Tell Me :
Talk
I'm all for a flat tax on comsumables only. We will never see that day!
Sounds like something that's happening on my side of the pond.
Tax evasion is illegal; some methods of tax avoidance are apparently not, he's opened a right can o'worms bringing morality into it.....good luck with that Mr Cameron..........if any goverment thinks some of the tactics used by people to avoid overpaying are 'wrong' then they should make this an issue of black and white and make laws to address it. Tax + morality = chaos. imo. (If you don't have to pay it and then you do, you are then, by default, overpaying..........who would do that ? If you wanted to voluntarily pay more into the 'system' to support others then surely anyone would want to do that via charitable donations, at least then you have more control over where your money goes, I would think anyway.
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-24 21:36 by EddieByword.
As a bit of a leftie I agree with your list but I was referring to the fact that Cameron was prepared to criticize Jimmy Carr but not Gary Barlow who invested in the same scheme.
how the hell is it - considering a 'knighthood' is granted by the government and (as you well know) a knight gets no special treatment compared to anyone else.
Ask (the former 'Sir' )Lester Piggott...
I didn't know he was a Sir.....according to wikipedia he only had the OBE .... [en.wikipedia.org] ...which doesn't get you called 'Sir'..........and according to this site he only had a very high chance of becoming a Sir.........[www.buckinghamcovers.com] .....before his conviction.......
There's obviously a huge difference in advised etiquette between a PM shooting his mouth off about a Knight's morals (with no proven crime committed) and irritatingly embarrasing the monarchy in the process and some guy with an OBE being banged to rights on a serious tax fraud for which as you pointed out in addition he did also lose his award (serious embarrasment)(although it doesn't look like it was a 'Sir' award).
We've 'talked' before about this (preferential treatment stuff) Gazza - you don't accept the reality & relevence of the input of Freemasonry and the protection that comes with that so not much point in going through it again............
I know as you say the Goverment decide who gets chosen but in reality it is the reputation of the monarchy that suffers when things go wrong, so if he (PM) was so foolish as to attack any 'awarded' person's reputation willy-nilly I'd bet anything he'd soon get a phonecall.......
Just for clarity's sake though I am aware it is not by any means limitless, as that freemason guy Kenneth Noye who 'road rage' murdered that kid on the motorway roundabout bridge in Kent found out. (He went in the police station (according to a policeman at the trial) and did the secret handshake etc but was told he was "out of luck " with this one................
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-25 13:17 by EddieByword.
Oh sorry I misread your post, I thought you'd said Noye was a small time drug dealer............I don't know about the bloke he murdered ...(I read it was just a road rage thing)...but Noye...
I don't know about small scale, but yes he was a gangster/drug dealer, nice detached house with grounds, high security and big dogs, he also previously killed an undercover policeman who was doing surveillance on his property and got off with a self defence plea, the point was though was that he was a freemason and tried to play in his mind what was a 'get out of jail free card' as de rigeur. but on that ocaission it didn't wash. (and the policeman in court said that too, "He expected lenient treatment because he was a freemason" ) .
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-25 13:18 by EddieByword.
Of course that was also Noye's misapprehension and he was a freemy, again the point being was that he as a freemy did have this expectation, the policeman as I said indicated to the court that in Noye's mind it was his right as freemason to have preferential treatment, there must have been a reason for that expectation even though he miscalculated how far he could go with it.
I know they have benign "aims & purposes"........enough said..(from me anyway).........
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-25 14:06 by EddieByword.
You're 'clarifying' things by throwing in examples of freemasonry? There's no link between that and a knighthood - are you suggesting that someone like Mick Jagger has been elevated to that 'status'? Stop talking nonsense. Of course there's 'preferential treatment' in society - stop twisting my words by suggesting that I'm denying it.
Who would the PM 'get a phone call' from? Seriously - you're embarrassing yourself with this twaddle. I'd expect this kind of rubbish from someone who could barely find the UK on a map and who thinks that the monarch makes all the laws and chooses the honours list, but reading it from someone who lives there is laughable. Either you're inventing this to make some political point in the hope that theres enough clueless people on here who'll believe it or else you're genuinely ignorant. And I find it hard to believe that anyone living in the UK in the 21st century with an ounce of intelligence would fall into the latter category.
