The Great Private Pension Scam

[Dave225]

I think I can say that as usual a reasonable and interesting topic has denigrated into slanging, yet again.

 

Everybody has their own ideas about how to survive in these difficult times and some are good ideas, some not so good. Plus, what maybe wasa good idea can turn out to be a bad idea after a length of time, and vice versa. If we had the ability to foresee the future then there would be no problem, but unless someone has a crystal ball, we do not.

 

I have worked out our retirement using the 'spread your eggs into a number of baskets' theory and fortunately most have been ok, if not spectacular. Soem I do regret were 'lemons', but you have to live with that. On my list of solutions I mentioned marrying a rich person, but I allowed love to cloud my judgement on that one, thank goodness.

 

We are off to Spain this weekend with just enough money to last, and it is supposed to snow, so what is new in the world? But we are going to have as much fun as we can.

[Guest Tracker]

Absolutely spot on Dave - have a great trip and holiday and bring us back a snowman!

[Guest peter]

It was going along nicely until Francis Graham stuck his oar in.......again! and got it all wrong....again!

[francisgraham]

CliveH - 2012-04-11 5:48 PMWhat ever credibility I have as an IFA I suspect it is far far greater than FG has as a credible human being. I could play tat for tit (guess who I think the tit is :-D ) and point out that FG was wrong on the Employers NIC and that VAT is a sales tax applied at 20% on the purchase price but what is the point?

Are you totally thick? I said that VAT works out at about 17% of the retail price. I pointed out that when our employee spends his taxed income on most products that 17% of the retail price is taken in VAT.

Because you're not very bright you couldn't work out the difference between VAT applied on the net price (20%) and the percentage that VAT is of the RETAIL price.

You shot yourself in the foot and you know it and constantly try to squirm out of your idiotic and simple error.

Once again. If you buy a product that costs £120 the VAT is £20. Get someone who is cleverer than you to work out what percentage £20 is of £120! It's 16.66% for God's sake!

My God, it's scary that you're advising people on their financial affairs!

And once more, why can't you get it into your dense skull that if as an employer I have £1000 to spare that I cannot pay the whole amount to the employee as I have to find the employer's NI from somewhere and if I only have £1000, where is the extra £138 going to come from, the tooth fairy?

And once more, what have PIIDs got to do with anything? P11Ds are for declaring taxable benefits. I have been talking all along about PAYE when a man gets a cash bonus or a rise. Most people in the situation I mention will never have to fill in a P11D.

Do you actually know anything about personal income tax? You certainly know bugger all about how VAT works.

Finally, I asked to to prove me wrong when I calculated that a higher-paid employee on say £50/60K who receives an extra £1000 will pay £400 tax and £20 NI leaving him with £580. 

You refuse to answer. Any chance that you can?

Financial adviser eh?

[francisgraham]

peter - 2012-04-11 8:13 PMIt was going along nicely until Francis Graham stuck his oar in.......again! and got it all wrong....again!

 

And you would know how? Can you understand why VAT is about 17% of the RETAIL price of goods? CliveH can't!

[Robinhood]

peter - 2012-04-11 8:13 PM

 

It was going along nicely until Francis Graham stuck his oar in.......again! and got it all wrong....again!

 

.....but he didn't, Peter. :-S

 

For the argument he proposed (and he was the first person to propose the argument, and has stuck to it throughout, so let's not get diverted from that initial argument), Francis' figures are entirely understandable, and also correct.

 

Clive has (and I have in the past been on the receiving end of the same) picked a totally different starting point, and then taken Francis to task with figures that are not at all relevant to Francis' original argument. (even if they are in themselves correct). If I might be so bold and pick on a cliché, a classic "strawman".

 

I'd noticed (and welcomed) a rather "softer" Francis in the recent posts, and indeed, in this thread it would appear to me that he is only a minor suspect for "bad behaviour", possibly provoked by repeated misrepresentation of his argument.

 

I'd suggest you re-read the thread if you don't agree with that last paragraph.

 

I've posted this in the hopes that Francis will appreciate that he doesn't have to "lose it" in order to have his argument(s) appreciated, and that he will continue in the somewhat lighter vein of late.

 

I also think Clive would do well to re-read the originally postulated argument (of the employer having £1000 (gross), and £1000 only (not £1000 grossed up to give the employee £1000 net)), at his command for any largesse. In that light, Francis' figures detailing what additional money that this would leave his example employee with (net) appear to me to be absolutely correct.

