Thatcher dead!

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
PGFWhite said:
And what about taxpayers money subsidising loss making banks? Are they shut down? A necessary evil allowed to continue - why? Whose interests are being protected?
Click to expand...

Fully in agreement with you here, these banks should have crashed and burn if they couldn't survive. The savers would have been protected for about £50k an institution. They caused the problem to begin with, it sickens me that they were bailed out.
 
PGFWhite said:
You obviously don't understand the context of this thread.
Click to expand...

" Thatcher's Dead".....It's about Thatcher isn't it? If it isn't please tell me.

Our current financial situation is down to new Labours reckless spending policies, nothing to do with Thatcher.
 
Margaret Thatcher’s £6m London townhouse is owned by a mysterious company with links to THREE notorious tax havens. Financial experts said it could have been a scheme which would help her estate avoid millions of pounds in inheritance tax. But because her affairs are shrouded in such extraordinary secrecy it may be impossible to find out. The trail leads to offshore businesses in the British Virgin Islands with links to Liechtenstein and Jersey.

The £6million property she lived in for more than 20 years is owned by Bakeland Property Company, based in the BVI. The company’s official address is a PO Box in a small town in Liechtenstein and it had its original roots in St Helier, Jersey. Any suggestion of avoiding a £2.4m inheritance tax bill will spark outrage following the row over who is paying for Thatcher’s lavish £10m funeral.

And John Christensen, of the Tax Justice Network, said: “How can a former prime minister spend more than two decades living in a house in London that has been owned for many years by a company based in the British Virgin Islands? “This does not pass the smell test and simply cannot be allowed to happen in 21st Century Britain. "We all have a duty to pay our taxes, and that includes former politicians. "Politicians and in particular prime ministers have a duty to be transparent with their financial affairs.”

Records at the government’s Land Registry HQ in Croydon, South London showed that on March 29, 2006, Bakeland paid £2,395,807 for the house at Chester Square in Belgravia, London. It is unclear who they purchased the house from because they were also named on the lease when the house was originally bought on October 30, 1991 for a reported £700,000 in 1991. There are two leases on the property, which a Land Registry source described as “unusual”. The first one was taken out on October 18, 1991, and lasts until December 25, 2030. The second was taken out on July 29 and runs out in 2055.

The latest lease mysteriously stated: “The airspace above the building is excluded from the title.” - Mirror
Click to expand...



Any organised crime syndicates would be proud of that deceit! And we the tax payer are paying for he funeral costs? Man the British have lost it big time! Gutless spineless, I'm all right Jacks, like lambs to the slaughter, they'll go with their little voting papers come next election day!...................<ok>
 
Jager said:
Fully in agreement with you here, these banks should have crashed and burn if they couldn't survive. The savers would have been protected for about £50k an institution. They caused the problem to begin with, it sickens me that they were bailed out.
Click to expand...

It's YOU who has been stating that the Government should not support failing industries!!!! Or are you now being selective?
 
Like I've said before Jager, Tony Blair (Mr Slime ball) is a snake in the grass with a top hat on, perhaps you missed that, though this is the third time I've stated it on here, I hate him almost as much as Thatcher, but he won't be having a Funeral payed for by us, the tax payer!!
 
If the banks went under the contry would descend into a state of anarchy. Why should the government protect savings upto a certain amount anyway. Everybody should/would lose the same same percentage.

Banking was not a "failing industry" anyway. It was (and still is) thriveing in many aspects, it was just woefully unprepared for a global crash. That's far away from industries that had been failing year on year for 20 years, costing us £Bn's every year with no hope for the future.
 
Monty Fisto said:
Banking was not a "failing industry" anyway. It was (and still is) thriveing in many aspects, it was just woefully unprepared for a global crash. That's far away from industries that had been failing year on year for 20 years, costing us £Bn's every year with no hope for the future.
Click to expand...

Jager, do you want to comment on that one?
 
The bankers were corrupt the way they have handled things, how on earth you can say they weren't a failing business god only knows, northern rock were given billions, rbs were given billions, Lloyds were given billions.

Any business given billions would be solvent, perhaps the government could have given billions to comet, mfi, jessops, hmv and so on ? These banks should have been allowed to crash
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back