Stuart Dickson Posted March 4, 2016 Report Share Posted March 4, 2016 There wasn't much effort at all. It was all posts you made on this thread in the last couple of days. If your memory is shite then that's your problem. What you are really saying is that you lied. You knew you were time served in July 1990 so why would you say that you had earned £60,000 in the last tax year of your apprenticeship. You were obviously just trying to make yourself sound "important" - again. It's not my fault that what was there yesterday isn't there today. I told you what I put in and what it came back with. If you don't believe me then that's up to you. I'm not into scoring points. That's your department, Babykiller. It has relevance to whether you are to be believed in other things when the extent of your lies makes Walter Mitty look truthful. But anyway, even if you had only been on £90 per week from April to end of June, that would still mean that you are claiming to have been earning over £1,500 per week in the last 9 months of the 1990-91 tax year. Is that what you are claiming now? An annual salary of around £78,000. You now claim to be earning about £150,000 per year. So your salary hasn't even doubled in the last 25 years? You must be really shit at your job. I thought you said that you had been head hunted. More like you had your head clubbed. You are amusing, though, in a point and laugh kind of way. Oh dear. Rage, anger, jealousy, name calling and hostility all in one post. Isn't that what you'd call a "meltdown"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 Where abouts in South Lanarkshire did you claim you imaginarily stayed again? Or as we know, it should be where you lied again. I think it's noticeable that since he's been found out lying so much, he's rightly no longer involved with youth football. Law Village. Feel free to check it. Nothing imaginary about me having stayed in South Lanarkshire. And just to add to the collection of Natsi's making a fool of yourself on this thread - I have been back involved in youth football for the last four weeks. There was nothing untoward about my absence for 10 months either. Quite simply my son stopped playing. He's back now and you look stalkerish and stupid. What a car crash of a thread this has been for the four forum trolls. One didn't know that 0.5% was an historic low for the Bank Of England base rate, one couldn't get a mortgage quote off a simple financial website, one proved he's not a very good stalker, and Oaksoft claimed he saved money at Money Supermarket and now he feels epic - that is once he had it explained to him in Ladybird book terms how a mortgage actually works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 Yeah, I made a mistake by thinking the Base rate was previously 0.25% lower than it is now. Imagine that being the level of your inaccuracies when it comes to posting on here. Enjoy the moment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 If anyone on the forum knows me, please don't tell my wife about this...I've spent years telling her I'm never wrong. I think she might be just about believing me now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 Oaksoft did it two pages back. Have you not read the thread? No I didnt. I didnt mention the Bank of England in any post whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 No I didnt. I didnt mention the Bank of England in any post whatsoever. Apologies Oaksoft - I'm wrong. I suppose it's my fault really. I was the one that talked about the Bank of England Base Rate being 0.5% several times. It's even been discussed with others. How stupid of me to think that when quoting that 0.5% which hadn't been mentioned by anyone in any other context you'd have understood that we were talking about the Bank Of England base rate. After all you don't appear to have understood anything else on this thread at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) No I didnt. I didnt mention the Bank of England in any post whatsoever. You quoted a post that stated 0.5% and told Stuart to do the maths.You made a right fcuking arse of it yet again. Like Ernie, you can't even do simple % calculations. You fat, lazy, lonely, lowly paid lecturer. Edited March 5, 2016 by nosferatu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 There wasn't much effort at all. It was all posts you made on this thread in the last couple of days. If your memory is shite then that's your problem. What you are really saying is that you lied. You knew you were time served in July 1990 so why would you say that you had earned £60,000 in the last tax year of your apprenticeship. You were obviously just trying to make yourself sound "important" - again. It's not my fault that what was there yesterday isn't there today. I told you what I put in and what it came back with. If you don't believe me then that's up to you. I'm not into scoring points. That's your department, Babykiller. It has relevance to whether you are to be believed in other things when the extent of your lies makes Walter Mitty look truthful. But anyway, even if you had only been on £90 per week from April to end of June, that would still mean that you are claiming to have been earning over £1,500 per week in the last 9 months of the 1990-91 tax year. Is that what you are claiming now? An annual salary of around £78,000. You now claim to be earning about £150,000 per year. So your salary hasn't even doubled in the last 25 years? You must be really shit at your job. I thought you said that you had been head hunted. More like you had your head clubbed. You are amusing, though, in a point and laugh kind of way. Deary me! On the verge of tears! Meltdown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted March 5, 2016 Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 You quoted a post that stated 0.5% and told Stuart to do the maths. You made a right fcuking arse of it yet again. Like Ernie, you can't even do simple % calculations. You fat, lazy, lonely, lowly paid lecturer. Deary me! On the verge of tears! Meltdown Once again, BOGOF. #thichasfcuk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoganSMFC Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 Local authorities should get first option on all repo homes. They need to stock up again after selling all thier houses on the cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Local authorities should get first option on all repo homes. They need to stock up again after selling all thier houses on the cheap. What makes you think that they should be entitled to be repossessed houses on the cheap? Those houses, absolutely correctly, belong to the banks and they have a duty to their shareholders to recover all of the costs of the repossession as well as all of the outstanding sums owed on each property. By putting those houses on to the open market either through auction or through estate agents they are getting fair market value for those properties. There is also an issue with cash flow. The Scottish Government has decided in it's wisdom to scrap the Right To Buy scheme meaning that local authorities cannot sell off it's existing housing stock to raise cash to allow it to either build new houses or to invest in buying up stock. Another interesting cock up from the Scottish Government has been in it's Help To Buy Scheme. Because they chose to offer help against the Purchase Price of the new house, and not the actual value of a new house it has had the effect of allowing new house builders to charge a premium on it's properties because when the new house surveys well below selling price the Help To Buy Scheme will cover the shortfall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Remind us who are the major shareholders in RBS, Nat West, Lloyds, BoS, Halifax? