Capital punishment

[Guest Had Enough]

John 47 - 2013-07-06 9:50 AM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-06 8:42 AM

First of all I do apologise about you saying that prison is merely for loss of liberty. Like you I misread. It was said by KOTR in this thread and I was mistaken when some pages later I thought it was you.

 

You have not presented one iota of evidence showing the difference in one state or one country that has had the death penalty and then abolished it. You have simply shown figures for states that have it or don't have it. What does that prove?

 

If rural Iowa doesn't have it, but a state with a large city with a massive drug and gang problem has the death penalty but still has a higher murder rate you seem to think that this proves that the death penalty doesn't deter! Good God man, aren't you capable of working out why that's nonsense!

 

On the other hand I have presented a report that says that a dozen different studies have been made into the effects of the deterrent effect of capital punishment and all conclude that every execution saves a number of lives.

 

You won't even consider this, so blinkered are you, and you just dismiss it out of hand. You say they haven't been verified. What does that mean? How can you verify them? They are assumptions made on evidence, rigorously analysed and applied. But of course no one can then prove that exactly seven people for instance will not be killed because of one hanging, but we can use our brains and assume that with twelve such research projects coming up with the same conclusion then there must be some basis for their conclusions.

 

But what is most damning in your reasoning is that ,despite this, so determined are you to try to convince yourself that you are right that you reject out of hand the entire notion that someone may be deterred from killing if there's a chance that he too may lose his life. That is just brainless! Our entire lives tell us that it is deterrents that keep society functioning - but in the John47 classroom that applies to everything but people who kill!

 

You still refuse to answer all the questions, although you have answered one and we all now know that there is no crime so horrible or vile that you would consider worthy of the death penalty. We now know that John47 could turn to the survivors of the death camps and tell them that Adolf Hitler doesn't deserve to die - and that says everything about you and your skewed and perverted versions of morality.

 

But let's try again with another questions that you've been avoiding:

 

If, for example, we introduced amputation of hands for shoplifting, do you think that fewer people would shoplift, or do you think that they wouldn't be deterred?

 

Now please don't divert or waffle. This is a hypothetical question, I'm not in favour of Saudi Arabian penalties but I'd just like to know whether you really think that deterrents do not work. And once more, I know they may not work every time and for every criminal, but my point and the points of dozens of researchers is that they do will deter many people from becoming criminals and thus save many innocent lives.

 

Can we have an answer please?

 

 

 

 

 

Well I suppose half an apology is better than none. :-D

 

Let's get something straight: I never said that penalties don't deter (if thy didn't then I would have had a difficult time as a teacher!) What I said was that you had no evidence whatsoever that in the one example you quoted the outcome would have been different. In other words, there was no evidence that the death penalty acted as a deterrent.

 

You keep quoting testimony from people in favour of the death penalty. In the interests of balance, I quote this http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983#answer-id-011770

which includes your Professor Rubin and shows that there are just as many arguments and just as much evidence on the other side. Nothing about this can be said with absolute certainty (as, indeed, your original article itself stated!). Thus to base an irreversible decision on it is completely unjustified.

 

You try to rubbish the actual figures I gave you (real ones, not hypothetical studies) but the whole point about those figures is not just that they show that there are proportionately more murders in States with the death penalty than in States without but that the range is so great within both categories that the only logical conclusion is that there is no significant deterrent effect.

 

As for the shoplifter example, well the arguments against that are exactly the same as against the death penalty. You cannot attribute rational motives to an irrational act, you can never be sure you've got the right person and so should be wary of irreversible actions and, finally, it is barbaric for a civilised society to contemplate because two wrongs will never make a right. You ask would it make a difference? The only honest answer is that I don't know - any more than you do but I will say this - if you think that shoplifting doesn't exist in countries with Sharia law then you are mistaken. Most criminals are convinced they will not get caught. In another example, look at drug smuggling in countries like Thailand, where there is the death penalty. It doesn't stop the drugs getting through - many of them carried by British people. So where does that leave you?

 

 

 

 

Where it leaves me is wondering how you ever qualified as a teacher with an intellect like yours. It leaves me to point out yet yet again that not everyone is deterred but far fewer drugs are smuggled into countries such as Singapore and Thailand because of the threat of capital punishment. And every time someone is executed and it makes the news more people are dissuaded.

 

But what is simply inane in your arguments is that you appear now to accept that deterrents work. But somehow they only work for every crime except murder?

 

So in the weird and wonderful mind of John47, deterrents work but the most severe deterrent of all doesn't? I shall leave others to work out the rationale behind that strange logic!

 

And again, yes, there may well be shoplifting in countries with Sharia law but it's not the epidemic it is here, with no real deterrents. And once more you waffle about attributing rational motives and proving guilt. What has that got to do with the principle of the debate? When you find yourself in a hole you divert by nonsense such as that!

 

No one is more rational than a shoplifter. They set out to steal and to avoid being caught. When they are caught it's normally red-handed! So for God's sake just for once try to keep on track of the main point, which is that deterrents would deter. They deter shoplifters and killers alike, but as I've told you several times, not all are deterred but many are.

 

You are, in my opinion, dishonest. Friends of mine are anti capital punishment. But their reasons are moral ones. They would never argue that if the penalty was severe enough many a crime would not be committed. They argue that we must draw a balance between the actions of the state and the example it must set and the resultant level of crime.

 

You just wilfully refuse to accept that many people will be deterred from say, carrying a gun in a robbery and killing someone. How do you explain the doubling, in real terms, of the UK homicide rate since abolition? How do you explain that criminals now routinely carry guns and will use them with hardly a qualm? Sensible people know that they are aware that whatever they do they won't be executed!

 

Now of course you'll spout the usual twaddle about how do I know what goes on in the minds of criminals. Well' like most people with a brain I can work it out!

 

I now give up on you. You have the strangest logic I have ever come across. You admit that you would carry out extrajudicial killings of our enemies, presumably to avoid further loss of life. You accept that deterrents do work but argue that they don't work for killers, when the deterrent is the highest we can make!

