2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

No, I brought up again because she and her 49 days of incompetence are in the news again.  

 

Note the headline from yesterday's FT:

 

Liz Truss makes defiant return to political fray

 

Nowhere does it say that I dragged her back into the nation's consciousness. She did that all on her own.

Then start a new thread, scraping up year old ones that you are still smarting over seems a bit odd to me............????

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

This thread is about the disastrous, albeit incredibly short, tenure of the worst PM in living memory. 

Yep. So why mention Matt Hancock and MP's friends snd families and billions pounds, and, snd, etc?

15 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Yep. So why mention Matt Hancock and MP's friends snd families and billions pounds, and, snd, etc?

Same political party would be my guess.

58 minutes ago, transam said:

Then start a new thread, scraping up year old ones that you are still smarting over seems a bit odd to me............????

Because the original thread is directly relevant to the current news...

 

You do realise, don't you, that you are not compelled to contribute. In fact, as bizarre as it may sound to you, you are free to sit some threads out entirely.

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Same political party would be my guess.

But, off topic. We all know how much you hate off topic posts. 

 

That said, it likely only off topic posts you don't agree with that cause you distress.

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Because the original thread is directly relevant to the current news...

 

You do realise, don't you, that you are not compelled to contribute. In fact, as bizarre as it may sound to you, you are free to sit some threads out entirely.

Nooo, you are too much fun................????

11 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

But, off topic. We all know how much you hate off topic posts. 

 

That said, it likely only off topic posts you don't agree with that cause you distress.

To be fair, whilst my post was, indeed, off topic, it was a reply to your original off topic post about allegations of financial impropriety. (I would quote it but I am on my mobile and it's on the previous page...).

 

But I agree, this thread is about financial incompetence, not financial impropriety.

13 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

This thread is about the disastrous, albeit incredibly short, tenure of the worst PM in living memory. 

If we want to discuss useless politicians in general, and rotten PM's specifically, the most rotten one I can think of was a certain one that was a poodle to a character who's name started with B, and who committed the UK to a conflict based on nothing more than ( IMO ) lies. I also blame all the useless politicians that went along with that ( IMO ) charade.

Compared to that catastrophe, Truss was merely a bumbling idiot.

9 hours ago, transam said:

Then start a new thread, scraping up year old ones that you are still smarting over seems a bit odd to me............????

I would not normally support him, but to be fair, it's not possible ( far as I know ) for us to start a new thread on World News sub forum, so we must make do with the ones already there.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If we want to discuss useless politicians in general,<cut>

That would be off topic.

Poor attempt at deflection.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I would not normally support him, but to be fair, it's not possible ( far as I know ) for us to start a new thread on World News sub forum, so we must make do with the ones already there.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1303277-do-you-want-to-contribute-discuss-something-in-the-news/

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I would not normally support him

Please don't make this a habit or I may need to re-evaluate my principles.

Putting a lettuce in charge of the nation had consequences:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/22/we-lost-about-100000-one-year-on-britons-count-cost-of-the-mini-budget

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Putting a lettuce in charge of the nation had consequences:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/22/we-lost-about-100000-one-year-on-britons-count-cost-of-the-mini-budget

So they've lost £100k. My parents were selling their bungalow at the time too. They reduced by 10% as that was what estate agents and the market suggested. 

 

100k as 10% of a property puts the value of the property at £1m. 

 

Not a great loss to take. Especially as they seem to have done it to pay for something you, Chomper, don't believe their Dad is entitled to because he has wealth. 

 

Had the headline read " wealthy family sell house for £900k to pay for Dad's care" you'd not have given it time of day. 

 

As for the guy losing £100k from his pension pot in 5 days. That again points to a huge pension pot, working on the %%% equivalent of mine. 

 

It's very surprising  the Guardian are reporting on these people and you are linking to it. Oh, hang on a minute. It's not, is it. Only the losses of 10% are mentioned, made to look substantial by using monetary figures, not the value of the remaining 90%.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 20232 yr by youreavinalaff

57 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

So they've lost £100k. My parents were selling their bungalow at the time too. They reduced by 10% as that was what estate agents and the market suggested. 

 

100k as 10% of a property puts the value of the property at £1m. 

 

Not a great loss to take. Especially as they seem to have done it to pay for something you, Chomper, don't believe their Dad is entitled to because he has wealth. 

 

Had the headline read " wealthy family sell house for £900k to pay for Dad's care" you'd not have given it time of day. 

