On 27/07/2021 12:18, Phil M wrote:
>> Almost any point you could put forward on this subject will be something
>> I can more or less agree with. The only I can't agree with is that this
>> imaginary "advertising tax" exists. It doesn't (but you haven't said it
>> does!).
> Many years ago, the provision of new tv relay stations depended whether
> or not the notional extra advertising income exceeded a minimum level.
> I think this was around £200 per household per year - tv licence was
> then around £70. On the odd occasion (about once a year) when I watch
> an advert on tv, I either can't work out what they are on about or find
> them so stupid that I can't believe anyone would buy the product.

"Advertising Tax" is just a convenient way of describing the XX% of the
cost of a product that goes on advertising. It must be the most
inefficient way of funding anything because there are so many middle men
wanting a cut.

On 27/07/2021 00:39, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 26/07/2021 08:50 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 26/07/2021 19:35, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> Maudling resigned honourably because of the fact that he had a
>>> business connection with Poulson. That is the way in which most UK
>>> politicians used to behave in such situations.
>>
>> Yes, but that doesn't alter of the fact that he had a business
>> relationship with a corrupt individual.
>
> So might any of us.

No really, most will never have a business relationship with someone
corrupting government at any level.

>>> If you knew of any wrongdoing by Maudling (of course you don't and
>>> are attempting smear tactics), you would say what it was. But you
>>> don't say what you think it was because you know there wasn't any.
>>>
>>> You sound like a Guardian reporter: "XXX "has links to YYY" (they
>>> have the same milkman or something).
>
>> No, that's what you do in ignoring Tory corruption while trumpeting
>> endlessly on about Labour corruption, I'm just providing a more
>> balanced view.
>
> You are "providing a ...balanced view" by trying to malign and impugn a
> blameless man against whom there isn't a scintilla of evidence?

If there wasn't a scintilla of evidence, why did he feel obliged to
resign at the time?

> I bet you that you were one of those who jeered at Cliff Richard when
> another liar accused him of ridiculous things.

An unwise recollection for you for so many reasons. On the contrary I
am almost entirely disinterested in celebs and their generally
uninteresting lives and even more uninteresting views, and at the time I
was merely surprised at the affair. However I was one of the many here
who jeered at you and completely debunked you for implying that there
had been some sort of conspiracy between the police and the BBC, when
all it turned out to be was a BBC journalist got a lucky break.

>>>> But though corruption on a grand scale, that is still just one case
>>>> and a statistical sample of one is not very significant among nearly
>>>> 12,000 local councils over the half century or so since.  There has
>>>> been significant corruption at both Tory and Labour councils, but
>>>> typically you ignore the former and only mention the latter.
>>>>
>>>> For Tory examples in particular (Capita gets a mention again):
>>>> https://ukcampaign4change.com/2018/10/11/how-widespread-is-undetected-fraud-and-corruption-in-uk-local-government/
>>>
>>> That is utterly ridiculous.
>>>
>>> "How widespread is undetected fraud and corruption in UK local
>>> government?", the headline asks?
>>>
>>> *Undetected*!
>>>
>>> Does the obvious really need to be pointed out?
>>
>> So, just as I expected, you didn't bother to read either this or the
>> next link properly.  As the next one explains, that doesn't mean there
>> hasn't been any!
>
> You cannot attribute "undetected fraud" (whatever it might be) to
> anyone. If you were determined to do it anyway, it'd be safer to
> attribute it to Labour politicians, since there is a real track record
> there.

So you *STILL* haven't read the links properly.

>>> Then it leads to a story of a fraud committed by a council *employee*
>>> (you MUST be desperate!).
>>
>> Who was working under a Tory council who weren't supervising their
>> finances properly.
>
> Rubbish. Employees committing fraud cannot be laid at the door of the
> councillors in charge.

Are you saying that no employer is liable for the behaviour of their
staff? This is arrant nonsense. The whole point of the article is that
the council was not managing its financial affairs properly, and thus
allowed the corruption to happen without detecting it soon enough.

> He was probably a Labour voter anyway.

You have no possible evidence for that either way, and in fact as it was
a Tory council area it's statistically more likely that he was a Tory
voter, so your remark is nakedly ignorant bigotry of just the sort that
makes almost everything you say totally worthless.

>>> And one of a Conservative council wanting to keep confidential
>>> council business confidential.
>>
>> The question was why don't they want their finances to be investigated
>> by the press?  If they've nothing to hide, what would be the problem?
>
> Have you ever had anything to do with a council?
>
> No, I didn't think you had.

Another bigoted and erroneous assumption. Actually, I have chaired a
charity which relied partly on council funding, and some of my
colleagues on the charity were on the local council, so I had to deal a
fair amount with council business, attend council meetings, and submit
reports to council, etc.

> If you had, you would know that much council business is commercially
> senstitive and confidential and none of the business of nosey newspaper
> reporters.

Nonsense, the spending of public money is very much the business of
reporters.

>>> Hold the front page - nothing to see here?
>>
>> They were just two examples of Tory corruption given for balance.
>
> Except that neither was an instance of corruption at all (except for the
> Labour-voting council employee who defrauded the authority).

Self-contradiction in a single sentence!

>> Anyway, why the concern only about local government corruption, when
>> national government corruption is potentially more serious and more
>> damaging.
>>
>> https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2021/03/tories-are-getting-away-corruption-epic-scale-how-can-labour-make-them-pay
>
> Oh, grow up.
>
> One day, you might be mature enough to write drivel for the Guardian.

In other words, you have no rational answer to the above, so you resort
to childish abuse. You're the one who needs to grow up here. Your
behaviour would be embarrassing enough in a child, in a supposed adult,
it's deeply pathetic.

>> ... and irony of ironies, the man sent to investigate Liverpool hasn't
>> got an exactly unblemished record himself:
>>
>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/robert-jenrick-richard-desmond-tory-donor-cash-favours-cabinet-secretary-a9567121.html
>
> More nonsense.

More lack of rational answer from you.

>>>> For a balanced factual exposition mentioned in the above:
>>>> http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/52109/1/Corruption_in_UK_Local_Government-_The_Mounting_Risks.pdf
>>>
>>> ....which contains no accusations against anybody because there are
>>> none to make.
>>
>> It gives a number of historical examples of types of corruption, some
>> of which involved Conservatives.
>
> It "gives" nothing of the sort 9except in your over-vivid imagination).

Read it again.

>>> 0/10.
>>
>> For your not bothering to read all the way through the links.
>>
>>> Must do better.
>>
>> Indeed you must.  The point is that corruption occurs and has the
>> future potential to occur at all levels of government under any
>> political affiliation, and your concentrating on just local government
>> under Labour is therefore inherently biased.
>
> A raw nerve exposed.

Apparently so, otherwise you would accept contrary evidence like a
rational person should do. Instead, your failure to accept any and all
evidence pointing to any Tory corruption while majoring on any Labour
corruption merely proves that you are bigoted, but then everyone here
knew that already.

The simple truth remains that corruption historically has occurred and
doubtless will continue to occur at all levels of government and under
whatever party happens to be in power at that level. None of the major
parties are magically immune to it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27/07/2021 01:14 pm, MB wrote:

> On 27/07/2021 12:18, Phil M wrote:

>>> Almost any point you could put forward on this subject will be something
>>> I can more or less agree with. The only I can't agree with is that this
>>> imaginary "advertising tax" exists. It doesn't (but you haven't said it
>>> does!).
>> Many years ago, the provision of new tv relay stations depended whether
>> or not the notional extra advertising income exceeded a minimum level.
>> I think this was around £200 per household per year - tv licence was
>> then around £70.  On the odd occasion (about once a year) when I watch
>> an advert on tv, I either can't work out what they are on about or find
>> them so stupid that I can't believe anyone would buy the product.
>
> "Advertising Tax" is just a convenient way of describing the XX% of the
> cost of a product that goes on advertising.  It must be the most
> inefficient way of funding anything because there are so many middle men
> wanting a cut.