 

If this invokes more unpleasantness, then so be it, but it is not my intent, and I sincerely hope it doesn't. :-S

 

Edit:

 

posted in parallel with the last two posts. Calm down Francis, you're much more readable when you do! ;-)

[francisgraham]

Yes, I'm sorry I lose my rag but the man is just so unbelievably dense. When I simply point out how much the state takes in tax by illustrating that a further 17% of the RETAIL price of anything he buys also goes in the shape of another tax, namely VAT, he cannot comprehend how that figure is arrived at.

I spell it out for him and he still obfuscates and still can't understand!

And the employer's tax thing is simply incredible. He must think that when employers work out how much they can afford to give in extra pay that they're not going to calculate in their 13.8% N.I liability!

It really is quite worrying that he is advising people on financial matters. Let's hope that it doesn't include personal income tax.

[CliveH]

Here we go – Sock puppet Robin Hood to the RESCUE!

 

Laughable

 

But interesting that FG/RH pick up and try to use the Strawman argument that actually applies to FG’s silly little diatribe on the VAT. Because the thread is about pensions – FG makes anumber of mistakes re pensions and how employers NIC works and so throws up the strawman argument re VAT. FG’s calculations stated that a £1000 bonus to the employee has employers NIC coming out first so that the employees bonus would be £878.73.

 

This is not correct – a bonus of £1000 earned by an employee would require the employer to pay 13.8% NIC on the full £1000.

 

And after accusing me of bluff and bluster sock puppet united contrive to give us these words of wisdom:-

 

“And the employer's tax thing is simply incredible. He must think that when employers work out how much they can afford to give in extra pay that they're not going to calculate in their 13.8% N.I liability!”

 

Which despite FG supposed ability to know what I am thinking (and he really does not want to know what I am thinking of his abilities and actions ) is not what has been said because that is not the way that Employers NIC is calculated. The last post of FG is an admission of his mistake wrapped up in spin and wordwooze. - Pathetic really.

 

 

Having pointed that out to FG – his bruised ego then moves onto the VAT where I queried his use of 17%.

 

I have already dealt with that re the calculation of VAT – it is 20% of the purchase price – it is a sales tax. If anyone looks at an invoice where VAT is applied then it is stated pretty clearly.

 

Yes you could say that VAT is then representative of 17% of the retail price – but it is not done this way because if you are VAT registered then you claim the VAT back. Oh deary deary me – if you only have your own sock puppet to protect you from your own ignorance and stupidity FG – I am afraid there is little hope for you!

 

That apart – if you were to want the rest of the accounting world to adopt the FG system of VAT accounting it would be best to state the actual figure of 16.6% recurring because if you round it up to the 17% you originally used then that equates to a real sales tax percentage of 20.5%

 

Have to say – you are predictable FG – Robin Hood to the rescue!!!!!!!!!!!! – thanks for a laugh.

 

[francisgraham]

CliveH - 2012-04-12 7:58 AMHere we go – Sock puppet Robin Hood to the RESCUE!LaughableBut interesting that FG/RH pick up and try to use the Strawman argument that actually applies to FG’s silly little diatribe on the VAT. Because the thread is about pensions – FG makes anumber of mistakes re pensions and how employers NIC works and so throws up the strawman argument re VAT. FG’s calculations stated that a £1000 bonus to the employee has employers NIC coming out first so that the employees bonus would be £878.73.This is not correct – a bonus of £1000 earned by an employee would require the employer to pay 13.8% NIC on the full £1000.And after accusing me of bluff and bluster sock puppet united contrive to give us these words of wisdom:-“And the employer's tax thing is simply incredible. He must think that when employers work out how much they can afford to give in extra pay that they're not going to calculate in their 13.8% N.I liability!”Which despite FG supposed ability to know what I am thinking (and he really does not want to know what I am thinking of his abilities and actions ) is not what has been said because that is not the way that Employers NIC is calculated. The last post of FG is an admission of his mistake wrapped up in spin and wordwooze. - Pathetic really.Having pointed that out to FG – his bruised ego then moves onto the VAT where I queried his use of 17%.I have already dealt with that re the calculation of VAT – it is 20% of the purchase price – it is a sales tax. If anyone looks at an invoice where VAT is applied then it is stated pretty clearly.Yes you could say that VAT is then representative of 17% of the retail price – but it is not done this way because if you are VAT registered then you claim the VAT back. Oh deary deary me – if you only have your own sock puppet to protect you from your own ignorance and stupidity FG – I am afraid there is little hope for you!That apart – if you were to want the rest of the accounting world to adopt the FG system of VAT accounting it would be best to state the actual figure of 16.6% recurring because if you round it up to the 17% you originally used then that equates to a real sales tax percentage of 20.5%Have to say – you are predictable FG – Robin Hood to the rescue!!!!!!!!!!!! – thanks for a laugh.