The notion that it's the monarch's reputation that 'suffers' from an award made by the government is nonsensical. The Labour government were torn to shreds in the press in the 'Cash for Honours' scandal because of the way that they were seen to be rewarding party donors with knighthoods and peerages. It had no impact on anyone else.
And yes, Lester Piggott was stripped of an OBE. The principle is the same, though. Both are different levels in the honours system that dont entitle the recipient to anything preferential (eg, as would be the case in a peerage). A recent example of a knight who had his honour stripped from him was Sir Fred Goodwin, the CEO of the Bank of Scotland. The spy Sir Anthony Blunt was another.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
JackFlash68
()
Date: June 23, 2012 14:30
Would David Cameron consider them "morally repugnant"?
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: June 23, 2012 14:33
Probaly not..........treacherous waters for a PM slagging off the Queen's knights.............dodgy too singling out the others over Mick.........
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-23 15:41 by EddieByword.
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-23 15:41 by EddieByword.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: June 23, 2012 15:17
Because of their "tax arrangements", I saw them 3x in the UK in 1999 in the shows originally scheduled for 1998. 
Wouldn't have been able to get there in 1998.
Wouldn't have been able to get there in 1998.Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: June 23, 2012 15:51
The thing is that what Jimmy Carr has done, is what any person with any nous would have done, acting on advice of his/her accountants. An accountant is paid to limit the tax liabilities that a person has, or may incur.
If Jimmy Carr, Mick Jagger, et al, turn over enough money that their accountant encourages them to place funds, or assets, in a tax avoidance scheme, which is what the accountant, should do, then it isn't morally repugnant. If Jimmy Carr, or any rich person, decided to evade, not avoid, tax, then that would be morally repugnant.
I wonder what would happen if the accountants that encouraged Jimmy Carr were, themselves, old Etonians, or members of the Bullingdon Club ? Would David Cameron feel them to be "morally repugnant" ?
If Jimmy Carr, Mick Jagger, et al, turn over enough money that their accountant encourages them to place funds, or assets, in a tax avoidance scheme, which is what the accountant, should do, then it isn't morally repugnant. If Jimmy Carr, or any rich person, decided to evade, not avoid, tax, then that would be morally repugnant.
I wonder what would happen if the accountants that encouraged Jimmy Carr were, themselves, old Etonians, or members of the Bullingdon Club ? Would David Cameron feel them to be "morally repugnant" ?
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
JackFlash68
()
Date: June 24, 2012 13:26
If David Cameron called me morally repugnant I would wear it as a badge of honour!!!
Quote
tomcasagranda
The thing is that what Jimmy Carr has done, is what any person with any nous would have done, acting on advice of his/her accountants. An accountant is paid to limit the tax liabilities that a person has, or may incur.
If Jimmy Carr, Mick Jagger, et al, turn over enough money that their accountant encourages them to place funds, or assets, in a tax avoidance scheme, which is what the accountant, should do, then it isn't morally repugnant. If Jimmy Carr, or any rich person, decided to evade, not avoid, tax, then that would be morally repugnant.
I wonder what would happen if the accountants that encouraged Jimmy Carr were, themselves, old Etonians, or members of the Bullingdon Club ? Would David Cameron feel them to be "morally repugnant" ?
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
mark666
()
Date: June 24, 2012 16:00
This has been going on for many years under Labour and Conservatives so they should sort it out or admit they are useless and all tax avoidance is entirely the governments fault.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
Ket
()
Date: June 24, 2012 16:56
It is that the loopholes are legal that should outrage everybody not the people that use them. I am very sceptical that Cameron and co have the will to close them down as that would limit the amount of contributions to the conservative party.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
Chris Fountain
()
Date: June 24, 2012 17:00
Quote
Ket
It is that the loopholes are legal that should outrage everybody not the people that use them. I am very sceptical that Cameron and co have the will to close them down as that would limit the amount of contributions to the conservative party.
I'm all for a flat tax on comsumables only. We will never see that day!
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: June 24, 2012 19:32
Worthwhile to note that every member of The Rolling Stones has his own lawyer and accountant as well as legal and financial representatives for the band as an entity.
It isn't just Jagger who studies and signs key legal documents. They each do. Nothing "dodgy" about it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-24 20:29 by stonesrule.
