Oh dear - Forward Guidance - but not forward thinking.

[Guest Had Enough]

Peter James - 2013-08-09 5:14 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-08-09 4:33 PM

 

Peter James - 2013-08-09 4:28 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-08-09 4:10 PM

 

Britain's problems could all be solved by a good dose of Socialism!

 

Oops! Sorry, tried that and it made things even worse! (lol)

I must have missed that.

When did Britain have a Socialist Government?

 

Well, quite a few times actually! Look it up! They may not have been as bad as the more rabid socialists in the DDR, USSR, Cuba, North Korea etc. but we've had Labour socialists who practised socialist policies such as public ownership of major industries and a command economy. As I said, look it up!

Are you seriously suggesting Blair and Brown were Socialists?

In any case I never voted for them.

 

Blair and Brown? Don't you know that Labour was in government many times, starting in 1924?

 

Do try to keep up.

 

When's that list of successful socialist countries coming along! ;-)

[teflon2]

Isn't it amazing Clive posts an interesting thread and his own opinion and in jumps had enough with his usual criticisms and yet he starts almost no threads of his own, I think he must have some feelings of inferiority and jealousy that someone should have an opinion that he disagrees with and must be vilified, how sad!. I would have thought that being a successful businessman would be rewarding enough without attempting to belittle other peoples achievements. John. (!) :-S

[Guest peter]

I like low interest rates, as the fund shares I hold are in bonds and blue chip companies and are doing very well. Yielding about 8.5% P/A tax free as they are held in an ISA. If interest rates rise bond yields go down. Si it's a no brainer for us.

[CliveH]

Absolutely right Peter.

 

The Fixed Interest sector has been very positive. However - do be aware that this sector is under increasing pressure.

 

Government Bonds (Gilts in the UK) have not been performing well for some time. If we look at a Provider I consider to be one of the best - M&G - their Gilt fund has actually produced a negative performance of c. (minus) -4%.

 

http://www.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=MGGTI&univ=U

 

Put very simply - this is due to QE by the various Central Banks - undermining the basic tenant of what this sector is supposed to do. I is also indicative of the markets lack of faith in Government debt.

 

Corporate Debt however is a different matter - but the level of QE has effected currency values such that we are now seeing this negative sentiment migrating to the Corporate Bond Sector as well.

 

So yes - you Corporate Bond funds on average may have done well over the p[ast twelve months - but the last few months do indicate a winding back on performance.

 

Using M&G again as a reasonable example

 

http://www.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=MGSHI&univ=U

 

You can see that whilst in 2012 the sector achieved c. 12% (which as you say is an excellent performance given what you woukd get in a deposit account) - the YTD (year to date) figure is flat - in fact it is marginally negative.

 

I would suggest that you might want to review your overall exposure to this sector as it is not wise to see it as an alternative to money on deposit.

 

The obvious issue being where do you go over the next 3 years or so if it looks like we are going to have low interest rates for that long?

 

Trouble is QE consequences are beginning to be seen in the market. Usually the various C B's can use interest rates to manage the economies. But when you have base rates at 0.5% as we do - how much lower can you take the interest rate? Not far obviously.

 

What they do is lower the value of the currency by printing more money - because that is what QE is.

 

So the knock on effect on the Fixed Interest Sector - where Governments borrow money at a fixed rate with a set maturity date (Gilts or Government Bonds) and Companies do the same (Corporate Bonds) means that those buying the Gilts and Bonds are concerned that the "Value" of the capital they get back at maturity from those economies that employ QE to manage things will be considerably lower than their expectations, if those economies keep printing money!

 

Hence - the move to "Emerging Market Debt" which in the past would not be so highly rated as Bonds issued in the "traditional" western economies.

 

But it is these same "traditional" western economies that, to survive, are printing money and therefore devaluing their currencies against the rest.

 

Hence a move to Bonds - both Government and Corporate - from less traditional parts of the world. And hence why Government Bonds here have been performing badly for a while and now it seems that Corporate Bonds are being effected as well.

 

I would recommend checking out your funds via Trustnet

 

If you google your fund then click on the Trustnet link you get an excellent up to date data sheet from a techie firm that is independent of the providers. I suggest you then click on the "fund pdf" link as the info is then formatted in a standard format for all funds so if you print this you can do the same for other funds and comparisons are much easier.