You're worse than dense. Once more, so everyone can see how thick you really are, this is what I said:

If he then spends his increase on anything but the most basic items whatever he buys will have VAT at about 17% of its retail price, another £86.64 so from the original £1000 the state has taken £567!

Because you're not the brightest spanner in the toolbox you thought I was saying that VAT is  17%. No I wasn't you idiot.  I was saying that VAT works out at about 17% of the retail price!

Now that's not really that difficult, but for you it's a maths proposition too far!

How can anyone take you seriously on anything if you can't understand this?

Once more for the remedial class. Something that costs £100 RETAIL has VAT of £16.66 made up as follows:

£83.33 net price. Add 20% VAT or £16.67 and you get £100. Therefore VAT is about 17% of the retail price. Give me strength! It's like trying to teach a six-year-old! 

[Guest pelmetman]

Whether VAT is charged at 20% or works out as 17% of the product price is OT ;-)

 

The point I raised that to the average self employed bloke................not the high earner with more money than sense ;-)...............That private pensions are a waste of time and he's much better of putting his dosh anywhere other than a private pension...............and so far nothing I've read changes that view........so our lords and masters would need to make saving in a private pension much more attractive to the saver, rather than the spiv's before I'd bother ;-)

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-04-12 7:58 AM

 

Here we go – Sock puppet Robin Hood to the RESCUE!

 

Laughable

 

But interesting that FG/RH pick up and try to use the Strawman argument that actually applies to FG’s silly little diatribe on the VAT. Because the thread is about pensions – FG makes anumber of mistakes re pensions and how employers NIC works and so throws up the strawman argument re VAT. FG’s calculations stated that a £1000 bonus to the employee has employers NIC coming out first so that the employees bonus would be £878.73.

 

This is not correct – a bonus of £1000 earned by an employee would require the employer to pay 13.8% NIC on the full £1000.

 

 

Clive,

 

You just can't entertain the idea that you have "misunderstood" the post and gone off on a tangent, wrong on almost every point, even when it is repeatedly pointed out to you, can you? :-S

 

Neither can you resist the temptation to immediately descend into insult and opprobrium, even in response to a moderate post. :-S

 

I'm not sure if you are thick (as Francis playfully proposes) or just consistently and deliberately obtuse and inflammatory in order to provoke intemperate response. Frankly, the record leads one to believe it must be one or the other (unless, of course, it is both at the same time).

 

Listen carefully, I will say this only once.....

 

Your summary as set out above (the "Strawman") is NOT what Francis proposed in his argument and has used consistently throughout his posts (your strawman argument would require an investment by the employer of £1138, but he only has £1000, not £1138 hence, the money must be paid as £878.73 Gross salary (on which, for the example used, income tax at 40% and Employees NI at the marginal 2% must then be paid) and the Employer pays £121.27 N.I (making a total of £1000)).

 

.....as for your view that the VAT argument which kicked off is a "strawman" introduced by Francis, I would advise you to look back and determine just who brought the original (correct and appropriately used by Francis) "about" 17% figure into dispute!

 

It's odd behaviour indeed to for you to initially challenge his position on VAT, continue to do so throughout the thread, (and at length in the above post :-() and then accuse HIM of putting forward a strawman argument when he (correctly) defends that position. :-S

 

Whilst in the interests of either truth or fairness, I shall continue to pick up errors of fact, or defend entirely correct arguments that you seem incapable of assimilating, until you change your entirely odious style of posting, I shall engage no further and leave it at that. As Francis says, the danger of responding in kind is high.

 

I hope Francis can resist doing so, because, at the core his posts are generally well thought out, thought-provoking and correct, and they're a better read when he self-moderates.