It isn't just Jagger who studies and signs key legal documents. They each do. Nothing "dodgy" about it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-24 20:29 by stonesrule.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: June 24, 2012 19:36
Another thing: Cameron seems to have gotten a tad confused between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Out of the two, "evasion" is, to correctly state, "Morally repugnant", avoidance, however, isn't.
What is causing problems is that the UK tax system has become monumentally complex, monumentally unwieldy, and is no longer fit for purpose. The tax code book, in its entirety, spans nearly 700 pages, and would take longer to read than Ulysses and Underworld (Don DeLillo), and is far more complex than either.
What is causing problems is that the UK tax system has become monumentally complex, monumentally unwieldy, and is no longer fit for purpose. The tax code book, in its entirety, spans nearly 700 pages, and would take longer to read than Ulysses and Underworld (Don DeLillo), and is far more complex than either.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
Edith Grove
()
Date: June 24, 2012 19:39
Quote
tomcasagranda
What is causing problems is that the UK tax system has become monumentally complex, monumentally unwieldy, and is no longer fit for purpose.
Sounds like something that's happening on my side of the pond.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: June 24, 2012 20:15
It has developed into a madness, unfortunately.
The tax code book relates to PAYE coding: then you have self assessment, which, contrary to popular belief, wasn't invented by Ken Dodd. Then there is Corporation Tax, then Inheritance, then Trusts, then post-bankruptcy tax returns. You then have a Hidden Economy Team, and hotlines for dealing with tax evasion. The hotlines have been farmed out to the DWP due to an horrendous mistake made by what was formally The Customs and Excise. Enquiries range from joint direct and indirect tax, through to Aspect, wherein part of a tax return is investigated, through to Full, where all the return is investigated, through to Employer Compliance where failures to operate PAYE are investigated etc. It has become the equivalent of wading through treacle, with no clarity whatsoever.
If anyone is smart enough to take advantage of this archaic system, as a former LSE student, i.e. Mick Jagger, then good luck to them.
The tax code book relates to PAYE coding: then you have self assessment, which, contrary to popular belief, wasn't invented by Ken Dodd. Then there is Corporation Tax, then Inheritance, then Trusts, then post-bankruptcy tax returns. You then have a Hidden Economy Team, and hotlines for dealing with tax evasion. The hotlines have been farmed out to the DWP due to an horrendous mistake made by what was formally The Customs and Excise. Enquiries range from joint direct and indirect tax, through to Aspect, wherein part of a tax return is investigated, through to Full, where all the return is investigated, through to Employer Compliance where failures to operate PAYE are investigated etc. It has become the equivalent of wading through treacle, with no clarity whatsoever.
If anyone is smart enough to take advantage of this archaic system, as a former LSE student, i.e. Mick Jagger, then good luck to them.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: June 24, 2012 20:21
Quote
tomcasagranda
Another thing: Cameron seems to have gotten a tad confused between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Out of the two, "evasion" is, to correctly state, "Morally repugnant", avoidance, however, isn't.
What is causing problems is that the UK tax system has become monumentally complex, monumentally unwieldy, and is no longer fit for purpose. The tax code book, in its entirety, spans nearly 700 pages, and would take longer to read than Ulysses and Underworld (Don DeLillo), and is far more complex than either.
Tax evasion is illegal; some methods of tax avoidance are apparently not, he's opened a right can o'worms bringing morality into it.....good luck with that Mr Cameron..........if any goverment thinks some of the tactics used by people to avoid overpaying are 'wrong' then they should make this an issue of black and white and make laws to address it. Tax + morality = chaos. imo. (If you don't have to pay it and then you do, you are then, by default, overpaying..........who would do that ? If you wanted to voluntarily pay more into the 'system' to support others then surely anyone would want to do that via charitable donations, at least then you have more control over where your money goes, I would think anyway.
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-24 21:36 by EddieByword.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: June 24, 2012 21:21
The thing is : once a loophole is shut, another loophole appears.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: June 24, 2012 21:25
By the way: "Morally repugnant" in the truest sense of the words can be defined as hanging out with Rebekah Brooks, and consorting with Rupert Murdoch's press.
I don't think Mick, Keith, et al have done this.
