Roger Smelly Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Well this is probably another way of keeping the property market going. I think it is a good idea but will it bring over more property speculators ? Its not a bad budget but i am sure more could be done to reduce the massive yearly government spend. Like alan says we need to watch what is being spent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Aah, but on the hustings would anyone know which candidate was me and which was MCB? I think with a lot of effort we might just be able to spot the difference between the two of you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Like alan says we need to watch what is being spent Alan as in "It wasnt me" Bell ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Presumably these very rich people would not buy speculative housing but would buy one of the very many nice houses in existence (there are an incredible amount of beautiful old houses on the Island, all down to "the trade", I'm told) or do it themselves, by that I mean get their own architects etc. in to build their dream house, not Dandara who will equip their new dream house with a nursery, convenience shop, a local pub, take-away and some form of health facility. The people that they are trying to attract are way-off most of our RADARS. The one unsettling thought is that part of this deal is that they will bring over some of their business, and yet, it was only last year (or the year before) that the call was to develop businesses that were not "people intensive" (hi-tech, low labour-type enterprises) because of the impact on the infrastructure of an increasing population. It's all about management. Ideally, I suppose, the policy should be that the population reaches a near-stasis, but the per capita earnings increase! So we get the "trickle down" effect without, overall, adding to the burden on the existing services. Sounds like a good wheeze to me! Edited to add: This was a quick reply to Roger, but I took so long that it now sits completely out of context! Oh well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Is it this guy? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Ultimately, the guy works for Associated Newspapers Ltd, publishers of the Daily Mail, and can therefore be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teapot Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Ultimately, the guy works for Associated Newspapers Ltd, publishers of the Daily Mail, and can therefore be ignored. Ignore that rag at your peril!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 is it this guy? This is: Chris Blackhurst - Business Editor London Evening Standard http://www.esadvertising.co.uk/esta/brand/editprof.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 All that the bald headed fuck wanted were some company accounts. If he was that clever he wouldn't have bothered his arse coming all the way over from London when he could have sat in his office and been told by a website enquiry that accounts were not available. Unless of course that's precisely what he did. The Associatred Newspapers group are worse than Murdoch's lot hiding under their veneer of self-righteous respectability to sneer at those they perceive as an easy target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 It always brings a wry smile to my face when those in London bang on about out "dodgy" tax regimes. Perhaps they should turn a more critical eye on the residency laws which underpin the reason why a lot our Middle Eastern friends have properties in Kensington, Mayfair, Chelsea and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Agree Skies, London needs to look at its own track record in assisting money laundering by poor regulation! The regulation that we are long used to here is only recently biting in the UK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haX0red_Account Posted March 1, 2006 Author Share Posted March 1, 2006 far be it from me to defend him here, but think he was referring to a time before searches could be done online; think the boys and girls at the old registry were sound! Likewise, don't really see what his issue is- surely nobody's actually bothered in London about allan bell's tax plan?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 If you write for a crap (or especially crap like the Standard) paper then your job is to produce stuff which winds people up - panders to their preconceptions, gets under the skin, and makes them mildly angry. Especially if you can tie it in with somehow finding the Labour government, and Chancellor Brown, responsible. So if you write for the Daily Mail then your job is write stuff which winds people up in the mornings and which they can then chat about at work (beggars, immigrants, scroungers, Labour etc). They can sit at their desks and agree with each other about how angry it all makes them feel. So if you write for an evening paper (for people heading home from jobs in London on overcrowded trains - and feeling the mortgage squeeze and rising costs) then you'd be writing stuff about how the Labour government is letting people get away with stuff in tax exempt jurisdictions where anything goes. Even if it doesn't. Even if the content isn't strictly accurate or representative. It's rhetoric. And tomorrow there will be something else to share anger about. [EDIT: on the other hand. Actually the Mail and it's sisters aren't crap. They're brilliant at doing exactly as above. And therefore they sell. Because it's a formular which works. Getting under the skin is a hook which works for newspapers and journalists. People buy crap.] Newspapers love the build-up and momentum which leads towards political shifts. So 'sleeze' (or anything which can even vaguely be linked to or construed as sleeze) is very much back on the agenda. Incidentally - didn't this guy used to write leftish stuff (with similar rhetoric and fuzzy accuracy) for the Indpendent? The way things are going - it wouldn't surprise me if the Tories started to promise action wrt offshore tax havens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spatula girl Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Here it is .......... "We have had quite a bit of positive publicity after the budget from the likes of the Financial Times and indeed the Daily Telegraph. Now here comes the flip side of the coin in the form of a Chris Blackhurst feature for the Evening Standard. Mr Blackhurst does not like the way the Isle of Man operates its economy. In an article last night in the STandard, entitled "Zero rate these fairy tales from fantasy Island", Mr Blackhurst first describes a visit to the (presumably) former registry to check up on a company. He speaks of bored looking officials, dusty rooms and "a smirk on the officials face when I told him what I wanted". "Welcome to corporate disclosure Manx style" he adds. He goes on to say that "doubtless the authorities will say much has changed" but then continues " baloney. The day that the Isle of Man and other places like it operate to the same standards of transparency that apply elsewhere will be the day they go out of business". He goes on to refer to Allan Bell "and his cronies" as he puts it and the proposed personal tax-liability cap. After speculating who might be attracted to the island by this move, he goes on to wonder why Gordon Brown hasn't taken action. "Perhaps he's a closet TT motorcycling fan at heart", he ruminates, " or he gets swept along with the guff the island tourist office churns out". That's Chris Blackhurst, a business writer in last night London Evening Standard. Why do I quote him. Because this article will get quite a wide coverage and listeners and readers might just as well know what was in the article. With the useful press that the 2006 budget and various tax moves engendered, there cannot be too much surprise that some would not be impressed by the island or its "modus operandi". " Hints of Government-funded style journalism methinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.