[francisgraham]

I had to dash after the last post but here's the second point. In my original proposition, which Robin clearly understands I said:

If an employer has £1000 to spare to give an employee as a bonus...

Note the words £1000 to spare.

I did not say, if an employer has £1138 to spare.

Where does Clive H think that the £138 employer's N.I. is going to come from if he only has £1000 to spare and gives the lot to the employee? The tooth fairy, as I suggested earlier possibly?

Because I understand how it works I calculated what the employer's N.I. would be and then deducted employee's 40% tax and 2% N.I.

CliveH's problem is that he reads posts, doesn't really understand them clearly and then argues on a completely different hypotheses. 

When pointed out to him what was actually written and that perhaps he should rethink, he attacks and insults in order to divert attention from his obvious mistake in not reading and understanding properly.

In all serious I really do worry about a man who, when told that VAT is about 17% of the RETAIL price, cannot understand how that was arrived at and the context in which it was quoted, which was to show that, after your income tax, a further 17% of everything but the most basic items is also taken by the exchequer.

Instead we get the knee jerk reaction that you'd expect from a ten-year-old. 17%? But isn't VAT 20%?

[CliveH]

francisgraham - 2012-04-12 8:32 AM

CliveH - 2012-04-12 7:58 AMHere we go – Sock puppet Robin Hood to the RESCUE!LaughableBut interesting that FG/RH pick up and try to use the Strawman argument that actually applies to FG’s silly little diatribe on the VAT. Because the thread is about pensions – FG makes anumber of mistakes re pensions and how employers NIC works and so throws up the strawman argument re VAT. FG’s calculations stated that a £1000 bonus to the employee has employers NIC coming out first so that the employees bonus would be £878.73.This is not correct – a bonus of £1000 earned by an employee would require the employer to pay 13.8% NIC on the full £1000.And after accusing me of bluff and bluster sock puppet united contrive to give us these words of wisdom:-“And the employer's tax thing is simply incredible. He must think that when employers work out how much they can afford to give in extra pay that they're not going to calculate in their 13.8% N.I liability!”Which despite FG supposed ability to know what I am thinking (and he really does not want to know what I am thinking of his abilities and actions ) is not what has been said because that is not the way that Employers NIC is calculated. The last post of FG is an admission of his mistake wrapped up in spin and wordwooze. - Pathetic really.Having pointed that out to FG – his bruised ego then moves onto the VAT where I queried his use of 17%.I have already dealt with that re the calculation of VAT – it is 20% of the purchase price – it is a sales tax. If anyone looks at an invoice where VAT is applied then it is stated pretty clearly.Yes you could say that VAT is then representative of 17% of the retail price – but it is not done this way because if you are VAT registered then you claim the VAT back. Oh deary deary me – if you only have your own sock puppet to protect you from your own ignorance and stupidity FG – I am afraid there is little hope for you!That apart – if you were to want the rest of the accounting world to adopt the FG system of VAT accounting it would be best to state the actual figure of 16.6% recurring because if you round it up to the 17% you originally used then that equates to a real sales tax percentage of 20.5%Have to say – you are predictable FG – Robin Hood to the rescue!!!!!!!!!!!! – thanks for a laugh.

You're worse than dense. Once more, so everyone can see how thick you really are, this is what I said:

If he then spends his increase on anything but the most basic items whatever he buys will have VAT at about 17% of its retail price, another £86.64 so from the original £1000 the state has taken £567!

Because you're not the brightest spanner in the toolbox you thought I was saying that VAT is  17%. No I wasn't you idiot.  I was saying that VAT works out at about 17% of the retail price!

Now that's not really that difficult, but for you it's a maths proposition too far!

How can anyone take you seriously on anything if you can't understand this?

Once more for the remedial class. Something that costs £100 RETAIL has VAT of £16.66 made up as follows:

£83.33 net price. Add 20% VAT or £16.67 and you get £100. Therefore VAT is about 17% of the retail price. Give me strength! It's like trying to teach a six-year-old! 

