as appalling? I dread to think the reaction if anybody ever posted something on here called "Fck the poor". Rightly they would probably be banned.
You are as awful as the people on the right who say things like "Muslim rape gangs".
I may come across as a d!ck but you come across as somebody green with envy, with a chip on your shoulder the size of Karl Marx beard and with the politics of a sixth former. [Post edited 14 May 14:58]
|
I don't need to look at your posting history to get the measure of you, each post may as well be shaped like a giant bellend. Laughable the nonsense you're throwing around in this post, even waving an imaginary card around because someone has posted a thread titled "Fck the rich". Behaviour of a complete wet wipe. | |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:08 - May 14 with 804 views | nrb1985 |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:02 - May 14 by Herbivore |
I don't need to look at your posting history to get the measure of you, each post may as well be shaped like a giant bellend. Laughable the nonsense you're throwing around in this post, even waving an imaginary card around because someone has posted a thread titled "Fck the rich". Behaviour of a complete wet wipe. |
Ok Karl. | | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:12 - May 14 with 787 views | lowhouseblue |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 14:52 - May 14 by nrb1985 |
No idea why I didn't do this yesterday, but just had a look at your posting history.
Blimey, one of them is actually called "Fck the rich". Now it all makes sense.
Talk about tarring people with the same brush with that post!! Because nobody from the "poorer" cohorts of our society has ever done anything even vaguely as appalling? I dread to think the reaction if anybody ever posted something on here called "Fck the poor". Rightly they would probably be banned.
You are as awful as the people on the right who say things like "Muslim rape gangs".
I may come across as a d!ck but you come across as somebody green with envy, with a chip on your shoulder the size of Karl Marx beard and with the politics of a sixth former. [Post edited 14 May 14:58]
|
you can't really be encountering herbivore for the very first time surely? the symmetry between the intolerance of the online left and the bigotry of the online right is always fascinating. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:21 - May 14 with 769 views | nrb1985 |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:12 - May 14 by lowhouseblue |
you can't really be encountering herbivore for the very first time surely? the symmetry between the intolerance of the online left and the bigotry of the online right is always fascinating. |
I'm not sure but I think possibly yes.
If he loathes wealthy people so much then he must be hating what the private equity fund and the three lions have been doing over the last three seasons at ITFC.
I assume however that's not the case and he's actually ok with "The Rich" when their actions benefit him though.
And I'm certain he has very strong opinions on dear Ed too..."HE OWNS HOW MANY PROPERTIES?" Gaaaaaargh. [Post edited 14 May 15:23]
| | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:32 - May 14 with 738 views | Herbivore |
I wonder if there's a collective noun for multiple berks back slapping each other after getting repeatedly owned. A circle-jerk of berks, perhaps. | |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:40 - May 14 with 719 views | nrb1985 |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:32 - May 14 by Herbivore |
I wonder if there's a collective noun for multiple berks back slapping each other after getting repeatedly owned. A circle-jerk of berks, perhaps. |
Hmm - going out on a limb here but beginning to think you might not like me. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:42 - May 14 with 708 views | lowhouseblue |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:32 - May 14 by Herbivore |
I wonder if there's a collective noun for multiple berks back slapping each other after getting repeatedly owned. A circle-jerk of berks, perhaps. |
you should really ask your usual little gang what they like to be called i guess. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:45 - May 14 with 700 views | Herbivore |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:42 - May 14 by lowhouseblue |
you should really ask your usual little gang what they like to be called i guess. |
Incredibly weak comeback. | |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:52 - May 14 with 687 views | lowhouseblue |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 15:45 - May 14 by Herbivore |
Incredibly weak comeback. |
if that's the name they want to go with it seems ok i guess. very good to have let them choose though. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 19:41 - May 14 with 566 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 12:49 - May 14 by nrb1985 |
Wasn't really aimed at you , given I think I could tell you the sky is blue but because of my profession or who my clients are you'd argue until your last breathe that wasn't the case.
Problem is, there won't be official figures for 2 years - so until then you can maintain whatever position you want.