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Peter

 

This article cam in from Investment Week.

 

The Title was "Where did the Smart Money go in July"

 

It sets out the situation nicely:-

 

"Fixed income’s spell may have finally been broken this summer, writes Cherry Reynard.

 

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke may have sought to reassure bond markets he had no immediate plans to draw quantitative easing (QE) to an close, but investors remained unconvinced.

Money continued to flow from bond funds. Equity funds were the key beneficiary despite many investors believing that valuations, certainly in some of the major developed markets such as the US, have started to look stretched.

 

EPFR Global data shows $19.7bn was invested in global equity funds in the second week of July, the highest amount for six months. However, flows out of bond funds had slowed towards the end of July, with only $700m withdrawn in the third week of the month.

 

The data also showed the US market continued to be popular with investors, many of whom chose a passive option: $6.5bn of the flows into US funds went into State Street Global Advisors’ popular S&P 500 SPDR ETF.

 

This is in spite of many investors believing the market is overvalued after a long time in the spotlight. However, the money did not all head for defensive markets. European funds garnered $2bn, their highest level for over a year.

 

The only strong spot in fixed income was high yield, which gained $760m in the second week of July. That same week saw $2.7bn redeemed from all bond funds, bringing the total redeemed since the start of June, when Bernanke said he may pare back QE, to $11bn.

 

Europe

 

Morningstar data shows European investors were also ending their love affair with fixed interest as they grew increasingly concerned over the potential for a rise in rates. Long-term funds saw outflows of €31bn in June, of which €30bn was in fixed income.

 

However, in Europe, equity funds also saw outflows: €9.5bn left the asset class, the largest outflow since May 2012, reversing the nine straight months of inflows. In particular, emerging market funds were weak as fears continued over Chinese growth, losing €2.6bn.

 

However, a number of expert investors are now suggesting valuations are becoming increasingly attractive in emerging markets and they may make a decent contrarian play.

 

The only areas to see notable inflows were allocation and alternative funds, which attracted €7.3bn and €2.7bn respectively. This was in spite of one of the most popular allocation funds – the Standard Life Global Absolute Return Strategies (GARS) fund – losing one of its key managers, Euan Munro, to Aviva

 

Investors.

 

The exodus out of fixed income was replicated among UK investors, with £624m net redemptions in June, the highest ever total. Yet overall fund sales were buoyant at £1.1bn. Equity was the best-selling asset class with net retail sales of £884m. Within equity, the UK was the most popular market, taking around half of net retail sales.

 

.....................................

[Guest Had Enough]

A very interesting article on the front page of the Telegraph finance section this morning. You retired just in time Clive. Business is taking a dive it would appear.

 

'Now that consumers can see more clearly how much they pay for financial advice, many no longer want it.

 

One in three investors who have taken financial advice in the past five years says they will never consider paying for the service again.

 

These findings – part of an authoritative survey into thousands of investors' intentions – emerge just six months after new rules were introduced requiring financial advisers to declare their charges explicitly to clients, rather than receiving payment in the form of commissions.

 

The new rules, brought in by the previous watchdog, the Financial Services Authority, have applied since January. They sought to sweep away the opaque system that existed for decades before, whereby "advisers" – in some cases salesmen – were paid commissions by the companies whose investments they recommended. Ultimately, the payment came from private investors' funds.

 

The increased transparency appears to be causing consumers to question the value of advice. GfK, a research firm analysing investor trends, says that, over the past five years, 63pc of people who made a stocks-and-shares investment, including pensions, took financial advice. That represents about a million private investors, it said.

 

But GfK's latest research, through its database of 60,000 active investors, shows that a huge proportion of those who previously paid for advice are now disaffected. Of those planning further investment within the next 12 months, one in three now says they would not pay for advice again.

The proportion is higher among those with smaller sums invested, suggesting that cost is the deterrent.

 

Among consumers who have less than £50,000 invested, almost 40pc say they will never return to their financial adviser. But even when the sums rise to £100,000 or more, one in five consumers who previously paid for advice now says they would "never consider" doing so again.