I don't think Mick, Keith, et al have done this.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
Braincapers
()
Date: June 24, 2012 22:28
You can only be morally repugnant if you support Labour. Conservative supporters seem exempt from criticism.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: June 24, 2012 22:47
I don't know about that:
Consider the following:
A pointless war about oil reserves in the North Atlantic, i.e. The Falklands in 1982.
Black Wednesday
Sleaze and the Back To Basics campaign: hypocritical when you are making the beast with two backs with Edwina Curry.
I could go on.
The above scandals all happened under the Conservative Party.
Consider the following:
A pointless war about oil reserves in the North Atlantic, i.e. The Falklands in 1982.
Black Wednesday
Sleaze and the Back To Basics campaign: hypocritical when you are making the beast with two backs with Edwina Curry.
I could go on.
The above scandals all happened under the Conservative Party.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: June 24, 2012 22:49
Depressing, ain't it, when we have to take the measure of a man who serves as Prime Minister. Re the Murdoch mess, Cameron showed POOR JUDGEMENT. To put it politely.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
Braincapers
()
Date: June 24, 2012 22:55
Quote
tomcasagranda
I don't know about that:
Consider the following:
A pointless war about oil reserves in the North Atlantic, i.e. The Falklands in 1982.
Black Wednesday
Sleaze and the Back To Basics campaign: hypocritical when you are making the beast with two backs with Edwina Curry.
I could go on.
The above scandals all happened under the Conservative Party.
As a bit of a leftie I agree with your list but I was referring to the fact that Cameron was prepared to criticize Jimmy Carr but not Gary Barlow who invested in the same scheme.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: June 25, 2012 01:01
Yes,
However, would Cameron equally criticise large donations to the Conservative party offset as a tax relief ? No.
It doesn't really matter about who invests in what avoidance scheme, what matters is the ineptness of the government, both Conservative and under Messrs Blair and Brown for Labour, in that the relevant loopholes weren't closed. Cameron is appearing, not as prime minister, but rather an aggrieved dog in the manger.
If anyone was earning a large telephone number salary, it would be human nature for them to not wish to pay a large amount of tax, and that they would deploy a quality accountant to limit the liability.
However, would Cameron equally criticise large donations to the Conservative party offset as a tax relief ? No.
It doesn't really matter about who invests in what avoidance scheme, what matters is the ineptness of the government, both Conservative and under Messrs Blair and Brown for Labour, in that the relevant loopholes weren't closed. Cameron is appearing, not as prime minister, but rather an aggrieved dog in the manger.
If anyone was earning a large telephone number salary, it would be human nature for them to not wish to pay a large amount of tax, and that they would deploy a quality accountant to limit the liability.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: June 25, 2012 01:38
Quote
EddieByword
Probaly not..........treacherous waters for a PM slagging off the Queen's knights...............
how the hell is it - considering a 'knighthood' is granted by the government and (as you well know) a knight gets no special treatment compared to anyone else.
Ask (the former 'Sir' )Lester Piggott...
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: June 25, 2012 03:14
Quote
Gazza
Quote
EddieByword
Probaly not..........treacherous waters for a PM slagging off the Queen's knights...............
how the hell is it - considering a 'knighthood' is granted by the government and (as you well know) a knight gets no special treatment compared to anyone else.
Ask (the former 'Sir' )Lester Piggott...
I didn't know he was a Sir.....according to wikipedia he only had the OBE .... [en.wikipedia.org] ...which doesn't get you called 'Sir'..........and according to this site he only had a very high chance of becoming a Sir.........[www.buckinghamcovers.com] .....before his conviction.......
There's obviously a huge difference in advised etiquette between a PM shooting his mouth off about a Knight's morals (with no proven crime committed) and irritatingly embarrasing the monarchy in the process and some guy with an OBE being banged to rights on a serious tax fraud for which as you pointed out in addition he did also lose his award (serious embarrasment)(although it doesn't look like it was a 'Sir' award).
We've 'talked' before about this (preferential treatment stuff) Gazza - you don't accept the reality & relevence of the input of Freemasonry and the protection that comes with that so not much point in going through it again............
I know as you say the Goverment decide who gets chosen but in reality it is the reputation of the monarchy that suffers when things go wrong, so if he (PM) was so foolish as to attack any 'awarded' person's reputation willy-nilly I'd bet anything he'd soon get a phonecall.......