 

But if it could be proven without doubt that capital punishment had the same effect you wouldn't implement it! Even more appalling is that whilst you would have assassinated Hitler you wouldn't, after a fair trial, execute him. I simply cannot fathom how your mind works.

 

You care nothing for the wishes of the victims and their families and the closure and the satisfaction that it would bring to those whose suffering has been unimaginable, and that's why I truly believe that underneath your liberal pretensions you are wicked. You are wicked because you believe that satisfying John47's liberal conscience is more important than the wishes and feelings of the victims of the most appalling crimes.

 

I've had it now with you, with your selfish, illogical and inane views and I just give up. Goodbye.

 

[John 47]

Had Enough - 2013-07-06 11:36 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-06 9:50 AM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-06 8:42 AM

First of all I do apologise about you saying that prison is merely for loss of liberty. Like you I misread. It was said by KOTR in this thread and I was mistaken when some pages later I thought it was you.

 

You have not presented one iota of evidence showing the difference in one state or one country that has had the death penalty and then abolished it. You have simply shown figures for states that have it or don't have it. What does that prove?

 

If rural Iowa doesn't have it, but a state with a large city with a massive drug and gang problem has the death penalty but still has a higher murder rate you seem to think that this proves that the death penalty doesn't deter! Good God man, aren't you capable of working out why that's nonsense!

 

On the other hand I have presented a report that says that a dozen different studies have been made into the effects of the deterrent effect of capital punishment and all conclude that every execution saves a number of lives.

 

You won't even consider this, so blinkered are you, and you just dismiss it out of hand. You say they haven't been verified. What does that mean? How can you verify them? They are assumptions made on evidence, rigorously analysed and applied. But of course no one can then prove that exactly seven people for instance will not be killed because of one hanging, but we can use our brains and assume that with twelve such research projects coming up with the same conclusion then there must be some basis for their conclusions.

 

But what is most damning in your reasoning is that ,despite this, so determined are you to try to convince yourself that you are right that you reject out of hand the entire notion that someone may be deterred from killing if there's a chance that he too may lose his life. That is just brainless! Our entire lives tell us that it is deterrents that keep society functioning - but in the John47 classroom that applies to everything but people who kill!

 

You still refuse to answer all the questions, although you have answered one and we all now know that there is no crime so horrible or vile that you would consider worthy of the death penalty. We now know that John47 could turn to the survivors of the death camps and tell them that Adolf Hitler doesn't deserve to die - and that says everything about you and your skewed and perverted versions of morality.

 

But let's try again with another questions that you've been avoiding:

 

If, for example, we introduced amputation of hands for shoplifting, do you think that fewer people would shoplift, or do you think that they wouldn't be deterred?

 

Now please don't divert or waffle. This is a hypothetical question, I'm not in favour of Saudi Arabian penalties but I'd just like to know whether you really think that deterrents do not work. And once more, I know they may not work every time and for every criminal, but my point and the points of dozens of researchers is that they do will deter many people from becoming criminals and thus save many innocent lives.

 

Can we have an answer please?

 

 

 

 

 

Well I suppose half an apology is better than none. :-D

 

Let's get something straight: I never said that penalties don't deter (if thy didn't then I would have had a difficult time as a teacher!) What I said was that you had no evidence whatsoever that in the one example you quoted the outcome would have been different. In other words, there was no evidence that the death penalty acted as a deterrent.

 

You keep quoting testimony from people in favour of the death penalty. In the interests of balance, I quote this http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983#answer-id-011770

which includes your Professor Rubin and shows that there are just as many arguments and just as much evidence on the other side. Nothing about this can be said with absolute certainty (as, indeed, your original article itself stated!). Thus to base an irreversible decision on it is completely unjustified.

 

You try to rubbish the actual figures I gave you (real ones, not hypothetical studies) but the whole point about those figures is not just that they show that there are proportionately more murders in States with the death penalty than in States without but that the range is so great within both categories that the only logical conclusion is that there is no significant deterrent effect.

 

As for the shoplifter example, well the arguments against that are exactly the same as against the death penalty. You cannot attribute rational motives to an irrational act, you can never be sure you've got the right person and so should be wary of irreversible actions and, finally, it is barbaric for a civilised society to contemplate because two wrongs will never make a right. You ask would it make a difference? The only honest answer is that I don't know - any more than you do but I will say this - if you think that shoplifting doesn't exist in countries with Sharia law then you are mistaken. Most criminals are convinced they will not get caught. In another example, look at drug smuggling in countries like Thailand, where there is the death penalty. It doesn't stop the drugs getting through - many of them carried by British people. So where does that leave you?

 

 

 

 

Where it leaves me is wondering how you ever qualified as a teacher with an intellect like yours. It leaves me to point out yet yet again that not everyone is deterred but far fewer drugs are smuggled into countries such as Singapore and Thailand because of the threat of capital punishment. And every time someone is executed and it makes the news more people are dissuaded.

 

But what is simply inane in your arguments is that you appear now to accept that deterrents work. But somehow they only work for every crime except murder?

 

So in the weird and wonderful mind of John47, deterrents work but the most severe deterrent of all doesn't? I shall leave others to work out the rationale behind that strange logic!

 

And again, yes, there may well be shoplifting in countries with Sharia law but it's not the epidemic it is here, with no real deterrents. And once more you waffle about attributing rational motives and proving guilt. What has that got to do with the principle of the debate? When you find yourself in a hole you divert by nonsense such as that!

 

No one is more rational than a shoplifter. They set out to steal and to avoid being caught. When they are caught it's normally red-handed! So for God's sake just for once try to keep on track of the main point, which is that deterrents would deter. They deter shoplifters and killers alike, but as I've told you several times, not all are deterred but many are.

 

You are, in my opinion, dishonest. Friends of mine are anti capital punishment. But their reasons are moral ones. They would never argue that if the penalty was severe enough many a crime would not be committed. They argue that we must draw a balance between the actions of the state and the example it must set and the resultant level of crime.

 

You just wilfully refuse to accept that many people will be deterred from say, carrying a gun in a robbery and killing someone. How do you explain the doubling, in real terms, of the UK homicide rate since abolition? How do you explain that criminals now routinely carry guns and will use them with hardly a qualm? Sensible people know that they are aware that whatever they do they won't be executed!