If the price of a product was set by taking basic irreducible factor
cost then adding a slice for this, that and the other process, there
would be something in that.

But it isn't, so there isn't.

In article <sdoq2u$1e6j$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Phil M <notused@freenet.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 26/07/2021 16:01, JNugent wrote:
> > On 26/07/2021 02:20 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
> >
> >> On 26/07/2021 13:37, JNugent wrote:
> >
> >>> That would not explain the differences in price levels between corner
> >>> shops (which effectively track RRP more closely) and supermarkets
> >>> (which don't).
> >>
> >> That is easy to answer. Supermarkets buy huge quantities, which gives
> >> them huge leverage when discussing contracts. In many cases they tell
> >> the supplier how much they are prepared to pay, take it or leave it.
> >> There is occasional news coverage of a supplier who loses a
> >> supermarket contract and is now facing bankruptcy because nobody else
> >> can soak up the level of production the supermarket had required and
> >> produce previously sold near "at cost" would now be wasted.
> >
> > All true. But advertising is a part of that process of acquiring and
> > keeping market share. Some of the advertising is done by the suppliers
> > and some by the supermarket (whether for themselves and their services
> > in general or for particular goods from time to time).
> >
> > No-one said that advertising is the totality of doing competitive
> > business. It's obviously only a part of it and there are other aspects,
> > from keeping a wide range of stock to providing free parking and even
> > 24/7 working in some instances. But competition keeps prices low (not
> > high) and that's why the situation is actually the opposite way round
> > from the way it is perceived by those who posit that there is an
> > "advertising tax" comparable to the BBC licence fee tax.
> >
> >> Small traders do not have that sort of purchase leverage because their
> >> turnover is relatively small, so suppliers charge more to them to
> >> make up for the tiny profit margins from the supermarkets.
> >
> > Of course. That, among other things, is what competition is all about.
> >
> >> It is much more aligned to supply and demand that to advertising
> >> effectiveness.
> >
> > Yet advertising is still seen as a necessary marketing tool, playing
> > its part in enabling retailers to remain competitive.
> >
> > A few years, I read a quote from someone in a blue chip company who
> > said that half of the firm's advertising budget was wasted. But they
> > didn't know which half.
> >
> > Almost any point you could put forward on this subject will be
> > something I can more or less agree with. The only I can't agree with
> > is that this imaginary "advertising tax" exists. It doesn't (but you
> > haven't said it does!).

> Many years ago, the provision of new tv relay stations depended whether
> or not the notional extra advertising income exceeded a minimum level.

Never heard of that. There needed to be 200 people.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 27/07/2021 01:40 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 27/07/2021 00:39, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/07/2021 08:50 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 26/07/2021 19:35, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> Maudling resigned honourably because of the fact that he had a
>>>> business connection with Poulson. That is the way in which most UK
>>>> politicians used to behave in such situations.
>
>>> Yes, but that doesn't alter of the fact that he had a business
>>> relationship with a corrupt individual.
>
>> So might any of us.
>
> No really, most will never have a business relationship with someone
> corrupting government at any level.

You said two contradictory things in one sentence.

To reiterate, anyone might have a business relationship with someone who
later turns out to be "a corrupt individual" (or more sensibly, to have
committed an act of corruption).

>>>> If you knew of any wrongdoing by Maudling (of course you don't and
>>>> are attempting smear tactics), you would say what it was. But you
>>>> don't say what you think it was because you know there wasn't any.
>>>>
>>>> You sound like a Guardian reporter: "XXX "has links to YYY" (they
>>>> have the same milkman or something).
>>
>>> No, that's what you do in ignoring Tory corruption while trumpeting
>>> endlessly on about Labour corruption, I'm just providing a more
>>> balanced view.
>>
>> You are "providing a ...balanced view" by trying to malign and impugn
>> a blameless man against whom there isn't a scintilla of evidence?
>
> If there wasn't a scintilla of evidence, why did he feel obliged to
> resign at the time?

That was the form. It was expected, so as to remove even any unlikely
appearance of impropriety.

>> I bet you that you were one of those who jeered at Cliff Richard when
>> another liar accused him of ridiculous things.
>
> An unwise recollection for you for so many reasons.  On the contrary I
> am almost entirely disinterested in celebs and their generally
> uninteresting lives and even more uninteresting views, and at the time I
> was merely surprised at the affair.  However I was one of the many here
> who jeered at you and completely debunked you for implying that there
> had been some sort of conspiracy between the police and the BBC, when
> all it turned out to be was a BBC journalist got a lucky break.

There clearly WAS a relationship between the SYP and the BBC and it is
entirely reasonable to describe it as a corrupt one. Well, that is
unless anyone wants to argue that it is proper for the police and the
BBC to act in concert.

You might remember that *both* organisations were ordered to pay
substantial damages to their victim.

That didn't happen because they'd done nothing wrong, did it?

>>>>> But though corruption on a grand scale, that is still just one case
>>>>> and a statistical sample of one is not very significant among
>>>>> nearly 12,000 local councils over the half century or so since.
>>>>> There has been significant corruption at both Tory and Labour
>>>>> councils, but typically you ignore the former and only mention the
>>>>> latter.
>>>>>
>>>>> For Tory examples in particular (Capita gets a mention again):
>>>>> https://ukcampaign4change.com/2018/10/11/how-widespread-is-undetected-fraud-and-corruption-in-uk-local-government/
>
>>>> That is utterly ridiculous.
>
>>>> "How widespread is undetected fraud and corruption in UK local
>>>> government?", the headline asks?
>>>>
>>>> *Undetected*!
>>>>
>>>> Does the obvious really need to be pointed out?
>
>>> So, just as I expected, you didn't bother to read either this or the
>>> next link properly.  As the next one explains, that doesn't mean
>>> there hasn't been any!

Neither does it man that there has been any. Either way, it does not
mean that this or that party has been involved (though it would be a
safer bet that Labour - with its form in that area - was involced).

>> You cannot attribute "undetected fraud" (whatever it might be) to
>> anyone. If you were determined to do it anyway, it'd be safer to
>> attribute it to Labour politicians, since there is a real track record
>> there.
>
> So you *STILL* haven't read the links properly.
>
I have read them. I know what they don't say. And they don't say what
you are trying to say they say.

Quelle surprise.

>>>> Then it leads to a story of a fraud committed by a council
>>>> *employee* (you MUST be desperate!).
>>>
>>> Who was working under a Tory council who weren't supervising their
>>> finances properly.
>>
>> Rubbish. Employees committing fraud cannot be laid at the door of the
>> councillors in charge.
>
> Are you saying that no employer is liable for the behaviour of their
> staff?

It depends. An employer certainly isn't responsible for crimes committed
by a mamber of staff.

If that were the case, Cressida Dick and Khan would have been sacked at
the same time as the ex-copper who pleaded guilty to murder a couple of
weeks back.

> This is arrant nonsense.  The whole point of the article is that
> the council was not managing its financial affairs properly, and thus
> allowed the corruption to happen without detecting it soon enough.
>
>> He was probably a Labour voter anyway.
>
> You have no possible evidence for that either way, and in fact as it was
> a Tory council area it's statistically more likely that he was a Tory
> voter, so your remark is nakedly ignorant bigotry of just the sort that
> makes almost everything you say totally worthless.