Just for clarity's sake though I am aware it is not by any means limitless, as that freemason guy Kenneth Noye who 'road rage' murdered that kid on the motorway roundabout bridge in Kent found out. (He went in the police station (according to a policeman at the trial) and did the secret handshake etc but was told he was "out of luck " with this one................
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-25 13:17 by EddieByword.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
Title5Take1
()
Date: June 25, 2012 04:50
Q. Would you ever consider coming back to England permanently?
JAGGER: "Yeah, if I could afford to. I mean, I would earn a lot less money so you can take that to mean that I'm greedy or that I'm sensible."
From here >>> [www.iorr.org] (1983 interview.)
JAGGER: "Yeah, if I could afford to. I mean, I would earn a lot less money so you can take that to mean that I'm greedy or that I'm sensible."
From here >>> [www.iorr.org] (1983 interview.)
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: June 25, 2012 09:14
Immensely rich people who think they deserve it make me sick.
There is no shortage of wealth in the world, it's just in the hands of a few.
Most people in the world are no more than indentured servants for globalism and the globalists used credit as the tool to achieve that.
We the people have been pushed back 200 to 300 years.
There is no shortage of wealth in the world, it's just in the hands of a few.
Most people in the world are no more than indentured servants for globalism and the globalists used credit as the tool to achieve that.
We the people have been pushed back 200 to 300 years.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: June 25, 2012 11:50
EddieByword,
the guy that Kenneth Noye murdered happened to be a small scale drug-dealer. I think the police were looking to eventually find Noye guilty of something.
the guy that Kenneth Noye murdered happened to be a small scale drug-dealer. I think the police were looking to eventually find Noye guilty of something.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: June 25, 2012 13:03
Quote
tomcasagranda
EddieByword,
the guy that Kenneth Noye murdered happened to be a small scale drug-dealer. I think the police were looking to eventually find Noye guilty of something.
Oh sorry I misread your post, I thought you'd said Noye was a small time drug dealer............I don't know about the bloke he murdered ...(I read it was just a road rage thing)...but Noye...
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-25 13:18 by EddieByword.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
tomcasagranda
()
Date: June 25, 2012 13:18
EddieByword,
People labour under the misapprehension that freemasonry means that a nod and wink in the right direction would get your off a parking fine, or murder. Quite honestly, it doesn't work like that. Freemasonry is a charitable organisation, the second biggest after Oxfam, and exists to make good men even better: Noye just happened to be a rotten apple in the barrel.
People labour under the misapprehension that freemasonry means that a nod and wink in the right direction would get your off a parking fine, or murder. Quite honestly, it doesn't work like that. Freemasonry is a charitable organisation, the second biggest after Oxfam, and exists to make good men even better: Noye just happened to be a rotten apple in the barrel.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: June 25, 2012 13:28
Quote
tomcasagranda
EddieByword,
People labour under the misapprehension that freemasonry means that a nod and wink in the right direction would get your off a parking fine, or murder. Quite honestly, it doesn't work like that. Freemasonry is a charitable organisation, the second biggest after Oxfam, and exists to make good men even better: Noye just happened to be a rotten apple in the barrel.
Of course that was also Noye's misapprehension and he was a freemy, again the point being was that he as a freemy did have this expectation, the policeman as I said indicated to the court that in Noye's mind it was his right as freemason to have preferential treatment, there must have been a reason for that expectation even though he miscalculated how far he could go with it.
I know they have benign "aims & purposes"........enough said..(from me anyway).........
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-25 14:06 by EddieByword.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: June 25, 2012 15:22
Quote
EddieByword
Quote
Gazza
Quote
EddieByword
Probaly not..........treacherous waters for a PM slagging off the Queen's knights...............
how the hell is it - considering a 'knighthood' is granted by the government and (as you well know) a knight gets no special treatment compared to anyone else.
Ask (the former 'Sir' )Lester Piggott...
I didn't know he was a Sir.....according to wikipedia he only had the OBE .... [en.wikipedia.org] ...which doesn't get you called 'Sir'..........and according to this site he only had a very high chance of becoming a Sir.........[www.buckinghamcovers.com] .....before his conviction.......