 

Now of course you'll spout the usual twaddle about how do I know what goes on in the minds of criminals. Well' like most people with a brain I can work it out!

 

I now give up on you. You have the strangest logic I have ever come across. You admit that you would carry out extrajudicial killings of our enemies, presumably to avoid further loss of life. You accept that deterrents do work but argue that they don't work for killers, when the deterrent is the highest we can make!

 

But if it could be proven without doubt that capital punishment had the same effect you wouldn't implement it! Even more appalling is that whilst you would have assassinated Hitler you wouldn't, after a fair trial, execute him. I simply cannot fathom how your mind works.

 

You care nothing for the wishes of the victims and their families and the closure and the satisfaction that it would bring to those whose suffering has been unimaginable, and that's why I truly believe that underneath your liberal pretensions you are wicked. You are wicked because you believe that satisfying John47's liberal conscience is more important than the wishes and feelings of the victims of the most appalling crimes.

 

I've had it now with you, with your selfish, illogical and inane views and I just give up. Goodbye.

 

So there we have it. You are a man who:

 

1. Does not let the facts stand in the way of a good argument (and your current ramblings without producing any evidence at all are an excellent summary of that)

 

2. Is quite prepared to lie about others in order to somehow make their own arguments look better (but only in your twisted mind).

 

3. Thinks that repeating the same nonsense over and over again somehow will eventually make it true.

 

What a wonderful example of the human race you must be - I am sure your mother would be very proud of you. I'll stick to examining the facts before drawing any conclusions, if you don't mind.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

John 47 - 2013-07-06 10:19 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-06 10:12 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-06 9:28 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-06 7:55 AM

 

 

I really can visualise you standing there at the front of the classroom, "come on lad, no sloppy thinking give me facts boy". You should remember very many things stated as facts are often shown to be anything but, once upon a time the world was flat, just as well you were not around then with someone trying to tell you it was actually round, I can just imagine the verbal bashing you'd give them. Anyway one thing is a fact I'm getting outside to enjoy the weather.

 

You are absolutely right about facts being shown to be anything but from time to time but my point is that any opinion that is to be considered worth anything at all should at least be based in reality. Opinions that are based on nothing but prejudice (the "all Yorkshiremen are thick" kind of opinion) need to be challenged - and I'm quite happy to do the challenging!

 

 

God you must be an insufferable individual in the flesh, get out in the Sun, your vitamin D levels will improve, and you may just find it so more satisfying than wasting your time on here, trying to defend thick Yorkshire men. :D

 

It is one of my ambitions to be insufferable to insufferable people - I think I may have at least partly achieved that (lol) (lol)

 

Well I think that covers the majority of the human race, so you have your work cut out, and I suspect when you're drawing your last breath, you may just wish you had crossed that particular ambition off your list and chosen something more worthwhile, and achievable, because like it or not the people you find insufferable will still be insufferable in your eyes, and you in theirs.

 

Don't get too down, but back on part of our return leg tomorrow, so no Internet for 1foot, still you've got your work cut out with hadenough, so plenty of mileage left in that to waste yet more of your life with futile exercises that ultimately won't change anything.

[Guest pelmetman]

I've found the answer B-).....................give all murderers this thread to read ;-).....................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They'll all of given up the will to live by the time they reach page 5 (lol) (lol)

[John 47]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-06 6:25 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-06 10:19 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-06 10:12 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-06 9:28 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-06 7:55 AM

 

 

I really can visualise you standing there at the front of the classroom, "come on lad, no sloppy thinking give me facts boy". You should remember very many things stated as facts are often shown to be anything but, once upon a time the world was flat, just as well you were not around then with someone trying to tell you it was actually round, I can just imagine the verbal bashing you'd give them. Anyway one thing is a fact I'm getting outside to enjoy the weather.

 

You are absolutely right about facts being shown to be anything but from time to time but my point is that any opinion that is to be considered worth anything at all should at least be based in reality. Opinions that are based on nothing but prejudice (the "all Yorkshiremen are thick" kind of opinion) need to be challenged - and I'm quite happy to do the challenging!

 

 

God you must be an insufferable individual in the flesh, get out in the Sun, your vitamin D levels will improve, and you may just find it so more satisfying than wasting your time on here, trying to defend thick Yorkshire men. :D

 

It is one of my ambitions to be insufferable to insufferable people - I think I may have at least partly achieved that (lol) (lol)

 

Well I think that covers the majority of the human race, so you have your work cut out, and I suspect when you're drawing your last breath, you may just wish you had crossed that particular ambition off your list and chosen something more worthwhile, and achievable, because like it or not the people you find insufferable will still be insufferable in your eyes, and you in theirs.

 

Don't get too down, but back on part of our return leg tomorrow, so no Internet for 1foot, still you've got your work cut out with hadenough, so plenty of mileage left in that to waste yet more of your life with futile exercises that ultimately won't change anything.

 

Well, until I came across you, I didn't realise how much of an optimist I am because I find very few of my fellow human beings insufferable. More on here than anywhere else as it happens! :-D

 

As for Had Enough, I think he's had enough of me so I'm looking forward to your return. Have a safe trip :-D

[CliveH]

Frank is so full of contradictions and ill humour he fails to see what an idiot he regularly makes of himself.

 

But when he does finally gather a bit of insight he flounces off with an Ad Hom and "Goodbye!"

 

His last post above :-

 

"I've had it now with you, with your selfish, illogical and inane views and I just give up. Goodbye."

 

Sadly for us - I doubt he means it. :-S

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-07-07 8:24 AM

 

Frank is so full of contradictions and ill humour he fails to see what an idiot he regularly makes of himself.

 

But when he does finally gather a bit of insight he flounces off with an Ad Hom and "Goodbye!"

 

His last post above :-

 

"I've had it now with you, with your selfish, illogical and inane views and I just give up. Goodbye."

 

Sadly for us - I doubt he means it. :-S

 

 

If you learned to read and comprehend properly you'd note that I said that I was no longer going to argue about capital punishment with John47 as I considered his arguments to be so contradictory and inane that it was becoming a pointless merry go round. Sometimes someone has to have the brains to know that there's a time, for the sake of others, to call a halt, which is what I've done. So I haven't 'flounced off, I've merely stopped arguing with one man on one subject.