Yo are being even more ridiculous than you usually are.

>>>> And one of a Conservative council wanting to keep confidential
>>>> council business confidential.
>
>>> The question was why don't they want their finances to be
>>> investigated by the press?  If they've nothing to hide, what would be
>>> the problem?
>>
>> Have you ever had anything to do with a council?

>> No, I didn't think you had.
>
> Another bigoted and erroneous assumption.  Actually, I have chaired a
> charity which relied partly on council funding, and some of my
> colleagues on the charity were on the local council, so I had to deal a
> fair amount with council business, attend council meetings, and submit
> reports to council, etc.

Then you will presumably *know* that lots of council business is
conducted, and has to be conducted, in confidence (for a variety of
reasons, many of them commercial).

Whan a newspaper reporter wants to delve into private business, the
first question is: "Is it confidential?".

>> If you had, you would know that much council business is commercially
>> senstitive and confidential and none of the business of nosey
>> newspaper reporters.
>
> Nonsense, the spending of public money is very much the business of
> reporters.
>
You are simply wrong, but that's probably only because your experience
of the work of local authorities is either very limited or non-existent.
Especially when it comes to information held in confidence.

>>>> Hold the front page - nothing to see here?
>>>
>>> They were just two examples of Tory corruption given for balance.
>>
>> Except that neither was an instance of corruption at all (except for
>> the Labour-voting council employee who defrauded the authority).
>
> Self-contradiction in a single sentence!

Not the slightest bit of evidence of corruption. Theft by employee is
not corruption. You are grasping at phantom straws.

[And see below for what one might describe as the ultimate test of your
beliefs on that topic.]

>>> Anyway, why the concern only about local government corruption, when
>>> national government corruption is potentially more serious and more
>>> damaging.
>>>
>>> https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2021/03/tories-are-getting-away-corruption-epic-scale-how-can-labour-make-them-pay
>
>> Oh, grow up.
>> One day, you might be mature enough to write drivel for the Guardian.
>
> In other words, you have no rational answer to the above, so you resort
> to childish abuse.  You're the one who needs to grow up here.  Your
> behaviour would be embarrassing enough in a child, in a supposed adult,
> it's deeply pathetic.
>
>>> ... and irony of ironies, the man sent to investigate Liverpool
>>> hasn't got an exactly unblemished record himself:
>>>
>>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/robert-jenrick-richard-desmond-tory-donor-cash-favours-cabinet-secretary-a9567121.html
>>
>>
>> More nonsense.
>
> More lack of rational answer from you.
>
>>>>> For a balanced factual exposition mentioned in the above:
>>>>> http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/52109/1/Corruption_in_UK_Local_Government-_The_Mounting_Risks.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ....which contains no accusations against anybody because there are
>>>> none to make.
>>>
>>> It gives a number of historical examples of types of corruption, some
>>> of which involved Conservatives.
>>
>> It "gives" nothing of the sort 9except in your over-vivid imagination).
>
> Read it again.
>
>>>> 0/10.
>>>
>>> For your not bothering to read all the way through the links.
>>>
>>>> Must do better.
>>>
>>> Indeed you must.  The point is that corruption occurs and has the
>>> future potential to occur at all levels of government under any
>>> political affiliation, and your concentrating on just local
>>> government under Labour is therefore inherently biased.
>>
>> A raw nerve exposed.
>
> Apparently so, otherwise you would accept contrary evidence like a
> rational person should do.  Instead, your failure to accept any and all
> evidence pointing to any Tory corruption while majoring on any Labour
> corruption merely proves that you are bigoted, but then everyone here
> knew that already.
>
> The simple truth remains that corruption historically has occurred and
> doubtless will continue to occur at all levels of government and under
> whatever party happens to be in power at that level.  None of the major
> parties are magically immune to it.

On 27/07/2021 12:18 pm, Phil M wrote:
> On 26/07/2021 16:01, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/07/2021 02:20 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/07/2021 13:37, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>> That would not explain the differences in price levels between corner
>>>> shops (which effectively track RRP more closely) and supermarkets
>>>> (which
>>>> don't).
>>>
>>> That is easy to answer.  Supermarkets buy huge quantities, which
>>> gives them huge leverage when discussing contracts. In many cases
>>> they tell the supplier how much they are prepared to pay, take it or
>>> leave it. There is occasional news coverage of a supplier who loses a
>>> supermarket contract and is now facing bankruptcy because nobody else
>>> can soak up the level of production the supermarket had required and
>>> produce previously sold near "at cost" would now be wasted.
>>
>> All true. But advertising is a part of that process of acquiring and
>> keeping market share. Some of the advertising is done by the suppliers
>> and some by the supermarket (whether for themselves and their services
>> in general or for particular goods from time to time).
>>
>> No-one said that advertising is the totality of doing competitive
>> business. It's obviously only a part of it and there are other
>> aspects, from keeping a wide range of stock to providing free parking
>> and even 24/7 working in some instances. But competition keeps prices
>> low (not high) and that's why the situation is actually the opposite
>> way round from the way it is perceived by those who posit that there
>> is an "advertising tax" comparable to the BBC licence fee tax.
>>
>>> Small traders do not have that sort of purchase leverage because
>>> their turnover is relatively small, so suppliers charge more to them
>>> to make up for the tiny profit margins from the supermarkets.
>>
>> Of course. That, among other things, is what competition is all about.
>>
>>> It is much more aligned to supply and demand that to advertising
>>> effectiveness.
>>
>> Yet advertising is still seen as a necessary marketing tool, playing
>> its part in enabling retailers to remain competitive.
>>
>> A few years, I read a quote from someone in a blue chip company who
>> said that half of the firm's advertising budget was wasted. But they
>> didn't know which half.
>>
>> Almost any point you could put forward on this subject will be
>> something I can more or less agree with. The only I can't agree with
>> is that this imaginary "advertising tax" exists. It doesn't (but you
>> haven't said it does!).
>
> Many years ago, the provision of new tv relay stations depended whether
> or not the notional extra advertising income exceeded a minimum level.

I don't follow that.

Is advertising income (real or potential) attributable to a transmitter?

> I think this was around £200 per household per year - tv licence was then
> around £70.

How was that calculated (or more probably, estimated)?

> On the odd occasion (about once a year) when I watch an
> advert on tv, I either can't work out what they are on about or find
> them so stupid that I can't believe anyone would buy the product.

That is a common tale.

For all that, everyone who was around at the time remembers the jingles
for Pepsodent, Murray Mints and Esso Blue.

And what about "Nice one, Cyril"?

On 27/07/2021 13:58, charles wrote:
> Never heard of that. There needed to be 200 people.

And I think they had to be residents there, not 190 on a caravan site
during the Summer to push the population over 200.

In article <sdp9t7$afd$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 27/07/2021 13:58, charles wrote:
> > Never heard of that. There needed to be 200 people.

> And I think they had to be residents there, not 190 on a caravan site
> during the Summer to push the population over 200.

Correct, but as far as I remember, the number included children, not just
names on the Electoral Roll. Incidentally, a large number of Caravan sites
installed their own "Self Help" transmitter.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 27/07/2021 14:32, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 27/07/2021 01:40 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 27/07/2021 00:39, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/07/2021 08:50 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/07/2021 19:35, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Maudling resigned honourably because of the fact that he had a
>>>>> business connection with Poulson. That is the way in which most UK
>>>>> politicians used to behave in such situations.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but that doesn't alter of the fact that he had a business
>>>> relationship with a corrupt individual.
>>>
>>> So might any of us.
>>
>> No really, most will never have a business relationship with someone
>> corrupting government at any level.
>
> You said two contradictory things in one sentence.
>
> To reiterate, anyone might have a business relationship with someone who
> later turns out to be "a corrupt individual" (or more sensibly, to have
> committed an act of corruption).