 

As for the guy losing £100k from his pension pot in 5 days. That again points to a huge pension pot, working on the %%% equivalent of mine. 

 

It's very surprising  the Guardian are reporting on these people and you are linking to it. Oh, hang on a minute. It's not, is it. Only the losses of 10% are mentioned, made to look substantial by using monetary figures, not the value of the remaining 90%.

 

 

 

 

So your parents reduced their selling price by 10% therefore you assume the family in the article also reduced their selling price by 10%.

 

And tell me this, why should a guy loosing £100,000 from his pension pot be of less concern if his ‘pot’ is to your mind huge?

 

The current Pension Life Time Allowance is  £1,073,100, that’s not a huge amount of money to loose £100,000 from, especially when the loss was as a direct result of Government Idiocy.

 

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So your parents reduced their selling price by 10% therefore you assume the family in the article also reduced their selling price by 10%.

 

And tell me this, why should a guy loosing £100,000 from his pension pot be of less concern if his ‘pot’ is to your mind huge?

 

The current Pension Life Time Allowance is  £1,073,100, that’s not a huge amount of money to loose £100,000 from, especially when the loss was as a direct result of Government Idiocy.

 

Careful. You're sliding right.

 

Love to start the day with a laugh. 

 

Thanks.

4 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Careful. You're sliding right.

 

Love to start the day with a laugh. 

 

Thanks.

You are mistaking identifying the holes in your own argument as ‘sliding right’.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are mistaking identifying the holes in your own argument as ‘sliding right’.

 

 

Another rib tickler. It's your comment, not mine.

 

????????????

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

Another rib tickler. It's your comment, not mine.

 

????????????

Let me know when you have something to add to the discussion.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let me know when you have something to add to the discussion.

This is an open forum.

 

No need to inform you of anything. Although you'd like to think is necessary.

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

It's very surprising  the Guardian are reporting on these people and you are linking to it. Oh, hang on a minute. It's not, is it. Only the losses of 10% are mentioned, made to look substantial by using monetary figures, not the value of the remaining 90%.

 

 

 

Can you point to the bit in the article that states, as you claim:

 

“Only the losses of 10% are mentioned, made to look substantial by using monetary figures, not the value of the remaining 90%.”

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Can you point to the bit in the article that states, as you claim:

 

“Only the losses of 10% are mentioned, made to look substantial by using monetary figures, not the value of the remaining 90%.”

Sure. Have a read.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/22/we-lost-about-100000-one-year-on-britons-count-cost-of-the-mini-budget

6 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Sure. Have a read.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/22/we-lost-about-100000-one-year-on-britons-count-cost-of-the-mini-budget

I’ve read it.

 

There is no statement in the article that in anyway resembles your claim:

 

“Only the losses of 10% are mentioned, made to look substantial by using monetary figures, not the value of the remaining 90%.”

 

Did you make that up?

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve read it.

 

There is no statement in the article that in anyway resembles your claim:

 

“Only the losses of 10% are mentioned, made to look substantial by using monetary figures, not the value of the remaining 90%.”

 

Did you make that up?

You really can't see you are proving my point, can you? 

 

Looks like you've twisted and turned so much you've disappeared up your own a#@........

9 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

You really can't see you are proving my point, can you? 

 

Looks like you've twisted and turned so much you've disappeared up your own a#@........

I take it that your resort to thinly disguised expletives is you accepting that there is nothing in the article remotely resembling your claimed 

“Only the losses of 10% are mentioned, made to look substantial by using monetary figures, not the value of the remaining 90%.”

 

You made it up. 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I take it that your resort to thinly disguised expletives is you accepting that there is nothing in the article remotely resembling your claimed 

“Only the losses of 10% are mentioned, made to look substantial by using monetary figures, not the value of the remaining 90%.”

 

You made it up. 

 

 

 

I made a point about the article. You agreed.

 

Now, you'd never agree with made up stuff, would you?

9 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I made a point about the article. You agreed.

 

Now, you'd never agree with made up stuff, would you?

If I made statement I could not substantiate I would withdraw it.

 

What I would not do is resort to directing thinly veiled expletives at the individual who pointed out my error.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If I made statement I could not substantiate I would withdraw it.

 

What I would not do is resort to directing thinly veiled expletives at the individual who pointed out my error.

 

 

For the final time.

 

You agreed. I pointed out what was avoided in the article. You have agreed by, twice, saying you can't see it either.

 

No error on my part. If it is an error, you are also wrong.