 

And as for making an idiot of oneself it really is time to get over the fact that just recently I made a real idiot of you and to stop this silly and childish sniping whenever you get the chance.

 

I never refer to you in threads that I'm in, unless you are debating with me. I never make snide little remarks about you where you have no input into the topic. Perhaps it's time for you to get over your recent humiliation and grow up?

 

I'm beginning to think that you're becoming a little obsessive where I'm concerned!

 

To repeat, just so you can understand. I will never criticise you indirectly as it's a cheap and rather nasty way to behave. In future, if you could behave in a similar way life will be a lot quieter for everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Trouble is Frank - what you say would only ring true if you had actually done what you like to make out you have done.

 

Instead the reality is you act as a monumental bore then flounce off saying you are not going to discuss it anymore. And you usually do this with a few choice words of abuse against the individual and then for some reason say "Goodbye".

 

I do not always agree with John 47 - but my goodness his three point assessment of you is spot on.

 

 

 

*-)

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-07-07 11:57 AM

 

Trouble is Frank - what you say would only ring true if you had actually done what you like to make out you have done.

 

Instead the reality is you act as a monumental bore then flounce off saying you are not going to discuss it anymore. And you usually do this with a few choice words of abuse against the individual and then for some reason say "Goodbye".

 

I do not always agree with John 47 - but my goodness his three point assessment of you is spot on.

 

*-)

 

Oh dear, here we go again. So you think that people should carry on debates for ever? You don't think that there comes a time when someone should say 'enough is enough'?

 

I shall let others decide on the sheer stupidity of that point!

 

And as for 'flouncing off' when I did nothing of the sort, aren't you the man who, having made a total fool of himself and losing a bet for £1000 (proof of payment not yet seen by the way) flounced off for about a month? People who live in glass houses Clive?

 

Now do me a favour and flounce off. Your opinion of me means nothing to me. If someone said that I abused animals you'd be the first to find a reason to agree, so obsessed are you with me and such is your antipathy to me.

 

There are two things that you need to learn. One is that you really shouldn't continue to make snide remarks about someone in threads where you are not debating directly with them. It's the equivalent of nasty gossiping behind their back, and you done it twice in the last few hours.

 

The other thing that you need to learn is that some people do recognise when a debate has run its course and when there is no point in continuing, otherwise the same old arguments just go on and on and on. I decided that there was no further point in my continued debate with John47 and for all our sakes it was time to wrap it up.

 

Most people would applaud that. You however are not most people. Such is your obsession with me that anything I do will be a reason for you to have another sly little dig.

 

If I'd carried on arguing with John47 I've no doubt that you'd have found a reason to criticise that in the same underhand way.

 

Now, please, do us all a favour. If you want to challenge me in a debate on anything, I welcome it. As was said in a thread a few days ago, you're a soft target!

 

But please, refrain from nasty little attacks on me in threads that you're not actually participating in and which you enter purely for the purpose of having a silly little dig at me.

 

Now please, there's a good chap, flounce off again, preferably for another month.

 

 

[CliveH]

Your problem Frank is that you read something that is quite clear in its meaning to most people and you infer something totally different.

 

I never said that a debate should go on forever!!

 

But that is the only way you can claw back some sort of credibility after your usual "exit" from a debate where you have managed to get your knickers in a twist once again and said "Goodbye"! (again!)

 

Your words:-

 

"I've had it now with you, with your selfish, illogical and inane views and I just give up. Goodbye."

 

Laughable - after the mauling you received (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

But no doubt you will come back with another bit of bile. *-)

 

Forgive me - a "flounce off" is called for to watch the tennis. :-D

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-07-07 1:02 PM

 

Your problem Frank is that you read something that is quite clear in its meaning to most people and you infer something totally different.

 

I never said that a debate should go on forever!!

 

But that is the only way you can claw back some sort of credibility after your usual "exit" from a debate where you have managed to get your knickers in a twist once again and said "Goodbye"! (again!)

 

Your words:-

 

"I've had it now with you, with your selfish, illogical and inane views and I just give up. Goodbye."

 

Laughable - after the mauling you received (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

But no doubt you will come back with another bit of bile. *-)

 

Forgive me - a "flounce off" is called for to watch the tennis. :-D

 

 

 

 

The mauling I received? Well, you'd know all about receiving a mauling wouldn't you! (lol) (lol)

 

No word yet from you by the way on the proof of payment to your charity, which you seem to be avoiding. ;-)

 

Now do everyone a favour Clive and stop this pathetic and childish vendetta. You must be boring the pants off everyone.

 

[CliveH]

I have told you I have paid it

 

You n contrast have still not compared balance sheets.

 

I have not seen with my own eyes anything to suggest what you say is true.

 

So I still say you are a bulls**tter - who else is so concerned about hiding who they are? - Oh yes!! - someone who has already been banned for silly behaviour. Of course.

 

I still say you are obnoxious

 

We know who you are

 

We know you have previously been banned for exactly the behaviour you childishly cannot help but act out.

 

I shall be asking your family when I meet them if they know you are such a pathetic obnoxious tit.

 

Brian asked the question do our wives know what we post - well mine is sitting right next to me now.

 

We have a chuckle at you - you amuse us. Tho she is far more interested in what Becker and Henman are saying. And who can blame her?

 

So I look forward to that knock on your door and being invited in to show you the proof of the payment (it was the purchase of equipment - that way the purchase is VAT exempt and still qualifies as a trading expense) And you will get the proof you ask for at that meeting.

 

Should be fun. B-)

 

Now be a good boy - bugger of for a bit and let the grown ups watch the tennis.

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

CliveH - 2013-07-07 2:02 PM

 

 

Now be a good boy - bugger of for a bit and let the grown ups watch the tennis.

 

 

 

 

Aaah the tennis :D.................now there's a conundrum :-S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Andy wins he'll be British ;-)................................................If he losses he'll be Scottish (lol)

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-07-07 2:02 PM

 

I have told you I have paid it

 

You n contrast have still not compared balance sheets.