However, the naivety in your response is there for all to see - because there's a lawyer from Charles Russell quoted as saying ~60% of his clients have or are leaving. I would say mine are there or there abouts too and the chap from Mischcon on the youtube clip I sent you said he would say at least 40% of his clients are off too. Are we all lying? If so, to what end? So I can one up somebody on a football message board perhaps?
Just to re iterate, myself, the lawyers and the advisors, have no vested interest here as we will manage their wealth and assist them wherever they reside.
Also in the article, as well as me countless times yesterday, they reference the glaring deficiencies in the Warwick paper (upon which the Govt policy and OBR forecasts are based to some extent) re the IHT issue - I wonder what self interest you think the journalist has in bringing that forward? Paid off by the Milan tourist board perhaps? Promised a year's supply of limoncello and panettone? Or like Liz Truss do you believe that Bloomberg and the FT are part of some shadowy cabal designed to undermine the government?
I don't think there can be much debate that, at present and among sensible people, it looks utterly fanciful to think that 10-20% only will go.
Regardless, this isn't really meant for your consumption and more for the slightly less swivelled eyed among the forum. [Post edited 14 May 12:56]
|
Do the numbers of individuals actually matter? Concentration of wealth value at the top is very much alive and kicking. For example, Billionaires added £182 billion to their wealth last year (an increase of 30%). It mirrors a pattern of significant wealth accumulation in the top 1% and top 10% for quite some time.
If you wanted to consider high wealth individuals as a sector, it’s positively booming. |  |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 20:47 - May 14 with 518 views | nrb1985 |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 19:41 - May 14 by Swansea_Blue |
Do the numbers of individuals actually matter? Concentration of wealth value at the top is very much alive and kicking. For example, Billionaires added £182 billion to their wealth last year (an increase of 30%). It mirrors a pattern of significant wealth accumulation in the top 1% and top 10% for quite some time.
If you wanted to consider high wealth individuals as a sector, it’s positively booming. |
All the more reason you'd want them here in the UK paying tax and not in Italy or elsewhere I would have thought? | | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 21:02 - May 14 with 488 views | DJR |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 12:49 - May 14 by nrb1985 |
Wasn't really aimed at you , given I think I could tell you the sky is blue but because of my profession or who my clients are you'd argue until your last breathe that wasn't the case.
Problem is, there won't be official figures for 2 years - so until then you can maintain whatever position you want.
However, the naivety in your response is there for all to see - because there's a lawyer from Charles Russell quoted as saying ~60% of his clients have or are leaving. I would say mine are there or there abouts too and the chap from Mischcon on the youtube clip I sent you said he would say at least 40% of his clients are off too. Are we all lying? If so, to what end? So I can one up somebody on a football message board perhaps?
Just to re iterate, myself, the lawyers and the advisors, have no vested interest here as we will manage their wealth and assist them wherever they reside.
Also in the article, as well as me countless times yesterday, they reference the glaring deficiencies in the Warwick paper (upon which the Govt policy and OBR forecasts are based to some extent) re the IHT issue - I wonder what self interest you think the journalist has in bringing that forward? Paid off by the Milan tourist board perhaps? Promised a year's supply of limoncello and panettone? Or like Liz Truss do you believe that Bloomberg and the FT are part of some shadowy cabal designed to undermine the government?
I don't think there can be much debate that, at present and among sensible people, it looks utterly fanciful to think that 10-20% only will go.
Regardless, this isn't really meant for your consumption and more for the slightly less swivelled eyed among the forum. [Post edited 14 May 12:56]
|
I have rather lost the will to live when it comes to this subject but your post prompted me to mention two points.
1. Your conclusion that 60% of Charles Russell's clients have left or are leaving appears to involve a misunderstanding of the following passage.
"City law firm Charles Russell Speechlys started up in Milan late last year.
Dominic Lawrance, a partner in private client law at the firm, estimates that 60% of his clients that are leaving the UK are heading to the Mediterranean nation."