Let me repeat myself for clarity. Most people will never have a
business relationship with someone corrupting government at any level.

>> If there wasn't a scintilla of evidence, why did he feel obliged to
>> resign at the time?
>
> That was the form. It was expected, so as to remove even any unlikely
> appearance of impropriety.

It was the accepted thing to resign if there was something genuine to
resign about, not merely a vague association as you are trying to
portray it.

>>> I bet you that you were one of those who jeered at Cliff Richard when
>>> another liar accused him of ridiculous things.
>>
>> An unwise recollection for you for so many reasons.  On the contrary I
>> am almost entirely disinterested in celebs and their generally
>> uninteresting lives and even more uninteresting views, and at the time
>> I was merely surprised at the affair.  However I was one of the many
>> here who jeered at you and completely debunked you for implying that
>> there had been some sort of conspiracy between the police and the BBC,
>> when all it turned out to be was a BBC journalist got a lucky break.
>
> There clearly WAS a relationship between the SYP and the BBC and it is
> entirely reasonable to describe it as a corrupt one. Well, that is
> unless anyone wants to argue that it is proper for the police and the
> BBC to act in concert.

There was no corrupt relationship between the police and the BBC, as was
proven to you at the time. All that happened was the BBC reporter
concerned got a lucky break, so the police felt they had to keep him
informed to keep him 'onside' and prevent from leaking news of the
impending raid before it occurred.

> You might remember that *both* organisations were ordered to pay
> substantial damages to their victim.

That merely proved that they were wrong to name the victim publicly, it
doesn't prove a corrupt relationship between the police and the BBC.
There was no such corrupt relationship.

> That didn't happen because they'd done nothing wrong, did it?

They did do something wrong, they broke the law by naming the victim
before he was charged. That didn't and doesn't prove a corrupt
relationship between the police and BBC. There was no such corrupt
relationship.

>>>>>> But though corruption on a grand scale, that is still just one
>>>>>> case and a statistical sample of one is not very significant among
>>>>>> nearly 12,000 local councils over the half century or so since.
>>>>>> There has been significant corruption at both Tory and Labour
>>>>>> councils, but typically you ignore the former and only mention the
>>>>>> latter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For Tory examples in particular (Capita gets a mention again):
>>>>>> https://ukcampaign4change.com/2018/10/11/how-widespread-is-undetected-fraud-and-corruption-in-uk-local-government/
>>>>>
>>>>> That is utterly ridiculous.
>>
>>>>> "How widespread is undetected fraud and corruption in UK local
>>>>> government?", the headline asks?
>>>>>
>>>>> *Undetected*!
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the obvious really need to be pointed out?
>>>>
>>>> So, just as I expected, you didn't bother to read either this or the
>>>> next link properly.  As the next one explains, that doesn't mean
>>>> there hasn't been any!
>
> Neither does it man that there has been any. Either way, it does not
> mean that this or that party has been involved (though it would be a
> safer bet that Labour - with its form in that area - was involced).

That's your own personal bigotry again, you have no evidence to the
effect that Labour politicians on average are any more corrupt than Tory
ones. The news in recent months of corruption at the heart of UK
government completely and unmistakably shows that claim to be utter
bollocks.

>>> You cannot attribute "undetected fraud" (whatever it might be) to
>>> anyone. If you were determined to do it anyway, it'd be safer to
>>> attribute it to Labour politicians, since there is a real track
>>> record there.
>>
>> So you *STILL* haven't read the links properly.
>>
> I have read them. I know what they don't say. And they don't say what
> you are trying to say they say.
>
> Quelle surprise.

Then you are lying and haven't read them.

I repeat they list several examples of types of corruption, some of
which involved Tory politicians.

>>>>> Then it leads to a story of a fraud committed by a council
>>>>> *employee* (you MUST be desperate!).
>>>>
>>>> Who was working under a Tory council who weren't supervising their
>>>> finances properly.
>>>
>>> Rubbish. Employees committing fraud cannot be laid at the door of the
>>> councillors in charge.
>>
>> Are you saying that no employer is liable for the behaviour of their
>> staff?
>
> It depends. An employer certainly isn't responsible for crimes committed
> by a mamber of staff.

A council is certainly answerable to the public if that crime defrauds
that council and thereby robs the public purse.

> If that were the case, Cressida Dick and Khan would have been sacked at
> the same time as the ex-copper who pleaded guilty to murder a couple of
> weeks back.

Not a valid analogy, the man didn't commit a crime against the police
themselves but against an independent and unfortunate individual.

>> This is arrant nonsense.  The whole point of the article is that the
>> council was not managing its financial affairs properly, and thus
>> allowed the corruption to happen without detecting it soon enough.
>>
>>> He was probably a Labour voter anyway.
>>
>> You have no possible evidence for that either way, and in fact as it
>> was a Tory council area it's statistically more likely that he was a
>> Tory voter, so your remark is nakedly ignorant bigotry of just the
>> sort that makes almost everything you say totally worthless.
>
> Yo are being even more ridiculous than you usually are.

So again you've run out rational argument - not that many of the
arguments above are truly rational, but at least most are some sort of
attempt at rationality - and so resort to abuse.

>>>>> And one of a Conservative council wanting to keep confidential
>>>>> council business confidential.
>>
>>>> The question was why don't they want their finances to be
>>>> investigated by the press?  If they've nothing to hide, what would
>>>> be the problem?
>>>
>>> Have you ever had anything to do with a council?
>
>>> No, I didn't think you had.
>>
>> Another bigoted and erroneous assumption.  Actually, I have chaired a
>> charity which relied partly on council funding, and some of my
>> colleagues on the charity were on the local council, so I had to deal
>> a fair amount with council business, attend council meetings, and
>> submit reports to council, etc.
>
> Then you will presumably *know* that lots of council business is
> conducted, and has to be conducted, in confidence (for a variety of
> reasons, many of them commercial).

*Some particular transactions* do, but generally it's the public purse
and the public has a right to know how its money is being spent, so when
a council starts trying to keep reporters at bay for no valid reason,
that in itself is sufficient cause for suspicion.

On 27/07/2021 14:02, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 27/07/2021 01:14 pm, MB wrote:
>>
>> "Advertising Tax" is just a convenient way of describing the XX% of
>> the cost of a product that goes on advertising.  It must be the most
>> inefficient way of funding anything because there are so many middle
>> men wanting a cut.
>
> If the price of a product was set by taking basic irreducible factor
> cost then adding a slice for this, that and the other process, there
> would be something in that.
>
> But it isn't, so there isn't.

Advertising isn't free, and the firms purchasing advertising are making
a profit, therefore the cost of that advertising must be part of the
price of what they themselves sell. AIUI, 'Advertising Tax' merely
means that proportion of the price of their products that goes on
advertising them. It may not be a term you like, indeed I don't think
it's a good choice of name myself, but it is used as such, so there's
not much point in attempting to deny the existence of either the term
itself or the real fraction of purchase price that it refers to.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27/07/2021 06:40 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 27/07/2021 14:32, JNugent wrote:
>> On 27/07/2021 01:40 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2021 00:39, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 26/07/2021 08:50 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 26/07/2021 19:35, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>> Maudling resigned honourably because of the fact that he had a
>>>>>> business connection with Poulson. That is the way in which most UK
>>>>>> politicians used to behave in such situations.
>
>>>>> Yes, but that doesn't alter of the fact that he had a business
>>>>> relationship with a corrupt individual.
>
>>>> So might any of us.
>
>>> No really, most will never have a business relationship with someone
>>> corrupting government at any level.
>
>> You said two contradictory things in one sentence.
>> To reiterate, anyone might have a business relationship with someone
>> who later turns out to be "a corrupt individual" (or more sensibly, to
>> have committed an act of corruption).
>
> Let me repeat myself for clarity.  Most people will never have a
> business relationship with someone corrupting government at any level.