 

When GfK applied its findings to the wider population who have previously sought advice, it reckoned that as many as 340,000 would now turn their backs on their advisers and make do on their own.'

 

http://goo.gl/CEtMYQ

 

 

[CliveH]

Our problem is quite the opposite. We were working on a fee paying for years prior to the FSA introducing the RDR. We welcome it.

 

The problem is that whilst we would consider taking on a client with a small sum, like the old Man from the Pru used to do - we were, in fact getting other clients to subsidise them. For example the cost of opening a file is circa £550. We have to do exactly the same Due diligence and Compliance checks on a £10,000 ISA as we do on a £100,000 OEIC.

 

With commission we would earn 3% on both. So the ISA gets us £300 and the OEIC would have got us £3000.

 

So we would make a loss on the ISA but get by by charging the chap with the £100,000 too much. Because opening a file costs us £550, and ongoing monitoring is charged at 0.75% so that is circa £750 a year.

 

So that Chap with the ISA is not a client we want. And we found that charging clients for the work done allowed low net worth clients to migrate back to the direct sales forces - mainly the Banks whilst we can reduce costs for our high net worth clients and offer a better service.

 

We decided years ago that this business model was the right way to go. So sorry to disappoint you Frank but once again you are way behind the times whilst we are once again well ahead of them.

 

I suppose if I were you (heaven forbid :-> ) I would say things like:-

 

"You just don't get it do you"

 

or

 

"You are too thick to understand"

 

But I am NOTHING like you Frank - so I won't

 

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-08-10 6:13 PM

 

Our problem is quite the opposite. We were working on a fee paying for years prior to the FSA introducing the RDR. We welcome it.

 

The problem is that whilst we would consider taking on a client with a small sum, like the old Man from the Pru used to do - we were, in fact getting other clients to subsidise them. For example the cost of opening a file is circa £550. We have to do exactly the same Due diligence and Compliance checks on a £10,000 ISA as we do on a £100,000 OEIC.

 

With commission we would earn 3% on both. So the ISA gets us £300 and the OEIC would have got us £3000.

 

So we would make a loss on the ISA but get by by charging the chap with the £100,000 too much. Because opening a file costs us £550, and ongoing monitoring is charged at 0.75% so that is circa £750 a year.

 

So that Chap with the ISA is not a client we want. And we found that charging clients for the work done allowed low net worth clients to migrate back to the direct sales forces - mainly the Banks whilst we can reduce costs for our high net worth clients and offer a better service.

 

We decided years ago that this business model was the right way to go. So sorry to disappoint you Frank but once again you are way behind the times whilst we are once again well ahead of them.

 

I suppose if I were you (heaven forbid :-> ) I would say things like:-

 

"You just don't get it do you"

 

or

 

"You are too thick to understand"

 

But I am NOTHING like you Frank - so I won't

 

 

 

Flipping heck Clive! There's no need to be so defensive, and in the final part of your post, so offensive. When I saw the article I naturally thought of you as it was about financial advisors.

 

Anyway, I'm really pleased that your little firm is doing well and is forward thinking. We're the same, which is why we're one of the few who've survived in a trade where the vast majority have given up. And unlike the rest we continue to expand with my tenth branch opening this month in a prime spot in Liverpool.

 

So just imagine Clive, if you were as thick as me, or you just couldn't get, it you might have ten branches now and be on your way to being the next Chase de Vere! ;-)

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2013-08-10 6:46 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-08-10 6:13 PM

 

Our problem is quite the opposite. We were working on a fee paying for years prior to the FSA introducing the RDR. We welcome it.

 

The problem is that whilst we would consider taking on a client with a small sum, like the old Man from the Pru used to do - we were, in fact getting other clients to subsidise them. For example the cost of opening a file is circa £550. We have to do exactly the same Due diligence and Compliance checks on a £10,000 ISA as we do on a £100,000 OEIC.

 

With commission we would earn 3% on both. So the ISA gets us £300 and the OEIC would have got us £3000.

 

So we would make a loss on the ISA but get by by charging the chap with the £100,000 too much. Because opening a file costs us £550, and ongoing monitoring is charged at 0.75% so that is circa £750 a year.

