thetrees

Be careful. There are people on here who really like Paul Lambert.

You can try and paint the governments utter utter unwillingness to make big business pay their dues to society in as good a light as you like. It don't wash with me I'm afraid. How could my pointing out the obvious error of your statement be translated into me trying to 'paint the government in a good light'? You have moved from making remarkable statements to ridiculous statements.

What a remarkable statement! If it is several years it is very good. It means that the investigators are working from the back forward, and therefore there could be plenty more to come. And just think of all those HMRC employees now paying 40% tax because of their big bonuses!

Can I put my hand up as well? As a Mac user, I find iPhoto and its big brother Aperture very good for editing, but crap for organising. Any tips for organising photos on a Mac?

The 118 watch

not at all random. The 'noses are for sale and likely to be pinched for low money. If the Villa are 'pinched', it will probably be in excess of £180m. If someone wants to have a football club to play with and maybe make something happen, the 'noses are a cheap shot and definitely fall within a lot more people's budget. No chance of getting a name on that plane I bet? Edit: He is London based now by the way, not sure if that means he wouldn't own a Turkish private jet? Private charter. Quite often jets are owned by people and run on the operating licence of a charter company, but equally this aircraft could be chartered by many different people at any given time. There is no way of telling actual ownership in this case. I couldn't link it previously, which is why I didn't mention it, but this would be the kind of aircraft that the named person would use.

Oh Ian, for an intelligent guy and sometime erudite debater, you can appear to generalise at times. Most people that you would call 'racists' and 'bigots' are just normal people who, if engaged in normal debate, could so easily learn how moderate they really are. But with the continuous and constant default use of the 'R' word at the slightest hint of disquiet, these people are left with no chance. Shouting people down and jumping on them at the first opportunity is the easiest way to maintain and further create divisions in our society. Engaging with people in intelligent and sensible debate is a far better way of improving things for all. When you cut away the cheering kids, there are plenty of sensible political debaters on this forum, and generally you are one of them. You also rollicked me earlier for using a label, which wasn't actually mine

not at all random. The 'noses are for sale and likely to be pinched for low money. If the Villa are 'pinched', it will probably be in excess of £180m. If someone wants to have a football club to play with and maybe make something happen, the 'noses are a cheap shot and definitely fall within a lot more people's budget.

I can give you a Turkish private jet charter that arrived the same day as the lawyers from NY, which stayed for the best part of the week. I didn't link it before, so I didn't report it, but if the Mail are smelling something maybe the guy has been taking a look, and the lawyers were something to do with him. It would make a change for the Villa to have a sleazy chairman. We haven't had one of those since 2006!

A lot people seized on the fact that his statement had an element of 'goodbye' in it - with a sale starting to look some way off - I'm just wondering has he washed his hands of us ? - Like the Randy Lerner years were 2006-2014 - Whatever happens now isn't on his watch. Also looking at the prices that championship clubs go for, why would pay £200m for Aston Villa. I know Reading have debts which need to be paid - but the bidding price is £1 !!!!1 - buy that ...£30m on players - would give you a decent crack at promotion - perhaps another £40 to keep them in the prem. Where as Aston Villa is £200m - £30m to stay in the prem - perhaps £70-80m to make us competitive. It would seem to me the value for money thing to do is to buy an ailing championship club.. That's why £200m is far too much for us as we stand at the moment. 4 years ago maybe £200m was possible but not now. Where is everyone getting this 200mil price tag from? Far as i'm aware it was only reported in the papers and lets face it, what have they got right lately? They prob know just as much as us. 200mil price tag is pure speculation. The company is capitalised at £223m, so that is the indicator.

That was the biggest load of crap I've read I thought it was spot on. I thought that it was interesting and well thought out. I don't know whether it was completely accurate*, because I no longer read any newspapers. *small edit-not questioning the accuracy. Given the past contributions of the OP I can assume that it is completely accurate, but cannot make that judgement myself.

That pretty much describes my working life and view so, as is the case from time to time, we are in agreement. Except that you appear to be a headlong into an EU federal state type of guy, and I am pro-EEC but anti-EU. One of my best life friendships (with a Frenchman) has its roots in a strong debate, which became semi-public, about EU expansionism that long pre-dated UKIP and Mr Farage coming into the public eye.

My local MP was an ambitious Tory, and probably still is, although currently on an 'ambition break' , owing to a well reported altercation with a couple of policemen. As a person he isn't really my cup of tea, but he is an excellent constituency MP, and was so when his career was still on the rise. And he doesn't really need the votes either.

That's a shame, and a sad indictment of the big party political system. Clearly your MP has worked hard for his constituents, positively affecting issues that are close to your heart, and is deserving of your vote. The fact that party system stops you from doing so is another small example of how good politicians, people who can work to make a difference to our country, are sacrificed for potentially bad politicians, of which we have more than our fair share. I understand, and I don't blame you, but I think that it is sad.