 

I have not seen with my own eyes anything to suggest what you say is true.

 

So I still say you are a bulls**tter - who else is so concerned about hiding who they are? - Oh yes!! - someone who has already been banned for silly behaviour. Of course.

 

I still say you are obnoxious

 

We know who you are

 

We know you have previously been banned for exactly the behaviour you childishly cannot help but act out.

 

I shall be asking your family when I meet them if they know you are such a pathetic obnoxious tit.

 

Brian asked the question do our wives know what we post - well mine is sitting right next to me now.

 

We have a chuckle at you - you amuse us. Tho she is far more interested in what Becker and Henman are saying. And who can blame her?

 

So I look forward to that knock on your door and being invited in to show you the proof of the payment (it was the purchase of equipment - that way the purchase is VAT exempt and still qualifies as a trading expense) And you will get the proof you ask for at that meeting.

 

Should be fun. B-)

 

Now be a good boy - bugger of for a bit and let the grown ups watch the tennis.

 

 

 

Make up your mind old chap. You say you know who I am and then you accuse me of not being who you say I am! (lol)

 

Anyway, your solicitor has a copy of my balance sheet and he seems very happy with it! And I've seen your firm's and I promise you, there's really no comparison!

 

I see now that you changed your tack on the £1000. Now you've bought equipment!. Very odd, I thought that you were paying this personally and of course if you had paid it personally the charity would have had the tax relief and you could have claimed back the difference between your higher rate tax. So you haven't paid the bet, a company in which you have no financial interest has paid it! Yes of course they have Clive! ;-)

 

It seems very odd that you would deny the charity an extra £250 Gift Aid.

 

Anyway, I'm sure you'll have a letter of thanks from the charity. I sent my balance sheet to to your lawyer so I'm sure that you could send a copy of the charity's letter to me or my representative.

 

Your story that you have paid this money is starting to have a few holes in it! ;-)

 

And who could ask for more proof of your obsession with me. All this silliness about coming knocking on my door! If you found my address you could then compare it with Companies' House directors' listings which would prove once more who I am and what my firm is. But it is odd that you won't believe your own solicitor and even more proof of this simmering obsession that seems to be consuming you!

 

But of course all this nonsense about you driving 250 miles to meet me does get you off the hook about providing proof of the payment to the charity because I've made it clear that the last thing I want to do is meet up with my Internet stalker! *-)

 

I mean come on! Coming to my house to insist on seeing a balance sheet I could email to you tomorrow! You're becoming a bit strange old boy. Perhaps you should have taken a longer break to get your head together? *-)

 

[Guest Had Enough]

pelmetman - 2013-07-07 2:26 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-07-07 2:02 PM

 

 

Now be a good boy - bugger of for a bit and let the grown ups watch the tennis.

 

 

 

 

Aaah the tennis :D.................now there's a conundrum :-S

 

 

If Andy wins he'll be British ;-)................................................If he losses he'll be Scottish (lol)

 

I have a tele in my study and I can do two things at once! ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2013-07-07 2:44 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-07 2:26 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-07-07 2:02 PM

 

 

Now be a good boy - bugger of for a bit and let the grown ups watch the tennis.

 

 

 

 

Aaah the tennis :D.................now there's a conundrum :-S

 

 

If Andy wins he'll be British ;-)................................................If he losses he'll be Scottish (lol)

 

I have a tele in my study and I can do two things at once! ;-)

 

I have a multi function pouffe in my study..............so I can do it with my feet up ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

pelmetman - 2013-07-07 2:26 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-07-07 2:02 PM

 

 

Now be a good boy - bugger of for a bit and let the grown ups watch the tennis.

 

 

 

 

Aaah the tennis :D.................now there's a conundrum :-S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Andy wins he'll be British ;-)................................................If he losses he'll be Scottish (lol)

 

He's British then :D

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2013-07-07 2:42 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-07-07 2:02 PM

 

I have told you I have paid it

 

You n contrast have still not compared balance sheets.

 

I have not seen with my own eyes anything to suggest what you say is true.

 

So I still say you are a bulls**tter - who else is so concerned about hiding who they are? - Oh yes!! - someone who has already been banned for silly behaviour. Of course.

 

I still say you are obnoxious

 

We know who you are

 

We know you have previously been banned for exactly the behaviour you childishly cannot help but act out.

 

I shall be asking your family when I meet them if they know you are such a pathetic obnoxious tit.

 

Brian asked the question do our wives know what we post - well mine is sitting right next to me now.

 

We have a chuckle at you - you amuse us. Tho she is far more interested in what Becker and Henman are saying. And who can blame her?

 

So I look forward to that knock on your door and being invited in to show you the proof of the payment (it was the purchase of equipment - that way the purchase is VAT exempt and still qualifies as a trading expense) And you will get the proof you ask for at that meeting.

 

Should be fun. B-)

 

Now be a good boy - bugger of for a bit and let the grown ups watch the tennis.

 

 

 

Make up your mind old chap. You say you know who I am and then you accuse me of not being who you say I am! (lol)

 

Anyway, your solicitor has a copy of my balance sheet and he seems very happy with it! And I've seen your firm's and I promise you, there's really no comparison!

 

I see now that you changed your tack on the £1000. Now you've bought equipment!. Very odd, I thought that you were paying this personally and of course if you had paid it personally the charity would have had the tax relief and you could have claimed back the difference between your higher rate tax. So you haven't paid the bet, a company in which you have no financial interest has paid it! Yes of course they have Clive! ;-)

 

It seems very odd that you would deny the charity an extra £250 Gift Aid.

 

Anyway, I'm sure you'll have a letter of thanks from the charity. I sent my balance sheet to to your lawyer so I'm sure that you could send a copy of the charity's letter to me or my representative.

 

Your story that you have paid this money is starting to have a few holes in it! ;-)

 

And who could ask for more proof of your obsession with me. All this silliness about coming knocking on my door! If you found my address you could then compare it with Companies' House directors' listings which would prove once more who I am and what my firm is. But it is odd that you won't believe your own solicitor and even more proof of this simmering obsession that seems to be consuming you!