 

So that Chap with the ISA is not a client we want. And we found that charging clients for the work done allowed low net worth clients to migrate back to the direct sales forces - mainly the Banks whilst we can reduce costs for our high net worth clients and offer a better service.

 

We decided years ago that this business model was the right way to go. So sorry to disappoint you Frank but once again you are way behind the times whilst we are once again well ahead of them.

 

I suppose if I were you (heaven forbid :-> ) I would say things like:-

 

"You just don't get it do you"

 

or

 

"You are too thick to understand"

 

But I am NOTHING like you Frank - so I won't

 

 

 

Flipping heck Clive! There's no need to be so defensive, and in the final part of your post, so offensive. When I saw the article I naturally thought of you as it was about financial advisors.

 

Anyway, I'm really pleased that your little firm is doing well and is forward thinking. We're the same, which is why we're one of the few who've survived in a trade where the vast majority have given up. And unlike the rest we continue to expand with my tenth branch opening this month in a prime spot in Liverpool.

 

So just imagine Clive, if you were as thick as me, or you just couldn't get, it you might have ten branches now and be on your way to being the next Chase de Vere! ;-)

 

 

Or be as thick as me and have no money to worry about :D.............

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2013-08-10 6:46 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-08-10 6:13 PM

 

Our problem is quite the opposite. We were working on a fee paying for years prior to the FSA introducing the RDR. We welcome it.

 

The problem is that whilst we would consider taking on a client with a small sum, like the old Man from the Pru used to do - we were, in fact getting other clients to subsidise them. For example the cost of opening a file is circa £550. We have to do exactly the same Due diligence and Compliance checks on a £10,000 ISA as we do on a £100,000 OEIC.

 

With commission we would earn 3% on both. So the ISA gets us £300 and the OEIC would have got us £3000.

 

So we would make a loss on the ISA but get by by charging the chap with the £100,000 too much. Because opening a file costs us £550, and ongoing monitoring is charged at 0.75% so that is circa £750 a year.

 

So that Chap with the ISA is not a client we want. And we found that charging clients for the work done allowed low net worth clients to migrate back to the direct sales forces - mainly the Banks whilst we can reduce costs for our high net worth clients and offer a better service.

 

We decided years ago that this business model was the right way to go. So sorry to disappoint you Frank but once again you are way behind the times whilst we are once again well ahead of them.

 

I suppose if I were you (heaven forbid :-> ) I would say things like:-

 

"You just don't get it do you"

 

or

 

"You are too thick to understand"

 

But I am NOTHING like you Frank - so I won't

 

 

 

Flipping heck Clive! There's no need to be so defensive, and in the final part of your post, so offensive. When I saw the article I naturally thought of you as it was about financial advisors.

 

Anyway, I'm really pleased that your little firm is doing well and is forward thinking. We're the same, which is why we're one of the few who've survived in a trade where the vast majority have given up. And unlike the rest we continue to expand with my tenth branch opening this month in a prime spot in Liverpool.

 

So just imagine Clive, if you were as thick as me, or you just couldn't get, it you might have ten branches now and be on your way to being the next Chase de Vere! ;-)

 

 

Frank - my aged and ill-informed friend - why the HELL would I want to aspire to be the next Chase De Vere.

 

They posted a £12M loss in 2012 because they could not see the idiocy of Keydata - our Techies warned us and we steered well clear so we posted a significant profit on the year. Which we have ploughed back into the business to the benefit of clients.

 

Little wonder that you are buying premises when the smart money is moving to Internet sales.

 

Still I am sure you know best - you keep telling us you do - So I believe you 8-)

 

I really do 8-)

 

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-08-10 9:24 PM

 

 

Frank - my aged and ill-informed friend - why the HELL would I want to aspire to be the next Chase De Vere.

 

They posted a £12M loss in 2012 because they could not see the idiocy of Keydata - our Techies warned us and we steered well clear so we posted a significant profit on the year. Which we have ploughed back into the business to the benefit of clients.

 

Little wonder that you are buying premises when the smart money is moving to Internet sales.

 

Still I am sure you know best - you keep telling us you do - So I believe you 8-)

 

I really do 8-)

 

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Let me give you a tip Clive. Stick to advising greengrocers on how to invest their lump sum. You've already proved to me that you have no idea whatsever about real retailing.

