Election Year or Fear!

[Geoff Parkstone]

I?m really not ?arguing for the sake of it?, Rog and, for the third and hopefully final time, I?ve accepted your greater knowledge of all things accountancy wise.
Neither am I interested in scoring cheap points, however I am generally just expressing my support for the point MA initially made?that it is morally reprehensible and financially damaging to our country to have profit being made for the relatively few out of the essential services that society depends on.

I feel much the same about drug companies. As it happens two of my sons work in this industry - albeit for different companies in different countries - and have corrected my occasional outbursts of outrage via their better informed insight into quite how much relevant R&D costs can amount to.
They are, I?m sure, correct however once such costs are covered - and perhaps even before - I (possibly naively in your opinion) believe that the well being of the people should come before profit.

At the risk of prolonging this for no useful purpose, let it be known that "profit being made for the relatively few" is a curious expression. If you are challenging the excessive remuneration of directors or senior executives in a failing company then you have my support. If you are questioning a return on capital for investors who have put their money into the business in order to fund the service, then be aware that those shareholders are far from "few" - the government of China (9%) - about 1.5 billion people; Canadian University TEACHERS pension fun (32%) - about 640,000 pensioners; BT pension fund - 212,000 pensioners and various other global investment/pension funds. Still they're mostly foreigners arent they, so dont matter!! .

When it comes to the question of the pharma industry her indoors worked in it for many years and I agree that they are scumbags - although they are right in saying the intial R&D costs can be extreme. My problem with the industry is that they can make more profits from selling treatments rather than cures, as you dont get repeat custom from someone youve cured. hence the conspiracy theory that there is a "cure for cancer" which is suppressed as they make loads of money off repeat treatments.

[ramAnag]

At the risk of prolonging this for no useful purpose, let it be known that "profit being made for the relatively few" is a curious expression. If you are challenging the excessive remuneration of directors or senior executives in a failing company then you have my support. If you are questioning a return on capital for investors who have put their money into the business in order to fund the service, then be aware that those shareholders are far from "few" - the government of China (9%) - about 1.5 billion people; Canadian University TEACHERS pension fun (32%) - about 640,000 pensioners; BT pension fund - 212,000 pensioners and various other global investment/pension funds. Still they're mostly foreigners arent they, so dont matter!! .

When it comes to the question of the pharma industry her indoors worked in it for many years and I agree that they are scumbags - although they are right in saying the intial R&D costs can be extreme. My problem with the industry is that they can make more profits from selling treatments rather than cures, as you dont get repeat custom from someone youve cured. hence the conspiracy theory that there is a "cure for cancer" which is suppressed as they make loads of money off repeat treatments.

Well at least we can agree on something.

Where are the Romans and the Victorians when you need them? Oh for another Joseph Bazalgette and the means and willingness to fund him.

[swaledale]

Extrapolation of the few official estimates given ('hundreds' to 'in the thousands' X number of locations X number of protests (some locations had more than one protest). My number may be overegged a bit by fact that a lot of the reporting was about 'riots' not protests but it'll do. Strange that the protests themselves are so lacking in numbers but most counterprotests have them, but thats another story

For some one who is so pedantic about numbers quoted and often criticises others and especially me on my figures, saying that "thousands" is the equivalent to "tens of thousands" makes me think its only if a figure quoted against what you believe that you object to.

Now in my world, and I'm sure most others, a few thousand whether that be 2,000 or indeed up to 9,000 does not equate to "tens of thousands" which is what you stated. So no even if you include protests, your number isn't overegged a bit, its a gross exaggeration!

As my previous reasonable and polite response to your original post, pointed out, social media is not exactly a source that can be relied upon for accurate facts and figures.

Its disappointing that you choose to defend an inaccurate and unverifiable statement rather than acknowledge it as an exaggeration.