 

But of course all this nonsense about you driving 250 miles to meet me does get you off the hook about providing proof of the payment to the charity because I've made it clear that the last thing I want to do is meet up with my Internet stalker! *-)

 

I mean come on! Coming to my house to insist on seeing a balance sheet I could email to you tomorrow! You're becoming a bit strange old boy. Perhaps you should have taken a longer break to get your head together? *-)

 

Now this is where I have a problem with you and who you say you are Frank.

 

You say that because I made a charitable donation in the way that I did it would not be eligible for Gift Aid.

 

Once again – you show your ignorance of basic tax reality that I find very surprising indeed if you are what you say you are.

 

My wife and I are partners for one of our business and I am an Schedule E for another.

 

As indeed is my wife.

 

So taking this from the HMRC website

 

“Partnership declarations - England, Wales and Northern Ireland

If they have the power to do so under the terms of the partnership agreement, one partner can make a single Gift Aid declaration on behalf of all the partners. And the declaration only needs to show the name and address of the partnership.

If they're not able to do this, each partner has to make their own Gift Aid declaration. This can be done on a single form as long as it includes each partner's name and home address.”

 

So a charitable donation could have been made by my firm and it would have received the benefit of Gift Aid.

 

Your lack of knowledge in this area Frank is frankly – suspicious.

 

As for what I did in this situation was better than gift aid. Why on earth would you suggest that I make a personal donation? Yes it would benefit the charity to the tune of 25% - But I would still have to earn £100 pay the 40% income tax before I make the donation.

 

A partnership or sole trader could make the donation via the firm, reduce their profit which can obviously be advantageous for tax, both Partnership and Individual, and the charity can still gain the advantage of Gift Aid.

 

From the incorporated business, you can make a donation and reduce the companies Corporation tax liability (but you cannot use this to increase losses) which is far more valuable.

 

And then if you buy or contribute to a purchase that is eligible (Medical in the main) by completing a few simple forms the item can be purchased VAT free.

 

This is all fairly basic stuff – and this lack of knowledge on your part Frank still leads me to think that whatever you are – you have very little to do with the financial aspects of business management.

 

It is all available to peruse on the HMRC website – where you can download all the certificates needed as pdf’s.

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/businesses/giving/companies.htm

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/businesses/giving/self-employed.htm

 

So as I say – and have said before – the reason why I initially queried your assertion you are what you said you were is that you do make significant business knowledge faux pas’ on a regular basis.

 

This is yet another.

 

Because whatever you are – you seem to have scant knowledge of financial business basics.

 

[Mel B]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-04 12:01 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-04 9:41 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-04 9:32 AM

 

Astonishing the capacity of some to try to demonstrate their own perceived intellectual superiority on almost every subject under the sun.

 

A bit like you in dogs and motorhomes and the choice of Channel crossing?

 

The fact that I'm genuinely puzzled by Dog owners who actively encourage animals to share their personal bedding has nothing to do with intellectual superiority, just basic hygiene I would have thought, perhaps the odd trace of dog faeces, and saliva is perfectly OK though eh.

Funny, I've never known my dogs to poo in the bed but I understand that some grumpy old men do poo and wee in them ... and slobber all over too, not to mention other things that old gits do on their own! 8-)

 

pelmetman - 2013-07-06 9:58 PM

 

I've found the answer B-).....................give all murderers this thread to read ;-).....................

 

They'll all of given up the will to live by the time they reach page 5 (lol) (lol)

No, easier way than that, just get Had Enough and 1footinthegrave to visit a prison and give an 'educational lecture' ... the inmates will be lining up to have their throats slit with the 'sharp tongues' of the lecturers! :D

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-07-07 7:15 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-07 2:42 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-07-07 2:02 PM

 

I have told you I have paid it

 

You n contrast have still not compared balance sheets.

 

I have not seen with my own eyes anything to suggest what you say is true.

 

So I still say you are a bulls**tter - who else is so concerned about hiding who they are? - Oh yes!! - someone who has already been banned for silly behaviour. Of course.

 

I still say you are obnoxious

 

We know who you are

 

We know you have previously been banned for exactly the behaviour you childishly cannot help but act out.

 

I shall be asking your family when I meet them if they know you are such a pathetic obnoxious tit.

 

Brian asked the question do our wives know what we post - well mine is sitting right next to me now.

 

We have a chuckle at you - you amuse us. Tho she is far more interested in what Becker and Henman are saying. And who can blame her?

 

So I look forward to that knock on your door and being invited in to show you the proof of the payment (it was the purchase of equipment - that way the purchase is VAT exempt and still qualifies as a trading expense) And you will get the proof you ask for at that meeting.

 

Should be fun. B-)

 

Now be a good boy - bugger of for a bit and let the grown ups watch the tennis.

 

 

 

Make up your mind old chap. You say you know who I am and then you accuse me of not being who you say I am! (lol)

 

Anyway, your solicitor has a copy of my balance sheet and he seems very happy with it! And I've seen your firm's and I promise you, there's really no comparison!

 

I see now that you changed your tack on the £1000. Now you've bought equipment!. Very odd, I thought that you were paying this personally and of course if you had paid it personally the charity would have had the tax relief and you could have claimed back the difference between your higher rate tax. So you haven't paid the bet, a company in which you have no financial interest has paid it! Yes of course they have Clive! ;-)

 

It seems very odd that you would deny the charity an extra £250 Gift Aid.

 

Anyway, I'm sure you'll have a letter of thanks from the charity. I sent my balance sheet to to your lawyer so I'm sure that you could send a copy of the charity's letter to me or my representative.

 

Your story that you have paid this money is starting to have a few holes in it! ;-)

 

And who could ask for more proof of your obsession with me. All this silliness about coming knocking on my door! If you found my address you could then compare it with Companies' House directors' listings which would prove once more who I am and what my firm is. But it is odd that you won't believe your own solicitor and even more proof of this simmering obsession that seems to be consuming you!