 

Your wonderful idea that I should buy my new shop and put it in a SIPP sort of overlooked the fact that a] you just can't buy units such as this in major shopping centres b] that it's probably worth a million quid and if I took your advice and did this for all of them I'd have a pension pot of around 8 million pounds. Well, that would be great wouldn't it! ;-) As I said, you're not dealing here with little shops in small towns with small businesses, the kind of thing that you're clearly used to!

 

What customers like is a combination of both Internet and bricks and mortar. Maybe you've heard of John Lewis? maybe you've read that Peter Jones the TV Dragon has bought the Jessop name and is opening 35 stores? Still, I'm sure you know better than the multi-millionaire Peter Jones eh? (lol)

 

Perhaps you didn't know that we also have a successful Internet operation, so we get the best of both worlds! Not rocket science is it as there are still many people, especially those buying expensive equipment who won't buy online?

 

But let's examine the facts as you seem determined to denigrate what I do and have done.

 

We were both employees. You were an insurance salesman with Equitable Life I believe and I was a salesman in the camera business. We decided to have a go at setting up our own businesses. You became a financial advisor and I became a retailer.

 

I built up my business to this:

 

https://www.duedil.com/company/01945826/frank-wilkinson-cameras-limited

 

You built up yours to a tiny one shop operation and sold out. The balance sheet of the firm you sold out to is worth about £10K!

 

Now take the p*ss all you like Clive. I know where I'd rather be! (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Ps And I gave Chase de Vere just as an example of a large firm of financial advisors. They may have lost some money last year but they're still worth millions!

[CliveH]

We are going over old ground here Frank - but then with what I suspect is your underlying problem here - I suspect you you don't remember you have done this before.

 

Once again you try the snide remarks.

 

And once again - i will point out that the assets we, as a firm hold, are intellectual. A IFA firm is not judged on its retail "footprint" because that is irrelevant. No doubt if history repeats itself - you will alredy be formulating yet a further snide remark regarding "intellectual". But may I tactfully remind you that you have done it before and doing it again would simply underline your "problem".

 

So sadly, I do have to use a phrase popular with you in that "You really do not get it do you" - because an Advising firm is valued as its funds under management.

 

Apart from that - all the companies property assets are held within a SIPP. So that does not get reported within the Limited Companies Report and Accounts. So once again Frank I find myself having to educate you in basic company finance such that my opinion of you, in this area is not high. You may be good at selling cameras and you may be successful at that, but the knowledge limitations you seem keen to display to all, alongside the negative aspects of your personality are such that I now consider you to have a significant "problem".

 

And yet again - you display a prodigious ability to bring up old slights from way back. The fact that you say you cannot buy retail units in shopping centres may well be true. But you seem unable to grasp the fact that our business is not a retail business - we no more want people of the streets as we would want the clientele of Weatherspoons. Therefore, in your ignorance - you display to all - an inability to understand fairly basic business acumen.

 

Which brings us back pretty much to where we started - Frank - which once again tells me you are NOT a man of your word because you said you would not do this silliness again.

 

I can only assume that in the short term - you forgot this.

 

As for the ridiculous comments you make re Chase de Vere. Have you any knowledge of the world outside you comfort zone of camera sales?

 

.......................

 

"Chase de Vere posted a pre-tax profit of £1.2 million for the year ended 31 December 2011 with only £2 million of exceptional costs.

 

In its accounts last year Chase de Vere said that the FSCS had backed down over £56 million of claims over its sale of Lifemark-backed Keydata but confirmed that the FSCS was pursuing it for £8.5 million related to its sale of SLS-backed Keydata policies.

 

Chase de Vere has taken a lead fighting the FSCS, which is chasing around £200 million from advisers who sold failed Keydata investments, by volunteering to be one of the six firms involved in a series of test cases against the compensation scheme."

 

.........................

 

Chase de Vere - flogs policies that make it a lot on money. It did this with Keydata and whilst it seems to have won its first battle with the FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme) many of us think this is a holding situation only and the claim for £56M for badly advised clients will go forward via a different route.

 

In contrast we advise clients - we charge a fee - we have no liability re Keydata because our advice process is robust enough that we would not touch the thing with the proverbial barge pole.