That does not militate against the basic premise that anyone might do so.

Most people will never meet a murderer, but nevertheless, the families
of murderers are not murderers.

>>> If there wasn't a scintilla of evidence, why did he feel obliged to
>>> resign at the time?
>
>> That was the form. It was expected, so as to remove even any unlikely
>> appearance of impropriety.
>
> It was the accepted thing to resign if there was something genuine to
> resign about, not merely a vague association as you are trying to
> portray it.

It was exactly how I put it.

>>>> I bet you that you were one of those who jeered at Cliff Richard
>>>> when another liar accused him of ridiculous things.
>
>>> An unwise recollection for you for so many reasons.  On the contrary
>>> I am almost entirely disinterested in celebs and their generally
>>> uninteresting lives and even more uninteresting views, and at the
>>> time I was merely surprised at the affair.  However I was one of the
>>> many here who jeered at you and completely debunked you for implying
>>> that there had been some sort of conspiracy between the police and
>>> the BBC, when all it turned out to be was a BBC journalist got a
>>> lucky break.
>
>> There clearly WAS a relationship between the SYP and the BBC and it is
>> entirely reasonable to describe it as a corrupt one. Well, that is
>> unless anyone wants to argue that it is proper for the police and the
>> BBC to act in concert.
>
> There was no corrupt relationship between the police and the BBC, as was
> proven to you at the time.  All that happened was the BBC reporter
> concerned got a lucky break, so the police felt they had to keep him
> informed to keep him 'onside' and prevent from leaking news of the
> impending raid before it occurred.

The BBC reporter (if that is all he was) was working on behalf of the
BBC. That much is evident from the operational coverage of a
pre-notified raid on a private home, even going to the extent of hiring
of a helicopter (!). But perhaps BBC tea-lad apprentives have the
authority to hire aircraft and order intrepid camera teams into action?

>> You might remember that *both* organisations were ordered to pay
>> substantial damages to their victim.
>
> That merely proved that they were wrong to name the victim publicly, it
> doesn't prove a corrupt relationship between the police and the BBC.
> There was no such corrupt relationship.

It means that they were both wrong to do what they did in the first place.

>> That didn't happen because they'd done nothing wrong, did it?
>
> They did do something wrong, they broke the law by naming the victim
> before he was charged.  That didn't and doesn't prove a corrupt
> relationship between the police and BBC.  There was no such corrupt
> relationship.

And you say that even though there obviously was...

>>>>>>> But though corruption on a grand scale, that is still just one
>>>>>>> case and a statistical sample of one is not very significant
>>>>>>> among nearly 12,000 local councils over the half century or so
>>>>>>> since. There has been significant corruption at both Tory and
>>>>>>> Labour councils, but typically you ignore the former and only
>>>>>>> mention the latter.
>
>>>>>>> For Tory examples in particular (Capita gets a mention again):
>>>>>>> https://ukcampaign4change.com/2018/10/11/how-widespread-is-undetected-fraud-and-corruption-in-uk-local-government/
>
>>>>>> That is utterly ridiculous.
>>>>>> "How widespread is undetected fraud and corruption in UK local
>>>>>> government?", the headline asks?
>>>>>> *Undetected*!
>>>>>> Does the obvious really need to be pointed out?
>
>>>>> So, just as I expected, you didn't bother to read either this or
>>>>> the next link properly.  As the next one explains, that doesn't
>>>>> mean there hasn't been any!
>
>> Neither does it man that there has been any. Either way, it does not
>> mean that this or that party has been involved (though it would be a
>> safer bet that Labour - with its form in that area - was involced).
>
> That's your own personal bigotry again, you have no evidence to the
> effect that Labour politicians on average are any more corrupt than Tory
> ones.  The news in recent months of corruption at the heart of UK
> government completely and unmistakably shows that claim to be utter
> bollocks.
>
>>>> You cannot attribute "undetected fraud" (whatever it might be) to
>>>> anyone. If you were determined to do it anyway, it'd be safer to
>>>> attribute it to Labour politicians, since there is a real track
>>>> record there.
>
>>> So you *STILL* haven't read the links properly.
>
>> I have read them. I know what they don't say. And they don't say what
>> you are trying to say they say.
>
>> Quelle surprise.
>
> Then you are lying and haven't read them.
>
> I repeat they list several examples of types of corruption, some of
> which involved Tory politicians.

That is not a proof of an undetected crime. It's just speculation. And
in truth, speculation would have to involve Labour more than any other
party.

>>>>>> Then it leads to a story of a fraud committed by a council
>>>>>> *employee* (you MUST be desperate!).
>
>>>>> Who was working under a Tory council who weren't supervising their
>>>>> finances properly.
>
>>>> Rubbish. Employees committing fraud cannot be laid at the door of
>>>> the councillors in charge.
>
>>> Are you saying that no employer is liable for the behaviour of their
>>> staff?
>
>> It depends. An employer certainly isn't responsible for crimes
>> committed by a mamber of staff.
>
> A council is certainly answerable to the public if that crime defrauds
> that council and thereby robs the public purse.
>
>> If that were the case, Cressida Dick and Khan would have been sacked
>> at the same time as the ex-copper who pleaded guilty to murder a
>> couple of weeks back.
>
> Not a valid analogy, the man didn't commit a crime against the police
> themselves but against an independent and unfortunate individual.

Oh my God... are you *desperate* or are you *desperate*?

[snip pointless yah-booing based on sheer desperation by JJ - no-one is
reading it all.]

>>> The simple truth remains that corruption historically has occurred
>>> and doubtless will continue to occur at all levels of government and
>>> under whatever party happens to be in power at that level.  None of
>>> the major parties are magically immune to it.
>>
>> A quick question for you... it'll test how firmly you believe that an
>> employer is equally responsible for crimes committed by employees.
>>
>> Seen the papers today? The London Borough Of Lambeth is in the news.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/27/hundreds-of-children-abused-while-in-care-of-lambeth-council-inquiry-finds>

On 27/07/2021 06:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 27/07/2021 14:02, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 27/07/2021 01:14 pm, MB wrote:
>>>
>>> "Advertising Tax" is just a convenient way of describing the XX% of
>>> the cost of a product that goes on advertising.  It must be the most
>>> inefficient way of funding anything because there are so many middle
>>> men wanting a cut.
>>
>> If the price of a product was set by taking basic irreducible factor
>> cost then adding a slice for this, that and the other process, there
>> would be something in that.
>>
>> But it isn't, so there isn't.
>
> Advertising isn't free, and the firms purchasing advertising are making
> a profit, therefore the cost of that advertising must be part of the
> price of what they themselves sell.

Faulty reasoning. Prices are set by the (competitive) market.

> AIUI, 'Advertising Tax' merely
> means that proportion of the price of their products that goes on
> advertising them.  It may not be a term you like, indeed I don't think
> it's a good choice of name myself, but it is used as such, so there's
> not much point in attempting to deny the existence of either the term
> itself or the real fraction of purchase price that it refers to.