 

But of course all this nonsense about you driving 250 miles to meet me does get you off the hook about providing proof of the payment to the charity because I've made it clear that the last thing I want to do is meet up with my Internet stalker! *-)

 

I mean come on! Coming to my house to insist on seeing a balance sheet I could email to you tomorrow! You're becoming a bit strange old boy. Perhaps you should have taken a longer break to get your head together? *-)

 

Now this is where I have a problem with you and who you say you are Frank.

 

You say that because I made a charitable donation in the way that I did it would not be eligible for Gift Aid.

 

Once again – you show your ignorance of basic tax reality that I find very surprising indeed if you are what you say you are.

 

My wife and I are partners for one of our business and I am an Schedule E for another.

 

As indeed is my wife.

 

So taking this from the HMRC website

 

“Partnership declarations - England, Wales and Northern Ireland

If they have the power to do so under the terms of the partnership agreement, one partner can make a single Gift Aid declaration on behalf of all the partners. And the declaration only needs to show the name and address of the partnership.

If they're not able to do this, each partner has to make their own Gift Aid declaration. This can be done on a single form as long as it includes each partner's name and home address.”

 

So a charitable donation could have been made by my firm and it would have received the benefit of Gift Aid.

 

Your lack of knowledge in this area Frank is frankly – suspicious.

 

As for what I did in this situation was better than gift aid. Why on earth would you suggest that I make a personal donation? Yes it would benefit the charity to the tune of 25% - But I would still have to earn £100 pay the 40% income tax before I make the donation.

 

A partnership or sole trader could make the donation via the firm, reduce their profit which can obviously be advantageous for tax, both Partnership and Individual, and the charity can still gain the advantage of Gift Aid.

 

From the incorporated business, you can make a donation and reduce the companies Corporation tax liability (but you cannot use this to increase losses) which is far more valuable.

 

And then if you buy or contribute to a purchase that is eligible (Medical in the main) by completing a few simple forms the item can be purchased VAT free.

 

This is all fairly basic stuff – and this lack of knowledge on your part Frank still leads me to think that whatever you are – you have very little to do with the financial aspects of business management.

 

It is all available to peruse on the HMRC website – where you can download all the certificates needed as pdf’s.

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/businesses/giving/companies.htm

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/businesses/giving/self-employed.htm

 

So as I say – and have said before – the reason why I initially queried your assertion you are what you said you were is that you do make significant business knowledge faux pas’ on a regular basis.

 

This is yet another.

 

Because whatever you are – you seem to have scant knowledge of financial business basics.

 

What has knowledge of Gift Aid to do with being a retailer? And you mention VAT. Are you VAT registered? This seems odd as you're a consultant for your firm according to you, so I would assume that the firm is VAT registered but why should its employees be? Very odd!

 

And I freely admit to not being a tax expert! I pay people who are tax experts and when I give to charity I do so personally using Gift Aid. I'm not a legal expert either and I pay people who are. What I am is a shopkeeper and quite a good one as it happens, having built up my firm from nothing in one of the most competitive trades there is and where most of my major competitors have folded!

 

But this is all trivia and there are two points that I want to make here;

 

Point one - this argument started because you simply can't resist making snide comments about me in threads where we are not debating with each other. I would never do this as it can lead to just one thing, more arguments.

 

Now you know I'm no shrinking violet, so why do you do it? Do you love stirring up trouble because I can think of no other reason, apart from the fact of course that since you were embarrassed by me some weeks ago you harbour an almighty grudge.

 

Second - Some weeks ago I mentioned that I was a businessman with a company with a decent sized balance sheet. You called me a liar and a bullsh*tter.

 

Eventually you called my bluff and told me to contact your solicitor and gave me his details. I phoned your solicitor and guess what? My call was a total surprise to him!

 

I spoke with him to establish my bona fides, invited him to look me up at Companies' House and then check for my phone number, which is listed.

 

I emailed him, (with my firm's company domain name) and sent him my latest draft accounts. He was happy and even checked on the accountants.

 

You accepted this, with very bad grace I might add, and slunk off for a month. Not only did you accept it but you claim to have paid the bet that we made, which incidentally I do not believe.

 

So the question is - why are you once more on this obsessive quest and still threatening to be on my doorstep one day asking to see my balance sheet? If I'm not who I say I am, I won't be there willI I?

 

So perhaps you can tell us all, don't you have faith in your own solicitor? Perhaps you can tell us all why did you accept that I am what I say I am and tell me that you'd honour the bet?

 

Finally, why are you starting all this all over again and behaving like a total prat?

 

Finally, I don't give a toss who you think I am. There are people on here who know for sure!

 

So please - stop the sly and nasty sniping and do everyone a favour and either believe me or disbelieve me, I couldn't care less anymore.

 

To other members of the forum, I apologise for this unnecessary nonsense which I didn't start but it appears that CliveH's obsession with me knows no limits.

 

 

[CliveH]

VAT - again you simply underline your ignorance.

 

And that tells me that you have little to do with business

 

If a company/partnertship/sole trader donates to a charity then VAT is not payable by the SELLER of that item, not the purchaser. This means that the item is provided VAT free as long as the correct HMRC certificate is completed.

 

So wrong again Frank

 

Bit of a habit here.

 

You may well be a businessman but if you are you know very little about business finance.

 

As for my lawyer - how can you say that it was a surprise when I rang his office and was told by his assistant following my previous email, you had phoned in and that Anthony was going to ring you back?

 

I have looked at the audit trail of the emails and once again it seems clear that you are manipulating and altering the facts of what actually happened.

 

I am quite happy to post these emails in their entirety .

 

And as I am happy to repeat - you seem happy to provide info to third parties with the proviso that they do not release that info - but you yourself demand full and frank divulgence of information by others.

 

Strange that!

 

Whilst Anthony is abiding by your request for anonymity - he would also admit that without full and frank disclosure - you could be anyone with access to the companies accounts and board.

 

I could easily print of a companies accounts and say I was a Director or Shareholder of that company - I could even get the personal address of the directors via Companies House. So cut the bulls**t Frank.

 

You had some harsh words to say about the finance of our company and you stated that out of absolute and total ignorance. Because as for assets within a company - any company that lists large assets does not have an accountant worthy of the title in my view.

 

The assets are held within a SIPP.

 

Another indication - alongside all the others - of you total ignorance of normal business practice.