2. I read somewhere that 20% of top bankers are non-doms but, even if they all leave, many, if not all, will presumably be replaced by people on similar salaries which will be taxed in the UK. I am sure there will be no shortage of willing takers. [Post edited 14 May 21:20]
|  | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 21:07 - May 14 with 473 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 12:49 - May 14 by nrb1985 |
Wasn't really aimed at you , given I think I could tell you the sky is blue but because of my profession or who my clients are you'd argue until your last breathe that wasn't the case.
Problem is, there won't be official figures for 2 years - so until then you can maintain whatever position you want.
However, the naivety in your response is there for all to see - because there's a lawyer from Charles Russell quoted as saying ~60% of his clients have or are leaving. I would say mine are there or there abouts too and the chap from Mischcon on the youtube clip I sent you said he would say at least 40% of his clients are off too. Are we all lying? If so, to what end? So I can one up somebody on a football message board perhaps?
Just to re iterate, myself, the lawyers and the advisors, have no vested interest here as we will manage their wealth and assist them wherever they reside.
Also in the article, as well as me countless times yesterday, they reference the glaring deficiencies in the Warwick paper (upon which the Govt policy and OBR forecasts are based to some extent) re the IHT issue - I wonder what self interest you think the journalist has in bringing that forward? Paid off by the Milan tourist board perhaps? Promised a year's supply of limoncello and panettone? Or like Liz Truss do you believe that Bloomberg and the FT are part of some shadowy cabal designed to undermine the government?
I don't think there can be much debate that, at present and among sensible people, it looks utterly fanciful to think that 10-20% only will go.
Regardless, this isn't really meant for your consumption and more for the slightly less swivelled eyed among the forum. [Post edited 14 May 12:56]
|
For which I thank you! | |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 21:12 - May 14 with 466 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 20:47 - May 14 by nrb1985 |
All the more reason you'd want them here in the UK paying tax and not in Italy or elsewhere I would have thought? |
Out of interest, have you ever been to Stockholm? | |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 21:13 - May 14 with 460 views | DJR |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 09:29 - May 14 by Churchman |
With the last stuff I worked on, our team numbered about 150. Half were from PwC, Capgemini etc. I also worked with these people on several occasions before that. Some were excellent, others a complete waste of taxpayer money given they were no more skilled or qualified (sometimes less so) than some in house people.
It’s easy to forget that plenty of people in the CS have had careers outside and understand both. |
I myself qualified and worked for a number of years in a City law firm.
I left to find intellectually more challenging work, and also because I didn't like the ass-licking of clients that goes with private practice. It was also great to be freed from things like timesheets and billing.
I joined the civil service in 1987, and our office was well ahead of the City law firms in terms of technology because we each had desk top computers. And one bright spark in our office had developed a programme which enabled us to turn individual word perfect documents into something that was identical in terms of looks to the Bills that Parliament produce. This was useful when it came to considering the iterations of successive drafts, and was taken up by the Houses of Parliament, when in the past it was all type-set. [Post edited 15 May 7:19]
| | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 21:22 - May 14 with 438 views | DJR |
Such a shame that Dale Carnegie has gone out of fashion. | | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 21:39 - May 14 with 403 views | DJR |
This seems to me to go against both the principles of natural justice and the principle that legislation shouldn't in general be retrospective in effect.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c249ndrrd7vo.amp
Migrants already in UK face longer wait for permanent settlement"
As regards the last Labour government, I came across this in connection with retrospection.
Harriet Harman, the Solicitor General, in answer to a question from Jonathan Sayeed:
Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he
will make a statement on the Government's policy on the introduction of retrospective
legislation.
The Solicitor-General: I have been asked to reply. The Government's policy before
introducing a legislative provision having retrospective effect is to balance the
conflicting public interests and to consider whether the general public interest in the
law not being changed retrospectively may be outweighed by any competing public
interest. In making this assessment the Government will have regard to relevant
international standards including those of the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which was incorporated into United
Kingdom law by the Human Rights Act 1998. [Post edited 14 May 21:44]
| | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:30 - May 15 with 216 views | nrb1985 |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 21:13 - May 14 by DJR |
I myself qualified and worked for a number of years in a City law firm.