[Andy_Faber]

For some one who is so pedantic about numbers quoted and often criticises others and especially me on my figures, saying that "thousands" is the equivalent to "tens of thousands" makes me think its only if a figure quoted against what you believe that you object to.

Now in my world, and I'm sure most others, a few thousand whether that be 2,000 or indeed up to 9,000 does not equate to "tens of thousands" which is what you stated. So no even if you include protests, your number isn't overegged a bit, its a gross exaggeration!

As my previous reasonable and polite response to your original post, pointed out, social media is not exactly a source that can be relied upon for accurate facts and figures.

Its disappointing that you choose to defend an inaccurate and unverifiable statement rather than acknowledge it as an exaggeration.

I can easily make the numbers work Swale but I’m not going to offer them here because I’ve told you to do your own research which you haven’t, you’re just sore at being proven wrong on a matter of fact

I’m fully expecting further retort from elsewhere on the forum but it’s become too predictable to bother about now, as Mac said, there’s grass to cut

[MadAmster]

Looks like a post of mine has either not been posted or has somehow disappeared.

Here's an attempt at redoing it...

You have a company. It's not very good at its job, it seems. Why?

1. It has racked up something like 20BN in debt (meaning it has spent way more than it earnt)
2. It has a backlog of around 15BN worth of repairs and maintenance
3. It fails to deal with sewage satisfactorily and dumps vast amounts of untreated sewage into streams, rivers and the sea and gets heavily fined for such indiscretions

During this time it has also paid out something like 10BN to shareholders in dividends. It seems from what Rog posted that this is OK as what they have in assets covers the "trading losses" they have made. Ie, it is legal. That may be so but I find it utterly reprehensible.

Where will it get the money from to fund the R&M backlog? The answer is, more than likely, customers via ever increasing bills and the taxpayer. As the customers are also almost all taxpayers, they are being hit twice. Thames is, IMO, a dead man walking.

Now, Rog and others who seem to favour this malarkey use the "reasoning" that shareholders have put their money into the company and deserve a return. I would say, yes, IF the company was making a profit and ramping up huge debt. I'd go further. The only shareholders who actually funded the company are those who bought at the original IPO or at a subsequent share issue. Let's pretend rA bought a grand's worth of shares. He needs some ready cash. I buy those shares off him for 1200. How much of that 1200 goes to Thames Water. The answer is absolutely nothing. rA gets it, every last penny. I have the shares, I get the dividend yet I've put not a single penny into company coffers.

What does that scenario do to the argument that shareholders have put money into the business? Wrecks it?

[ramAnag]

Looks like a post of mine has either not been posted or has somehow disappeared.

Here's an attempt at redoing it...

You have a company. It's not very good at its job, it seems. Why?

1. It has racked up something like 20BN in debt (meaning it has spent way more than it earnt)
2. It has a backlog of around 15BN worth of repairs and maintenance
3. It fails to deal with sewage satisfactorily and dumps vast amounts of untreated sewage into streams, rivers and the sea and gets heavily fined for such indiscretions

During this time it has also paid out something like 10BN to shareholders in dividends. It seems from what Rog posted that this is OK as what they have in assets covers the "trading losses" they have made. Ie, it is legal. That may be so but I find it utterly reprehensible.

Where will it get the money from to fund the R&M backlog? The answer is, more than likely, customers via ever increasing bills and the taxpayer. As the customers are also almost all taxpayers, they are being hit twice. Thames is, IMO, a dead man walking.

Now, Rog and others who seem to favour this malarkey use the "reasoning" that shareholders have put their money into the company and deserve a return. I would say, yes, IF the company was making a profit and ramping up huge debt. I'd go further. The only shareholders who actually funded the company are those who bought at the original IPO or at a subsequent share issue. Let's pretend rA bought a grand's worth of shares. He needs some ready cash. I buy those shares off him for 1200. How much of that 1200 goes to Thames Water. The answer is absolutely nothing. rA gets it, every last penny. I have the shares, I get the dividend yet I've put not a single penny into company coffers.