 

So yes I still have DEEP reservations as to your being who you say you are.

 

If you are who you say you are - you got there by luck more that expertise.

 

But do not worry - at our meeting you can explain it all.

 

 

:-S

[nightrider]

I think I will change my nickname to tickled pink coz that's what I am, tickled pink as to how my original post has gone from capital punishment to high finance.

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-07-07 9:24 PM

 

VAT - again you simply underline your ignorance.

 

And that tells me that you have little to do with business

 

If a company/partnertship/sole trader donates to a charity then VAT is not payable by the SELLER of that item, not the purchaser. This means that the item is provided VAT free as long as the correct HMRC certificate is completed.

 

So wrong again Frank

 

Bit of a habit here.

 

You may well be a businessman but if you are you know very little about business finance.

 

As for my lawyer - how can you say that it was a surprise when I rang his office and was told by his assistant following my previous email, you had phoned in and that Anthony was going to ring you back?

 

I have looked at the audit trail of the emails and once again it seems clear that you are manipulating and altering the facts of what actually happened.

 

I am quite happy to post these emails in their entirety .

 

And as I am happy to repeat - you seem happy to provide info to third parties with the proviso that they do not release that info - but you yourself demand full and frank divulgence of information by others.

 

Strange that!

 

Whilst Anthony is abiding by your request for anonymity - he would also admit that without full and frank disclosure - you could be anyone with access to the companies accounts and board.

 

I could easily print of a companies accounts and say I was a Director or Shareholder of that company - I could even get the personal address of the directors via Companies House. So cut the bulls**t Frank.

 

You had some harsh words to say about the finance of our company and you stated that out of absolute and total ignorance. Because as for assets within a company - any company that lists large assets does not have an accountant worthy of the title in my view.

 

The assets are held within a SIPP.

 

Another indication - alongside all the others - of you total ignorance of normal business practice.

 

So yes I still have DEEP reservations as to your being who you say you are.

 

If you are who you say you are - you got there by luck more that expertise.

 

 

But do not worry - at our meeting you can explain it all.

 

 

:-S

 

You are a strange one! I've told you, I'm a simple shopkeeper and I pay people to handle my tax affairs and why should I be expected to know the ins and outs of charity donations by partnerships for instance?

 

And in one statement you show your total ignorance of business. This is just laughable:

 

'Because as for assets within a company - any company that lists large assets does not have an accountant worthy of the title in my view.'

 

I must remember to write to Tesco and JCB and tell them that they're very foolish for having a large balance sheet when they could wrap it all up in pension scheme!

 

Here's a lesson for you - retailers need stock and shopfittings and cars and the reason that I am still in business is because I've retained profits over the years. We have no borrowings so pay no bank interest. We get preferable deals because we pay on the nail and have money in the bank.

 

That's why in nine towns in NW England we're the only one left. That's why in a few weeks we're opening in Liverpool in the old Jessops' branch. That's why the landlord turned down Peter Jones in favour of us, because we have a superb balance sheet and an A1 credit rating - why not check it out for yourself?

 

But I ask again - why did you accept your lawyer's assurances and acknowledge that you were wrong and promise to pay the bet? Why are you now raking up all this nonsense again and saying that I am in fact not who I claim to be?

 

Even stranger, if I am not who I claim to be, how can we meet? Odd one that!

 

Finally, I know who I am, I know what I've achieved. I know who you are and what you've achieved and I feel a great sense of satisfaction as a result!

 

So two questions to answer Clive, how can we meet if I'm an anonymous imposter and why did you pay the wager if I'm not who I say I am? Not a very astute move by you if I'm an imposter and rather highlights that you're probably not a brilliant IFA! :-)

[CliveH]

I would say quite the opposite

 

If you are in retail then why the hell have you not got all your premises owned by a SIPP?

 

Why pay rent to a landlord when your Pension scheme can own it and whilst you still pay rent - you get tax relief on it and pay rent to a pot of money you and your fellow Partners/Directors own.

 

Methinks - when you are in a hole Frank - best to stop digging.

 

For a retail "giant" - you do not seem to have that many outlets.

 

As for Tescos - you really are a muppet aren't you! SIPP - stands for Small self Invested Personal Pension Scheme - not exactly the right contract for a large multinational - A SSAS could possibly do it (that is a Small Self Administered Scheme) - but I doubt the likes of Tesco or JCB would be advised to have either of those as the best option. No - a normal company pension scheme is what they have with a diverse portfolio of assets - including property - would be best advise for them.

 

So I doubt you are aware of the portfolio of assets within the Tesco pension scheme?

 

As for JCB - I have to assume tou mean the UK firm JCB rather than the Japanese Credit Card company that trades under the same name - but assuming you mean the UK company - I doubt you have any knowledge of their pension scheme either - tho whilst you would mention them in the context of retails I have to say I am not sure - but never the less - the fact that JCB is a huge backer of just such a large scheme as I mention via their involvement with New Star (now Hendersons) indicates to me you complete ignorance in such matter.

 

The Bamford stake amounts to about 8% via one of the JCB pension schemes. The money was largely invested in New Star some while ago, when they raised an additional c.£25m in extra capital to add to a previous £25m put up by outside shareholders.

 

As far as I am aware the FS section of this pension scheme closed to existing and future members in 2009 as did many FS schemes about this time. As far as I am aware the retained benefits within the scheme still include significant company premises.

 

SIPP's and SSAS's where introduced to facilitate the same benefits of the pension of a firm owning its company premises that always applied to large schemes.

 

I could go into the differences between the two but suffice it to say that a SIPP is designed for a Partnership and a SSAS is designed for the small limited company.

 

And sadly - suffice it also to say that Frank has once again displayed his extensive LACK of knowledge of anything to to with normal business finance.

 

Makes you wonder why he tries so hard to hide his identity - (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Or maybe not :-S

[Guest pelmetman]

knight of the road - 2013-07-07 9:36 PM

 

I think I will change my nickname to tickled pink coz that's what I am, tickled pink as to how my original post has gone from capital punishment to high finance.

 

I'll give you your due Malcolm you seem to have resurrected the "Frank" ;-).....................enstein 8-)