I left to find intellectually more challenging work, and also because I didn't like the ass-licking of clients that goes with private practice. It was also great to be freed from things like timesheets and billing.
I joined the civil service in 1987, and our office was well ahead of the City law firms in terms of technology because we each had desk top computers. And one bright spark in our office had developed a programme which enabled us to turn individual word perfect documents into something that was identical in terms of looks to the Bills that Parliament produce. This was useful when it came to considering the iterations of successive drafts, and was taken up by the Houses of Parliament, when in the past it was all type-set. [Post edited 15 May 7:19]
|
So in other words, you couldn't hack private practice or weren't particularly good at it. A story as old as time.
I thank you though for the other insights. The fact that 38 years ago you had a computer when some other chap or chapess at Clifford Chance or similar didn't certainly adds weight here. | | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:37 - May 15 with 208 views | DJR |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:30 - May 15 by nrb1985 |
So in other words, you couldn't hack private practice or weren't particularly good at it. A story as old as time.
I thank you though for the other insights. The fact that 38 years ago you had a computer when some other chap or chapess at Clifford Chance or similar didn't certainly adds weight here. |
I'll treat that comment with the contempt it deserves. | | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:38 - May 15 with 201 views | nrb1985 |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 21:02 - May 14 by DJR |
I have rather lost the will to live when it comes to this subject but your post prompted me to mention two points.
1. Your conclusion that 60% of Charles Russell's clients have left or are leaving appears to involve a misunderstanding of the following passage.
"City law firm Charles Russell Speechlys started up in Milan late last year.
Dominic Lawrance, a partner in private client law at the firm, estimates that 60% of his clients that are leaving the UK are heading to the Mediterranean nation."
2. I read somewhere that 20% of top bankers are non-doms but, even if they all leave, many, if not all, will presumably be replaced by people on similar salaries which will be taxed in the UK. I am sure there will be no shortage of willing takers. [Post edited 14 May 21:20]
|
Appreciate the engagement even if the will to live is low.
On the first point, happy to clarify—but I think we agree that the broader takeaway is that a far high proportion of HNW and UHNW individuals are relocating than are in the OBR assumptions. Whether it's 60% of leavers or 60% of his leavers, in this case the trend is unmistakable.
On the second point—I’d gently suggest that 20% of a relatively small cohort of salaried bankers isn’t really the crux of the issue as you well know.
The concern is the departure of founders, entrepreneurs, and capital allocators—the likes of Mittal etc.—who contribute far more than just income tax. Once they leave, they rarely come back. And neither do their investments.
Now, other than you and herbivore, I'm not sure anybody with a straight face is going to tell me that the UK is in a stronger place for the Mittal family no longer paying their taxes here?
"BUT BUT BUT THE OBR, THE WARWICK PAPER, THEY ALL SAY IT'LL BE FINE" | | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:39 - May 15 with 192 views | nrb1985 |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:37 - May 15 by DJR |
I'll treat that comment with the contempt it deserves. |
Much like your career in private practice then. | | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:43 - May 15 with 166 views | Herbivore |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:30 - May 15 by nrb1985 |
So in other words, you couldn't hack private practice or weren't particularly good at it. A story as old as time.
I thank you though for the other insights. The fact that 38 years ago you had a computer when some other chap or chapess at Clifford Chance or similar didn't certainly adds weight here. |
DJR is one of the most polite and respectful posters on here. Your responses to him are really showing you up. And shilling for the super rich while slagging off anyone who chooses to work in a sector that's not about shilling for the super rich isn't a great hill to die on. | |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:43 - May 15 with 164 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:30 - May 15 by nrb1985 |
So in other words, you couldn't hack private practice or weren't particularly good at it. A story as old as time.
I thank you though for the other insights. The fact that 38 years ago you had a computer when some other chap or chapess at Clifford Chance or similar didn't certainly adds weight here. |
You come across pretty unpleasantly here....I'm starting to see that you are probably very good at managing wealth for obscenely rich c#nts. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