What does that scenario do to the argument that shareholders have put money into the business? Wrecks it?

I’ve got a few Carnival shares, MA. They were brilliant during Covid, did wonders for the cruise industry. You can buy them off me if you like.

Andy, think you’ve overdone the grass cutting thing a bit now. It was a throwaway line from mac about a month ago which indicated he was as pissed off with you as with Swale and I for squabbling. It wasn’t ever an excuse for you to never have to substantiate your claims. I think maybe ‘straw man’ may be more relevant than grass cutting in this instance.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Straw man or wicker man? AF seems to be being burned for his beliefs but hopefully he did get a go on Britt Ekland beforehand...

[swaledale]

I can easily make the numbers work Swale but I’m not going to offer them here because I’ve told you to do your own research which you haven’t, you’re just sore at being proven wrong on a matter of fact

I’m fully expecting further retort from elsewhere on the forum but it’s become too predictable to bother about now, as Mac said, there’s grass to cut

Ah, "owned" again! Funny how your so pedantic about my figures, but when queried on yours, you fail to verify, even though it would have taken you less time to simply do that than to offer your lame excuse for not doing so.

I've done my research, your tens of thousands claim was gross exaggeration, end of story.

Having been, once again shown to be posting inaccurate claims, maybe you will take my advice and understand that what's on social media and facebook isn't a reliable indicator of what's going on in reality.

I only have a token presence on facebook, to enable me to access it, but it is clear to me that it and other social media is awash with deluded people posting stuff that is obviously not true.

The fact that on so many occasions you back up your spurious claims by what you've seen on FB, suggests to me that your going down the same rabbit hole as our other deluded poster. Ah well, I guess you like your own echo chamber.

[swaledale]

Straw man or wicker man? AF seems to be being burned for his beliefs but hopefully he did get a go on Britt Ekland beforehand...

Nope just being asked to be consistent and either withdraw or verify a claim he made, just as he repeatedly does for others.

As for his beliefs, I don't really care what he believes but if he states something as a fact in the course of castigating me for an inaccuracy due to a missing word, then its perfectly reasonable for me to ask him to verify that claim.

That he refuses to do so, having admitted that he "overegged it" merely confirms that he can't.

[Andy_Faber]

Straw man or wicker man? AF seems to be being burned for his beliefs but hopefully he did get a go on Britt Ekland beforehand...

Sonja Kristina as it happens. And only in my dreams, but what a dream

[MadAmster]

Trickle up economics to help sort the economy anyone?

[ramAnag]

Straw man or wicker man? AF seems to be being burned for his beliefs but hopefully he did get a go on Britt Ekland beforehand...

Straw man, definitely, but you were right about Britt Ekland being in the Wicker Man.

No ‘burning’, just means someone who won’t/can’t substantiate their assertions because they’re built on a false premise.

[Andy_Faber]

Straw man, definitely, but you were right about Britt Ekland being in the Wicker Man.

No ‘burning’, just means someone who won’t/can’t substantiate their assertions because they’re built on a false premise.

Not can?t, rA, can?t be bothered. Do your own research, you?ll find I?m correct, give or take a bit. It?s more productive than getting your panties in a palaver like you (both) do.

[ramAnag]

Not can?t, rA, can?t be bothered. Do your own research, you?ll find I?m correct, give or take a bit. It?s more productive than getting your panties in a palaver like you (both) do.

Lol! ‘Can’t be bothered’…often, in my experience, the first port of call for someone, usually a child, who should have just stopped at, ‘can’t’.

It’s a forum, AF. A place to exchange views and try to back up the opinions one puts forward. That’s what you expect others to do. You’ve always got plenty to say, but excuses like, ‘can’t be bothered’, ‘do your own research’ or ‘I’m off to cut the grass’ (again) as soon as you’re challenged don’t really cut the mustard anymore.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Unless you are growing mustard in your lawn ...