There's obviously a huge difference in advised etiquette between a PM shooting his mouth off about a Knight's morals (with no proven crime committed) and irritatingly embarrasing the monarchy in the process and some guy with an OBE being banged to rights on a serious tax fraud for which as you pointed out in addition he did also lose his award (serious embarrasment)(although it doesn't look like it was a 'Sir' award).
We've 'talked' before about this (preferential treatment stuff) Gazza - you don't accept the reality & relevence of the input of Freemasonry and the protection that comes with that so not much point in going through it again............
I know as you say the Goverment decide who gets chosen but in reality it is the reputation of the monarchy that suffers when things go wrong, so if he (PM) was so foolish as to attack any 'awarded' person's reputation willy-nilly I'd bet anything he'd soon get a phonecall.......
Just for clarity's sake though I am aware it is not by any means limitless, as that freemason guy Kenneth Noye who 'road rage' murdered that kid on the motorway roundabout bridge in Kent found out. (He went in the police station (according to a policeman at the trial) and did the secret handshake etc but was told he was "out of luck " with this one................
You're 'clarifying' things by throwing in examples of freemasonry? There's no link between that and a knighthood - are you suggesting that someone like Mick Jagger has been elevated to that 'status'? Stop talking nonsense. Of course there's 'preferential treatment' in society - stop twisting my words by suggesting that I'm denying it.
Who would the PM 'get a phone call' from? Seriously - you're embarrassing yourself with this twaddle. I'd expect this kind of rubbish from someone who could barely find the UK on a map and who thinks that the monarch makes all the laws and chooses the honours list, but reading it from someone who lives there is laughable. Either you're inventing this to make some political point in the hope that theres enough clueless people on here who'll believe it or else you're genuinely ignorant. And I find it hard to believe that anyone living in the UK in the 21st century with an ounce of intelligence would fall into the latter category.
The notion that it's the monarch's reputation that 'suffers' from an award made by the government is nonsensical. The Labour government were torn to shreds in the press in the 'Cash for Honours' scandal because of the way that they were seen to be rewarding party donors with knighthoods and peerages. It had no impact on anyone else.
And yes, Lester Piggott was stripped of an OBE. The principle is the same, though. Both are different levels in the honours system that dont entitle the recipient to anything preferential (eg, as would be the case in a peerage). A recent example of a knight who had his honour stripped from him was Sir Fred Goodwin, the CEO of the Bank of Scotland. The spy Sir Anthony Blunt was another.
Re: The Rolling Stones Tax Arrangements
Posted by:
EddieByword
()
Date: June 25, 2012 15:29
Government - freemasons - Monarchy - No link ?.............I knew I shouldn't have bothered replying.
Mick Jagger thanks to the government is in the Royal court which is administered albeit quietly by the freemasons. The Royal protection squad is made up solely of freemasons. [www.dailymail.co.uk] ......maybe she's not amused because it's better to keep things 'on the quiet'. Didn't want to be embarrassed with more bad PR..(this was before the coups of the 'Wedding and Jubilee)..........See first and last paragraghs.
btw I never said you said there was no preferential treatment in society
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-26 03:51 by EddieByword.
Mick Jagger thanks to the government is in the Royal court which is administered albeit quietly by the freemasons. The Royal protection squad is made up solely of freemasons. [www.dailymail.co.uk] ......maybe she's not amused because it's better to keep things 'on the quiet'. Didn't want to be embarrassed with more bad PR..(this was before the coups of the 'Wedding and Jubilee)..........See first and last paragraghs.
btw I never said you said there was no preferential treatment in society
I met a woman and she told me...."well baby...... well the blues ain't bad"...........
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-26 03:51 by EddieByword.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
1962 , angee , austrianstones , C R K , corriecas , dishevelmentblues , django , Halup , hitti , JJackFl , kowalski , LERIFFHUMAIN , mickjerome , muffie , no satisfaction , NoPanic , O2 , owlbynite , Rolling Hansie , rollingon , sabata , satisfaction2 , steini , TheBlockbuster , TOOTSIE , undertheradar , witterings
Guests:
181
Record Number of Users:
52
on May 26, 2013 11:14
Record Number of Guests:
238
on May 26, 2013 06:25