 

So once again Frank - you spit out the same old same old - "you know nothing about retail"

 

Which is, in fact untrue for a number of reasons, but hardly the main point. The main point is that you are a one trick pony. You may know a bit about Retail. But you know very little outside of that.

 

Once again you resort to vitriol and bile, and the trawling back over past slights...... The forgetting that you said you would not do something...... The anger you feel to everyone because you know there is something wrong ........ But you keep forgetting.............

 

This is indicative of someone with short term memory problems. Having to constantly remind oneself of recent history is a case in point.

 

I tactfully suggest that you need help Frank.

 

It is not right that someone comes on a Forum such as this and behaves as you do.

 

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

You really are the biggest hypocrite on this forum. After I posted an article that I saw in the Telegraph you replied and ended with this:

 

I suppose if I were you (heaven forbid ) I would say things like:-

 

"You just don't get it do you"

 

or

 

"You are too thick to understand"

 

But I am NOTHING like you Frank - so I won't

 

 

You're right Clive, you're nothing like me or you'd have really made something of yourself! (lol)

 

You're so thick that you can't comprehend that I used Chase de Vere as just one example of a large IFA firm, of which there are many and you feel the need to give your long winded chapter and verse on them, which as usual was all about showing how clever you are. It was an example for God's sake you sad man!

 

And now that I've responded to your insults we get the usual cheap shots about me having a 'problem'.

 

You're the one with the problem Clive. You have this need to come on here and impress on everyone with what a financial genius you are (despite the fact that you seem to have had little financial success yourself!). Your recent post in which you wrote; 'I'm a member of a breakfast business club' which had nothing to do with the subject, was merely to impress. What is it Clive? Probus? ;-)

 

I really did laugh when you tried to impress on me your knowledge of retailing and the properties and costs and rents involved, which was clearly at the level of a small town greengrocer!

 

But to suggest that I don't understand that IFA's don't need to be in secondary locations is pathetic. Of course I do, I deal with lawyers, accountants and IFA's all the time. None of them are in shopping centres! They are however in very good sites where such professions gather and feed off each other.

 

You can blabber all you like Clive, you can try to denigrate once more what I do and what I've done but you know and I know who's really been successful at his chosen career. Not bad for a thick bloke with no business acumen! And you can trot out your hypocritical nonsense about how I said I wouldn't do this any more.

 

If you hadn't written this snide little attack, we wouldn't be here:

 

I suppose if I were you (heaven forbid ) I would say things like:-

 

"You just don't get it do you"

 

or

 

"You are too thick to understand"

 

But I am NOTHING like you Frank - so I won't

 

 

You are like me Clive in this respect, you're just slimier and more snide and insult in the way you do above,

 

 

Anyway, do carry on impressing the six people who read your pompous and long-winded (look how clever I am) posts, such as the ones above in this thread, in which a simple statement from Peter prompted you to give us two episodes of War and Peace! (lol)

 

I'm away for three weeks later this morning so I'll be able to have rest from your posturing! But do carry on boosting your fragile ego!

[CliveH]

Yes Frank

 

Of course dear.

 

Now go and have a cup of tea and take your tablets.

 

Your nastiness is on display again and is indicative of the problem think you have.

 

Heard it all before from you I am afraid.

 

But of course - it would all seem new and fresh to you I suspect.

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-08-11 8:08 AM

 

Yes Frank

 

Of course dear.

 

Now go and have a cup of tea and take your tablets.

 

Your nastiness is on display again and is indicative of the problem think you have.

 

Heard it all before from you I am afraid.

 

But of course - it would all seem new and fresh to you I suspect.

 

 

Thank you matron! ;-)

 

Ps Was it Probus by the way? (lol) (lol)

[CliveH]

No it isn't.

 

Tho I was in Round Table until 40 of course.