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Remind us who are the major shareholders in RBS, Nat West, Lloyds, BoS, Halifax? Tell me Tony - just for clarity - and so before I really go to town ripping you apart. Are you really asking who the major shareholder is or are you trying to make a point in support of LoganSMFC's policy by suggesting that we should put in place a law where local authorities get first call on any properties being repossessed by banks who are majority owned by the taxpayer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 I'm asking who owns the vast majority of shares in the banks I mentioned. Seemed straightforward enough the first time I asked it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 I'm asking who owns the vast majority of shares in the banks I mentioned. Seemed straightforward enough the first time I asked it? Why don't you have a wee stab at it yourself? A good place to start is by sticking the question you'd like to ask into a search engine - something like Google, or Bing. Good luck and remember to tell us all how you get on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Why don't you have a wee stab at it yourself? A good place to start is by sticking the question you'd like to ask into a search engine - something like Google, or Bing. Good luck and remember to tell us all how you get on Aw diddums, has the penny dropped:-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Aw diddums, has the penny dropped :-D Nope. I still have no idea what you are referring to. Perhaps you'd care to spell it out clearly if you've managed to find it on the internet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoganSMFC Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 What makes you think that they should be entitled to be repossessed houses on the cheap? Those houses, absolutely correctly, belong to the banks and they have a duty to their shareholders to recover all of the costs of the repossession as well as all of the outstanding sums owed on each property. By putting those houses on to the open market either through auction or through estate agents they are getting fair market value for those properties. There is also an issue with cash flow. The Scottish Government has decided in it's wisdom to scrap the Right To Buy scheme meaning that local authorities cannot sell off it's existing housing stock to raise cash to allow it to either build new houses or to invest in buying up stock. Another interesting cock up from the Scottish Government has been in it's Help To Buy Scheme. Because they chose to offer help against the Purchase Price of the new house, and not the actual value of a new house it has had the effect of allowing new house builders to charge a premium on it's properties because when the new house surveys well below selling price the Help To Buy Scheme will cover the shortfall. Read my post again. I never said they should get the repo homes on the cheap. I said they sold all thiers on the cheap. To your point..I know of people who bought ex council homes for as little as 12k which nowadays couldnt build a treehouse so thier model to reinvest was baws from the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Read my post again. I never said they should get the repo homes on the cheap. I said they sold all thiers on the cheap. To your point..I know of people who bought ex council homes for as little as 12k which nowadays couldnt build a treehouse so thier model to reinvest was baws from the start. So what were you suggesting then LoganSMFC when you said they should get first option on it? How would a local authority finance it? And how would the purchase price be derived if it's not open to sale on the open market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Aw diddums, has the penny dropped :-D How are you getting on with that search on the internet Tony? Is it proving too difficult? Would you like me to help a little bit by telling you who one of the shareholders is at Lloyds and by telling you about the 9% shareholding they have? Edited March 8, 2016 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 How are you getting on with that search on the internet Tony? Is it proving too difficult? Would you like me to help a little bit by telling you who one of the shareholders is at Lloyds and by telling you about the 9% shareholding they have? I'm not searching as I know the answer. It was a rhetorical question, but i suspect you know this.From your post your obviously frantically fishing for luckies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 I'm not searching as I know the answer. It was a rhetorical question, but i suspect you know this. From your post your obviously frantically fishing for luckies. So what is the answer? Go on - show us all how brilliantly clever you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Is it you? Is that where you squirrel away your imaginary fortune? When's the next time you're having Mark Carney over for an imaginary dinner party so you can tell him what the base interest rate should be? I mean, £78k when you were 20, £125k now, you must be putting it somewhere. Are you stuffing your mattress with £100 notes? Come on, we won't tell anyone, honest. It is me - and it's you.... Yep that's right the UK taxpayer is not a majority shareholder at Lloyds. Never was and never will be. Currently we - the UK taxpayer - owns just 9% of Lloyds. Yep 9%. I'm looking on with excitement to find out who Tony knows is the "vast majority shareholder" at that bank. I can't wait. Perhaps it's Tom Hunter or some other exciting entrepreneur. Edited March 9, 2016 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Go on, show us the proof that the UK taxpayer only holds 9% of shares. I'm going to say we the UK taxpayer has a larger number than that. Where's #thichasfcuk to help him out? Really? You're going to make a f**k up like that and then call someone else "thickasfcuk". Surely someone calling someone else "thickasfcuk" would have at least mastered the basics of using a search engine. From This Week - Having reduced the taxpayer's holding from more than 43 per cent to just over nine per cent, the "drip-feed" sale, being handled by Morgan Stanley, stalled late last year, when stock dipped well below the 73.6p break-even price on the 2008 bailout. Selling at the previous rate of one to two per cent of its stock a month, the government could hold a stake as low as four per cent by the summer or shortly thereafter. This would be a "manageable amount to offer to small investors in a final privatisation" in the form of a promised discount retail share sale, continues the Telegraph. From The Telegraph - When the shares trade at above 73.6p, investment bankers at Morgan Stanley sell shares into the market on the government’s behalf. If the price is sustained at above that level in the coming months, insiders hope the government stake in the bank could be gradually reduced from its current level of 9pc to as little as 4pc. At the peak, the taxpayer owned 43.5pc of Lloyds’ shares Edited March 9, 2016 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 9, 2016 Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 Funnily enough we're still waiting on Tony Soprano's revelation on who holds the "vast majority" of shares in Lloyds. I can hardly contain my excitement of this world exclusive. Go on Tony don't keep us waiting...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.