You carry on digging that hole FG - pretty soon you will bury yourself.VAT is 20% of the purchase price – VAT is a purchase tax - it is stated thus because those organisations that can reclaim the VAT do so at 20 %This means that for those organisations who such as Trusts can buy the goods at the PURCHASE price. The rate of c.17% you talk about as a % or the Purchase Price inclusive of the 20% VAT is therefore irrelevent and not used (apart from the wishfully and terminaly confused such as yourself)Now of course where VAT does apply – it DOES represent 16.66% recuring of the total outlay – but as a meaningful figure it is spurious – irrelevant – and therefore not used (apart from your good self obviously).The reason being is that it is the same false accounting that could allow the unscrupulous to claim that a BRTP when putting money into a pension gets 25% tax relief, because someone points out that a £1 paid in as a net contribution gets grossed up to £1.25. If you use the same logic you do then it could be said that despite paying only 20% income tax, a pension is a great idea because you get 25% tax relief.Similarly a 40% tax payer could be told by your logic that they would get 66.6% recurring for every net £1 contribution they make into a pension. As with your VAT at 17% post - the arithmetic may be correct – but the inference and real world accounting principles are flawed. This demonstrates to all your lack of real knowledge. Attacking me as you do simply underlines thisSimilarly, you seem to want to indicate that despite all that is written by various financial sources, VAT is not really charged at 20%, but only about 17% when expressed as a percentage of the Purchase price INCLUSIVE OF THE 20% VAT!Barmy or what?And you try to make out I am confused.Once again – thanks for the laugh. I think I will use your “confusion” as an example of how badly some in the UK need to get to grips with the very basics of financial matters.

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-04-12 9:28 AM

 

loads of waffle

 

Now of course where VAT does apply – it DOES represent 16.66% recuring of the total outlay

 

loads more waffle

 

 

.....so Francis was right then. ;-)

 

(and actually Clive, in the context that he used the figure, it was entirely appropriate).

[francisgraham]

This is so childish! Yes, we know that VAT is charged at 20% of the net price. Who has ever denied it?

But once more, in the context of my sentence, how else could I have expressed it? If you want to tell someone what percentage of the price of the TV that they buy goes in tax, how would you do it?

I would say, of that £500 that you spent on a TV, about 17% goes in the tax known as VAT.

That is what my original statement actually said!

No matter how much you bluster and bang on about digging holes everyone except you understands what I am saying.

In a different context I would say "I shall be sending you a bill for £1000 to which I'll be adding 20% Vat".

But that's not what I was saying in the original post! Why can't you grasp this simple concept? 

[CliveH]

OK a question

 

A family shops for clothes - 2 items are bought at a purchase price (ex VAT) of £10 each. One item is for a child.

 

a) What is the total VAT on the transaction?

 

b) What is the VAT cost expressed as a percentage of of the total cost to the family inclusive of VAT charged?

[Guest Tracker]

CliveH - 2012-04-12 10:25 AM

OK a question

A family shops for clothes - 2 items are bought at a purchase price (ex VAT) of £10 each. One item is for a child.

a) What is the total VAT on the transaction?

b) What is the VAT cost expressed as a percentage of of the total cost to the family inclusive of VAT charged?

 

Sorry Clive - but who cares?

 

Shop prices generally are gross inc vat and as a family we don't have the luxury of choice about vat as we all have to pay it without being able to reclaim it so it matters not which items are vatable and which are vat free - it's what we have to pay that matters!

[CliveH]

Well the reason why I ask is because the answer illustrates why FG's calculation of VAT as circa 17% of the "Retail" price is a spurious calculation.

 

The answer to part a) is that the total VAT on the two items both costing £10 each is £2.00 because one item is children’s clothing which is zero rated for VAT.

 

Which means that the answer to part b) is as close as damn-it - 9.1%

 

A far cry from FG's ridiculous concept of expressing VAT as a percentage of the total coat INCLUSIVE of VAT.

 

The calculation for those sad enough to want to see it:

 

Item one - adult clothing - Purchase Price £10 + VAT @ 20% = Total Cost of £12

 

Item two - child clothing - Purchase Price £10 + VAT @ 0.0% = Total Cost of £10

 

Therefore total cost of both items = £22 of which VAT represents £2 (answer a)

 

When expressed as a percentage this is £2/£22 x 100 = 9.09%

 

A far cry from FG's spurious "17%" and clearly demonstrates the fallacy of FG's simplistic view of things financial. It also demonstrates that the possible sock puppet RH is also wrong to suggest that FG is “correct” (I think that is the description used – Ho-Hum!!!)

 

There are lots of retail items that are VAT zero rated - Newspapers - Books - children’s clothes to name a few. Some items are rated at 5%. The whole list is available on the HMRC website. Thus purchase of anyone of these within a “basket” would skew FG’s bizarre notion of VAT being 17% of the retail price.