It's a ridiculous term devised so as to pretend that goods in the shops
are dearer than they would be if there were no advertising on television.

They aren't dearer. They're cheaper than they would be in a less
competitive market because competition keeps prices down, not up.

On 27/07/2021 19:25, JNugent wrote:
> On 27/07/2021 06:40 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 27/07/2021 14:32, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2021 01:40 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 27/07/2021 00:39, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 26/07/2021 08:50 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 26/07/2021 19:35, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Maudling resigned honourably because of the fact that he had a
>>>>>>> business connection with Poulson. That is the way in which most
>>>>>>> UK politicians used to behave in such situations.
>>
>>>>>> Yes, but that doesn't alter of the fact that he had a business
>>>>>> relationship with a corrupt individual.
>>
>>>>> So might any of us.
>>
>>>> No really, most will never have a business relationship with someone
>>>> corrupting government at any level.
>>
>>> You said two contradictory things in one sentence.
>>> To reiterate, anyone might have a business relationship with someone
>>> who later turns out to be "a corrupt individual" (or more sensibly,
>>> to have committed an act of corruption).
>>
>> Let me repeat myself for clarity.  Most people will never have a
>> business relationship with someone corrupting government at any level.
>
> That does not militate against the basic premise that anyone might do so.
>
> Most people will never meet a murderer, but nevertheless, the families
> of murderers are not murderers.

As usual, the moment any allegation or claim you make is investigated,
it turns out to be false ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Poulson

"Overseas work

Poulson was increasingly interested in obtaining commissions outside
Britain in the mid-1960s. This required making more contacts. The
Conservative MP John Cordle had extensive contacts in West Africa and
after helping on several small contracts, in 1965 became a consultant to
Poulson. Cordle admitted that he had received £5,628 from Poulson's
business.[15]

Maudling

Another contact was the then Shadow Commonwealth Secretary Reginald
Maudling, whom Poulson knew from his National Liberal activities.
Maudling was anxious to build up a business career to keep up his income
and Poulson needed a big name as chairman of one of his companies,
Construction Promotion. In 1966 Maudling accepted an offer to be
chairman. In return, Maudling helped to bring pressure on the government
of Malta to award a £1.5 million contract for the new Victoria Hospital
on Gozo to Poulson.[16][17]"

So it's exactly as the little I remember of it suggests, Maudling was in
it at least up to his waist, if not up to his neck, certainly up to his
political neck.

>>>> If there wasn't a scintilla of evidence, why did he feel obliged to
>>>> resign at the time?
>>
>>> That was the form. It was expected, so as to remove even any unlikely
>>> appearance of impropriety.
>>
>> It was the accepted thing to resign if there was something genuine to
>> resign about, not merely a vague association as you are trying to
>> portray it.
>
> It was exactly how I put it.

And you put it wrong, as I have suggested, he resigned because he was
involved with Poulson, paid by him, and applied inappropriate political
pressure to help him. Note also that elsewhere in that article it
states that Liberals were involved as well. So that's all three major
political parties corrupted by Poulson, not just Labour.

>>>>> I bet you that you were one of those who jeered at Cliff Richard
>>>>> when another liar accused him of ridiculous things.
>>
>>>> An unwise recollection for you for so many reasons.  On the contrary
>>>> I am almost entirely disinterested in celebs and their generally
>>>> uninteresting lives and even more uninteresting views, and at the
>>>> time I was merely surprised at the affair.  However I was one of the
>>>> many here who jeered at you and completely debunked you for implying
>>>> that there had been some sort of conspiracy between the police and
>>>> the BBC, when all it turned out to be was a BBC journalist got a
>>>> lucky break.
>>>
>>> There clearly WAS a relationship between the SYP and the BBC and it
>>> is entirely reasonable to describe it as a corrupt one. Well, that is
>>> unless anyone wants to argue that it is proper for the police and the
>>> BBC to act in concert.
>>
>> There was no corrupt relationship between the police and the BBC, as
>> was proven to you at the time.  All that happened was the BBC reporter
>> concerned got a lucky break, so the police felt they had to keep him
>> informed to keep him 'onside' and prevent from leaking news of the
>> impending raid before it occurred.
>
> The BBC reporter (if that is all he was) was working on behalf of the
> BBC. That much is evident from the operational coverage of a
> pre-notified raid on a private home, even going to the extent of hiring
> of a helicopter (!). But perhaps BBC tea-lad apprentives have the
> authority to hire aircraft and order intrepid camera teams into action?

AS WAS PROVEN TO YOU AT THE TIME, THERE WAS NO CORRUPT RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE POLICE AND THE BBC, and all the above is just wingeing from
a WIMP (Weakly Interacting Moronic Pillock) who is too childish to
accept being proved wrong.

>>> You might remember that *both* organisations were ordered to pay
>>> substantial damages to their victim.
>>
>> That merely proved that they were wrong to name the victim publicly,
>> it doesn't prove a corrupt relationship between the police and the
>> BBC. There was no such corrupt relationship.
>
> It means that they were both wrong to do what they did in the first place.

It means that they were wrong to name the victim publicly before, and,
as it turned out, without, him being charged. It means just that,
nothing more, nothing less.

>>> That didn't happen because they'd done nothing wrong, did it?
>>
>> They did do something wrong, they broke the law by naming the victim
>> before he was charged.  That didn't and doesn't prove a corrupt
>> relationship between the police and BBC.  There was no such corrupt
>> relationship.
>
> And you say that even though there obviously was...

AS WAS PROVEN TO YOU AT THE TIME, THERE WAS NO CORRUPT RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE POLICE AND THE BBC, now fuck off back to infants school
where you belong, and don't come back until you've learned:
+ To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
+ To fact-check claims before making them;
+ To apologise when, as so very often, you are wrong;
+ To behave like an adult.

>>>>>>>> But though corruption on a grand scale, that is still just one
>>>>>>>> case and a statistical sample of one is not very significant
>>>>>>>> among nearly 12,000 local councils over the half century or so
>>>>>>>> since. There has been significant corruption at both Tory and
>>>>>>>> Labour councils, but typically you ignore the former and only
>>>>>>>> mention the latter.
>>
>>>>>>>> For Tory examples in particular (Capita gets a mention again):
>>>>>>>> https://ukcampaign4change.com/2018/10/11/how-widespread-is-undetected-fraud-and-corruption-in-uk-local-government/
>>
>>
>>>>>>> That is utterly ridiculous.
>>>>>>> "How widespread is undetected fraud and corruption in UK local
>>>>>>> government?", the headline asks?
>>>>>>> *Undetected*!
>>>>>>> Does the obvious really need to be pointed out?
>>
>>>>>> So, just as I expected, you didn't bother to read either this or
>>>>>> the next link properly.  As the next one explains, that doesn't
>>>>>> mean there hasn't been any!
>>
>>> Neither does it man that there has been any. Either way, it does not
>>> mean that this or that party has been involved (though it would be a
>>> safer bet that Labour - with its form in that area - was involced).
>>
>> That's your own personal bigotry again, you have no evidence to the
>> effect that Labour politicians on average are any more corrupt than
>> Tory ones.  The news in recent months of corruption at the heart of UK
>> government completely and unmistakably shows that claim to be utter
>> bollocks.
>>
>>>>> You cannot attribute "undetected fraud" (whatever it might be) to
>>>>> anyone. If you were determined to do it anyway, it'd be safer to
>>>>> attribute it to Labour politicians, since there is a real track
>>>>> record there.
>>
>>>> So you *STILL* haven't read the links properly.
>>
>>> I have read them. I know what they don't say. And they don't say what
>>> you are trying to say they say.
>>
>>> Quelle surprise.
>>
>> Then you are lying and haven't read them.
>>
>> I repeat they list several examples of types of corruption, some of
>> which involved Tory politicians.
>
> That is not a proof of an undetected crime. It's just speculation. And
> in truth, speculation would have to involve Labour more than any other
> party.
>
>>>>>>> Then it leads to a story of a fraud committed by a council
>>>>>>> *employee* (you MUST be desperate!).
>>
>>>>>> Who was working under a Tory council who weren't supervising their
>>>>>> finances properly.
>>
>>>>> Rubbish. Employees committing fraud cannot be laid at the door of
>>>>> the councillors in charge.
>>
>>>> Are you saying that no employer is liable for the behaviour of their
>>>> staff?
>>
>>> It depends. An employer certainly isn't responsible for crimes
>>> committed by a mamber of staff.
>>
>> A council is certainly answerable to the public if that crime defrauds
>> that council and thereby robs the public purse.
>>
>>> If that were the case, Cressida Dick and Khan would have been sacked
>>> at the same time as the ex-copper who pleaded guilty to murder a
>>> couple of weeks back.
>>
>> Not a valid analogy, the man didn't commit a crime against the police
>> themselves but against an independent and unfortunate individual.
>
> Oh my God...  are you *desperate* or are you *desperate*?
>
> [snip pointless yah-booing based on sheer desperation by JJ - no-one is
> reading it all.]