 

http://www.nfbp.org.uk

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2013-08-10 10:51 PM

 

https://www.duedil.com/company/01945826/frank-wilkinson-cameras-limited

 

Is this the same bloke who wanted to maintain his anonymity for the protection of his staff & family? :D

[CliveH]

(lol) (lol) (lol)

 

I didn't want to say that Dave

 

But you in your inimitable style make the point better than i ever could

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-08-11 9:43 AM

 

(lol) (lol) (lol)

 

I didn't want to say that Dave

 

But you in your inimitable style make the point better than i ever could

 

 

One last word before heading for Dover, you didn't say it because you didn't think of it! We all know that you would have done if it had occurred to you. ;-)

 

But of course the one thing that proves you're both not that bright is that it is well known who I am now and my name comes up a lot! Doh!

 

But your real morality is proven in your recent defence of what BGD did. He took an innocuous sentence from Jim of MHF and turned it into a huge lie in his attempt to smear Yosser Hughes.

 

Jim was so incensed that he came on here to decry BGD and then banned him from his own forum.

 

But BGD is one of your 'mates' and Yosser isn't. You really are the biggest of pathetic hypocrites!

 

Seeing you constantly trying ingratiate yourself in various ways on here makes me want to reach for the sick bag. It appears that someone can commit the vilest of actions but if they're your 'mate' you can understand why they did it. Good God man, can't you see what you're doing here?

 

I leave in about an hour and had intended posting no more but I'm afraid that your latest travesties have diverted me from my last minute packing. You and your so called morality have really been found out Clive! It's a very subjective morality influenced by who you like or don't like!

 

Shame on you, shame on you!

 

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2013-08-11 9:57 AM

 

CliveH - 2013-08-11 9:43 AM

 

(lol) (lol) (lol)

 

I didn't want to say that Dave

 

But you in your inimitable style make the point better than i ever could

 

 

One last word before heading for Dover, you didn't say it because you didn't think of it! We all know that you would have done if it had occurred to you. ;-)

 

But of course the one thing that proves you're both not that bright is that it is well known who I am now and my name comes up a lot! Doh!

 

But your real morality is proven in your recent defence of what BGD did. He took an innocuous sentence from Jim of MHF and turned it into a huge lie in his attempt to smear Yosser Hughes.

 

Jim was so incensed that he came on here to decry BGD and then banned him from his own forum.

 

But BGD is one of your 'mates' and Yosser isn't. You really are the biggest of pathetic hypocrites!

 

Seeing you constantly trying ingratiate yourself in various ways on here makes me want to reach for the sick bag. It appears that someone can commit the vilest of actions but if they're your 'mate' you can understand why they did it. Good God man, can't you see what you're doing here?

 

I leave in about an hour and had intended posting no more but I'm afraid that your latest travesties have diverted me from my last minute packing. You and your so called morality have really been found out Clive! It's a very subjective morality influenced by who you like or don't like!

 

Shame on you, shame on you!

 

Calm down dear!

 

Take another tablet - the last one is obviously wearing off.

 

Bruce is an honourable bloke who rarely gets things wrong.

 

I do believe he mad a mistake and have said so.

 

But i have also said that his credibility remains high.

 

And from this you manage to infer an awful lot of negative stuff about my morals.........!

 

Your credibility is so low that this is hardly an issue because you are quite a joke on here now.

 

Why - because you constantly do exactly what you accuse others of doing.

 

You do it now - when any sane person would be looking forward to a holiday - you are checking the posts on here to see if you can find any excuse to have another pop.

 

I think you are getting worse Frank.

 

Now you have got all upset because Dave wondered why after all the cloak and dagger silliness you displayed before - you now seem quite happy to post about yourself.

 

Your righteous indignation rings hollow.

 

Yet again *-) - you portray yourself as a totally disingenuous individual.

 

 

[CliveH]

Now that IS funny.

 

HE tries to have a pop because I say that Bruce's credibility is high and HE then tries to infer that i am only doing it because Bruce is my "mate" apparently.

 

Then YossToss steps up to the mark and tells HE "Well Done"

 

8-)

 

 

You seriously could not make this stuff up! (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2013-08-11 9:57 AM

 

[

 

One last word before heading for Dover, you didn't say it because you didn't think of it! We all know that you would have done if it had occurred to you. ;-)

 

 

 

You really do have to stop judging others by your own low standards Frank.

 

I can only tell you that it did occur to me.

 

But again what you would do as part of your obsession with me is really not what i would do at all.

 

As you so ably demonstrate.