 

 

It is difficult for someone like me who comes across someone like FG who from a position of dubious knowledge spits out bile and vindictive personal attacks when now the s/he in reality is simply digging a progressively bigger hole.

 

I am happy to play and hope FG appreciates the fact that I can give him the "Bucket and Spade" he need to complete his self-appointed task he seems so keen to complete. (lol)

 

And that is just me – always helpful.

 

[francisgraham]

It's time to give up as he clearly can't understand what this entire VAT debate is about.

No one is arguing that VAT is charged at 20% but retail prices are always charged as VAT inclusive. This is the law for people supplying to the general public. 

But, once again, in explaining how much the government takes off us in tax I pointed that when we buy taxable items we pay a further 17% in tax as this represents the VAT on the product. No one is arguing about that and even old CliveH seems to have grasped it. 

However, what this is really about is that dense Clive read my post and assumed that I think that VAT is charged at 17%.

I point out what I really said and where any normal person would say: "Ooops, see what you mean, I read the post quickly or didn't pay attention" he now and as usual, reverts to ever more complex arguments and even introduces children's clothing which doesn't have VAT. 

Who bloody well, cares?

You made a silly mistake now be a man and admit or shut up!

Edited to say, this was my original post - again! 

If he then spends his increase on anything but the most basic items whatever he buys will have VAT at about 17% of its retail price.............

Clive H never mentioned children's clothes or zero rated items and their introduction now is another desperate attempt for him to salvage some credibility. But it's too late I fear.

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-04-12 1:33 PM

 

The answer to part a) is that the total VAT on the two items both costing £10 each is £2.00 because one item is children’s clothing which is zero rated for VAT.

 

Which means that the answer to part b) is as close as damn-it - 9.1%

 

 

.....jeez, you just don't know when to give up do you.

 

The VAT discussion was Francis' "strawman" according to you, but despite that you still continue to prattle on about it (further and further away from the original debate). Your mind must be a very strange place. :-s

 

And now stating that there are variable rates of VAT and thus Francis' calculation (based on the majority use rate of 20%) is wrong is an odd way to turn the argument, since you yourself have been quite happy to work to date in your own arguments with that single 20% figure (so does that, in your mind, make you equally wrong?) :-S (Francis' original post on the point acknowledged there were other possiblities)

 

If you really want to play hard-ball and be "picky", then re-read your original question, because the answer above (to your question as worded) is not definitive either. :-S

 

My wife (along with many women) is quite capable of buying "childrens" clothing for herself at a zero VAT rate because of size, and my son (whilst still technically a child) had to buy adult clothes (not zero rated) because of his height. Buying for an adult or a child is not necessarily indicative of the rate of VAT paid.

 

So, the answer to your question (as worded) is that there is insufficient data to answer. BUT, in reality, and depending on the particular morphic properties of the people involved, the answer to B would be either 0%, 9.1% or 16.66% - So Francis' original statement of a potential 16.66% (I'll concede he said 17%) would still have a chance of being correct (but 20% wouldn't). ;-)

 

Anyway, I'm now bored with the repetitive debate - it isn't adding anything new and I need to go and get some gas.

 

(if the level of debate isn't raised somewhat, I might be tempted to use it ;-) )

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Who's this Straw man? :-S......................Is he's self employed? then I suggest his doesn't start a private pension :D

[malc d]

pelmetman - 2012-04-12 3:04 PM

 

Who's this Straw man? :-S.....................

 

 

He's a close relation of Sock Puppet.

 

They both live in Clives' shed.

 

 

;-)

[Symbol Owner]

malc d - 2012-04-12 3:15 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-04-12 3:04 PM

 

Who's this Straw man? :-S.....................

 

 

He's a close relation of Sock Puppet.

 

They both live in Clives' shed.

 

 

;-)

 

Shouldn't that be:-Clive's head? >:-)

 

Cheers,

 

C.

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2012-04-12 3:15 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-04-12 3:04 PM

 

Who's this Straw man? :-S.....................

 

 

He's a close relation of Sock Puppet.

 

They both live in Clives' shed.

 

 

;-)

 

They must have had private pensions if they can only afford to live in Clive's shed 8-)

[francisgraham]

They definitely live in his head. There's more room in it than in his shed.