On 27/07/2021 19:30, JNugent wrote:
> On 27/07/2021 06:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 27/07/2021 14:02, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27/07/2021 01:14 pm, MB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Advertising Tax" is just a convenient way of describing the XX% of
>>>> the cost of a product that goes on advertising.  It must be the most
>>>> inefficient way of funding anything because there are so many middle
>>>> men wanting a cut.
>>>
>>> If the price of a product was set by taking basic irreducible factor
>>> cost then adding a slice for this, that and the other process, there
>>> would be something in that.
>>>
>>> But it isn't, so there isn't.
>>
>> Advertising isn't free, and the firms purchasing advertising are
>> making a profit, therefore the cost of that advertising must be part
>> of the price of what they themselves sell.
>
> Faulty reasoning. Prices are set by the (competitive) market.

Faulty reasoning, the competitive markets has to take account of costs,
including those of advertising.

>> AIUI, 'Advertising Tax' merely means that proportion of the price of
>> their products that goes on advertising them.  It may not be a term
>> you like, indeed I don't think it's a good choice of name myself, but
>> it is used as such, so there's not much point in attempting to deny
>> the existence of either the term itself or the real fraction of
>> purchase price that it refers to.
>
> It's a ridiculous term devised so as to pretend that goods in the shops
> are dearer than they would be if there were no advertising on television.

However much you may hate it, it's a term that is fairly commonly used,
and there's no future in trying to wish it out of existence.

> They aren't dearer. They're cheaper than they would be in a less
> competitive market because competition keeps prices down, not up.

Your mistake is to confuse competition with advertising, neither is an
inherent part of the other. Two stores can compete with each other
because they are on opposite sides of the same road, but no advertising
need be involved. A firm can advertise a new type of product on TV in
order to launch it successfully, but as it's a new type of product it
has no competition.

Which brings us nicely back to the real world that the rest of us
inhabit, but not apparently you: advertising has a real cost, and the
firms who use it have to make a profit, therefore there must be an
element of the retail price of their products that covers the cost of
that advertising, otherwise they would not be making a profit, and would
sooner or later go out of business.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Overlooked this in my main reply ...

On 27/07/2021 22:40, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> I repeat they list several examples of types of corruption, some of
>> which involved Tory politicians.
>
> That is not a proof of an undetected crime. It's just speculation. And
> in truth, speculation would have to involve Labour more than any other
> party.

More false claims based on denial and bigotry:

p16 Bribery: "In March 2013, East Devon County councillor Graham Brown
was suspended from the East Devon Conservative Party after claiming to
undercover reporters posing as overseas investors that he could obtain
planning permission in return for payment. Mr Brown, himself the owner
of a planning consultancy business, was filmed telling newspaper
reporters that, “I don’t come cheap. If I’m turning a greenfield into a
housing estate and I’m earning the developer two or three millions, then
I’m not doing it for peanuts – especially if I’m the difference between
winning and losing it”. Cllr Brown vehemently denied the claims and
stated that his duties as a councillor were appropriately declared and
“completely separate” from his business role. [9]

p47 Homes for Votes: In 1987, Westminster Council, led by Shirley
Porter, the Conservative leader of the council, devised a policy of
manipulating the sale of council houses in marginal wards in an effort
to improve the Conservative Party’s chances in the next local elections.
[60] The designated properties were sold at heavily discounted prices
to tenants in areas perceived to be favourable to the Conservatives.

p50 Resignation of Leicestershire County Council Leader David Parsons:
Eventually, the Conservative group announced a vote of no confidence in
Parsons, prompting him to resign from his position. However, the party
only took this step when Parsons’ reputation had become badly damaged by
extensive and sustained media coverage of both the allegations and the
evidence uncovered by the standards committee.

So when you claimed to have read the articles in question, you were
clearly lying, and, as usual, whenever anything you claim is
investigated, it nearly always turns out to be a lie.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27/07/2021 10:49 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 27/07/2021 19:30, JNugent wrote:
>> On 27/07/2021 06:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2021 14:02, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 27/07/2021 01:14 pm, MB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Advertising Tax" is just a convenient way of describing the XX% of
>>>>> the cost of a product that goes on advertising.  It must be the
>>>>> most inefficient way of funding anything because there are so many
>>>>> middle men wanting a cut.
>>>>
>>>> If the price of a product was set by taking basic irreducible factor
>>>> cost then adding a slice for this, that and the other process, there
>>>> would be something in that.
>>>>
>>>> But it isn't, so there isn't.
>>>
>>> Advertising isn't free, and the firms purchasing advertising are
>>> making a profit, therefore the cost of that advertising must be part
>>> of the price of what they themselves sell.
>>
>> Faulty reasoning. Prices are set by the (competitive) market.
>
> Faulty reasoning, the competitive markets has to take account of costs,
> including those of advertising.

If you cannot sell at your chosen price, competition dictates that you
must reset the price so as to reflect other available prices.

This is Economics 101.

>>> AIUI, 'Advertising Tax' merely means that proportion of the price of
>>> their products that goes on advertising them.  It may not be a term
>>> you like, indeed I don't think it's a good choice of name myself, but
>>> it is used as such, so there's not much point in attempting to deny
>>> the existence of either the term itself or the real fraction of
>>> purchase price that it refers to.
>
>> It's a ridiculous term devised so as to pretend that goods in the
>> shops are dearer than they would be if there were no advertising on
>> television.
>
> However much you may hate it, it's a term that is fairly commonly used,
> and there's no future in trying to wish it out of existence.
>
>> They aren't dearer. They're cheaper than they would be in a less
>> competitive market because competition keeps prices down, not up.
>
> Your mistake is to confuse competition with advertising, neither is an
> inherent part of the other.  Two stores can compete with each other
> because they are on opposite sides of the same road, but no advertising
> need be involved.  A firm can advertise a new type of product on TV in
> order to launch it successfully, but as it's a new type of product it
> has no competition.
>
> Which brings us nicely back to the real world that the rest of us
> inhabit, but not apparently you: advertising has a real cost, and the
> firms who use it have to make a profit, therefore there must be an
> element of the retail price of their products that covers the cost of
> that advertising, otherwise they would not be making a profit, and would
> sooner or later go out of business.

Simply wrong.

I advise you to read: <https://tinyurl.com/fytdre5d>
>

On 27/07/2021 11:10 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> Overlooked this in my main reply ...
>
> On 27/07/2021 22:40, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> I repeat they list several examples of types of corruption, some of
>>> which involved Tory politicians.
>>
>> That is not a proof of an undetected crime. It's just speculation. And
>> in truth, speculation would have to involve Labour more than any other
>> party.
>
> More false claims based on denial and bigotry:
>
> p16 Bribery:  "In March 2013, East Devon County councillor Graham Brown
> was suspended from the East Devon Conservative Party after claiming to
> undercover reporters posing as overseas investors that he could obtain
> planning permission in return for payment.  Mr Brown, himself the owner
> of a planning consultancy business, was filmed telling newspaper
> reporters that, “I don’t come cheap. If I’m turning a greenfield into a
> housing estate and I’m earning the developer two or three millions, then
> I’m not doing it for peanuts – especially if I’m the difference between
> winning and losing it”.  Cllr Brown vehemently denied the claims and
> stated that his duties as a councillor were appropriately declared and
> “completely separate” from his business role. [9]
>
> p47 Homes for Votes: In 1987, Westminster Council, led by Shirley
> Porter, the Conservative leader of the council, devised a policy of
> manipulating the sale of council houses in marginal wards in an effort
> to improve the Conservative Party’s chances in the next local elections.
> [60]  The designated properties were sold at heavily discounted prices
> to tenants in areas perceived to be favourable to the Conservatives.
>
> p50 Resignation of Leicestershire County Council Leader David Parsons:
> Eventually, the Conservative group announced a vote of no confidence in
> Parsons, prompting him to resign from his position.  However, the party
> only took this step when Parsons’ reputation had become badly damaged by
> extensive and sustained media coverage of both the allegations and the
> evidence uncovered by the standards committee.
>
> So when you claimed to have read the articles in question, you were
> clearly lying, and, as usual, whenever anything you claim is
> investigated, it nearly always turns out to be a lie.

Literal trivia (even if true).

Nowhere near in the same league as Newcastle City Council and T. Dan
Smith (Labour).

And nowhere near equivalent to London Borough of Lambeth (Labour) and
its seven hundred rapes of vulnerable children.

For some reason, you seen most unwilling to even react to
<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/27/like-hell-what-former-lambeth-childrens-home-residents-told-abuse-inquiry>

Let alone (of course) the systematic sexual abuse by "certain people" of
children in care in South Yorkshire and various other places, with even
the usually-very-vocal South Yorkshire Police going all quiet.

Why is that, one wonders?

In article <im7objFbm1rU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > More bias: It is equally common knowledge that many Tory local
> > politics in some areas was corrupt as well, but I note that you don't
> > mention that, only Labour local politics.

> I really wasn't going to mention names, but as far as I am aware, there
> was nothing to equal, still less surpass, the magnitude of the Newcastle
> City Council affair, involving T. Dan Smith (Labour) and John Poulson -
> not even amongst other Labour councils.

> The current pending criminal charges against Labour elected officials in
> Liverpool are small beer by comparison with what happened during the
> 1960s.

If anyone wants to get a clear idea of the scale of the corruption in local
government I recommend reading PE's page on the topic in *every* issue. Lot
of it about. SOP in effect, in many places. Colour of rosette almost
irrelevant. Although stitch-ups with local property developers seems a
favourite with Tories.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sdnghb$1mbe$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 26/07/2021 21:08, Indy Jess John wrote:
> >
> > Having said that, I can see that the BBC will also be spending licence
> > fees to other production companies for things that are broadcast, so
> > excluding such licence fee expenditure from the salaries disclosure
> > makes perfect sense. In accounting terms they are buying products, not
> > people.

> Exactly, they are in the same competitive market bidding for the same
> sort of work as other production companies who do not have to make such
> disclosures, so it wouldn't be fair to make them disclose their staff
> salaries.

It would be interesting to mandate that all payments above a set minimum by
all TV/radio companies to all 'production companies' and everyone who
appears before camera/mic must be made public. Then set that amount to
about the average UK wage.

Similarly, it would be good to have a register that showed how much every
programme/station took in per hour of broadcasting from all sources - i.e.
add in things like product placement, sponsorships, etc.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <im8vdeF7821U1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> If you knew of any wrongdoing by Maudling (of course you don't and
> >> are attempting smear tactics), you would say what it was. But you
> >> don't say what you think it was because you know there wasn't any.
> >>
> >> You sound like a Guardian reporter: "XXX "has links to YYY" (they
> >> have the same milkman or something).

> > No, that's what you do in ignoring Tory corruption while trumpeting
> > endlessly on about Labour corruption, ~I'm just providing a more
> > balanced view.

> You are "providing a ...balanced view" by trying to malign and impugn a
> blameless man against whom there isn't a scintilla of evidence?

Was Maudling the minister who (perhaps via close family) had a significant
relationship with a large cement/concrete company and who:

1) Was enthusiastic about building motorways.

2) Fan of Beeching cutting the railways.

If so, curious co-incidences, I guess...

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Was Maudling the minister who (perhaps via close family) had a significant
> relationship with a large cement/concrete company and who:
>
> 1) Was enthusiastic about building motorways.
>
> 2) Fan of Beeching cutting the railways.

Confusion with Ernest Marples?

On 27/07/2021 10:07, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> It would be interesting to mandate that all payments above a set minimum by
> all TV/radio companies to all 'production companies' and everyone who
> appears before camera/mic must be made public. Then set that amount to
> about the average UK wage.

But would it be like the FOIA and only apply to the BBC and not to ITV
and newspapers?

On 28/07/2021 10:27, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>> Was Maudling the minister who (perhaps via close family) had a significant
>> relationship with a large cement/concrete company and who:
>>
>> 1) Was enthusiastic about building motorways.
>>
>> 2) Fan of Beeching cutting the railways.
> Confusion with Ernest Marples?
>

Would there be any railway left now if Beeching had not trimmed them down?

On 28/07/2021 11:02 am, MB wrote:

> On 27/07/2021 10:07, Jim Lesurf wrote:

>> It would be interesting to mandate that all payments above a set
>> minimum by
>> all TV/radio companies to all 'production companies' and everyone who
>> appears before camera/mic must be made public. Then set that amount to
>> about the average UK wage.
>
> But would it be like the FOIA and only apply to the BBC and not to ITV
> and newspapers?

Would it also include the amounts paid to (say) American, Canadian,
French, German, "Nordic" or Australian production companies, whose drama
output provides such a significant part of BBC schedules these days?

Genuine question, because they all have the same sort of rights to
commercial confidentiality.

On 27/07/2021 19:30, JNugent wrote:
> On 27/07/2021 06:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:

>> AIUI, 'Advertising Tax' merely means that proportion of the price of
>> their products that goes on advertising them.  It may not be a term
>> you like, indeed I don't think it's a good choice of name myself, but
>> it is used as such, so there's not much point in attempting to deny
>> the existence of either the term itself or the real fraction of
>> purchase price that it refers to.
>
> It's a ridiculous term devised so as to pretend that goods in the shops
> are dearer than they would be if there were no advertising on television.
>
> They aren't dearer. They're cheaper than they would be in a less
> competitive market because competition keeps prices down, not up.

Not true of supermarket brands of goods which are up to 50% less than
the named brands as they don't have to advertise each product separately.

--
Max Demian