My reference of the EU superstate is, in my mind at least, nothing to do with immigration, it is about the political, territorial expansionism being carried out by a handful of ambitious, some unelected, people. Blitzkrieg without bullets. My 'defence' of UKIP, a party of which I know little, and of which there may be little to know, is purely because they provoke discussion, nothing less. By doing so they encourage the parties that will ultimately gain power to engage with people on such issues, rather than just running and hiding behind the 'R' word. Personally I am pro-immigration, and always have been.

To be fair, it's not as grim as people saying that they WOULD vote for Labour for any reason whatsoever. I know you are joking Mart but has there ever been anyone who said that? I remember Tony once stating he would rather be dead than vote Red and I know that from your Tax avoidance non UK residence you favour the Tory party :-) Surely the whole point being raised is evaluating what the political parties are claiming to stand for, what chance of them delivering on those policies that you agree with etc. I know I certainly look at what they all claim they will do and have yet to find any time that Labour did not tick most of the boxes for me and what concerns me. It's certainly saddening and depressing when you see people on FB for example peddling some of the crap from "groups" like that Britain First and the like and then believing it to be real, when a quick google search shows it to be typically right wing racist bile. Interesting Ian, as I encountered one of those Red Labour FB thingys that was basically trying to discredit and misrepresent UKIP. This was being spread by a teacher relative and her mates, all of whom are constant nomads and presently enjoying a tax free existence in Saudi Arabia. When asked whether they would like to submit a fair proportion of their income to HMRC, they all went very quiet. Not very social for socialists, I thought I think UKIP do a fine job of discrediting themselves without the need for any opposition to them doing so - and really do we need the stupidity of labels like Red this etc? - the whole Red Ed thing is such a nonsense and adds nothing to any debate or setting of credibility. How did you know they were Socialist's by the way? Being a socialist can mean many things to many people most of them different much in the same was as I could label a few Fascists etc. (Edit: before anyone comments about my use of Gideon - despite it was his given name I have it on very good authority that some in the Gvmt departments call him that also to wind him up :-) ) Facebook as a political tool and to a lesser degree the other social media outlets due to them limiting the content, is now becoming a very dangerous thing. The 'Red Labour' tag belonged to the school teacher FB poster., not me. I just assumed it was one of those tags used to define the difference between 'New' Labour and a more traditional alternative, having been informed by many on here that 'New' Labour aren't socialist. Being related to one of the discussers/sympathisers, I am privy to the fact that she is, indeed, a socialist. As the discussion was one of cosy agreement, I assumed that others were same. Beyond Blair and Brown being liars and criminals, I don't really do tags. I entirely agree with you about the dangers of Facebook, which I would extend to Twitter and social media in general.

To be fair, it's not as grim as people saying that they WOULD vote for Labour for any reason whatsoever. I know you are joking Mart but has there ever been anyone who said that? I remember Tony once stating he would rather be dead than vote Red and I know that from your Tax avoidance non UK residence you favour the Tory party :-) Surely the whole point being raised is evaluating what the political parties are claiming to stand for, what chance of them delivering on those policies that you agree with etc. I know I certainly look at what they all claim they will do and have yet to find any time that Labour did not tick most of the boxes for me and what concerns me. It's certainly saddening and depressing when you see people on FB for example peddling some of the crap from "groups" like that Britain First and the like and then believing it to be real, when a quick google search shows it to be typically right wing racist bile. Interesting Ian, as I encountered one of those Red Labour FB thingys that was basically trying to discredit and misrepresent UKIP. This was being spread by a teacher relative and her mates, all of whom are constant nomads and presently enjoying a tax free existence in Saudi Arabia. When asked whether they would like to submit a fair proportion of their income to HMRC, they all went very quiet. Not very social for socialists, I thought

I visit Poland regularly, and most people that I speak to think that there are some 5m out of the country, with around 800k in the UK. Without cross-border immigration certain industries in our country would be stuffed, but then that would potentially make the job market more competitive, thus pushing wages up towards the 'living wage' so coveted by some of our left thinkers. In the end the Blair regime did not think things through on open borders or 'multi-cultural Britain' which is probably why UKIP has better established itself than it could have hoped. They will disappear though, as we lapse back into the Labour/Tory see-saw.

I am not sure that any party has a policy for the next General Election yet. That is why I am happy to wait.

I am very sorry to break this to you, but the BNP are perfectly legitimate in our democracy. I am not a student of UKIP policy, as I have not considered voting for them as yet, but my take on them is that they are anti the EU superstate, and anti open borders EU immigration. Maybe the left take that UKIP's anti open borders immigration is also anti-immigration full stop is correct. Or maybe it suits the left agenda to peddle that line. I shall read up on them prior to the next General Election, but there is plenty of time for that yet.

I cannot see any seriously wealthy foreign investor buying 24% of Small Heath. I can only see 'fans' like Paladini buying in, in the hope that they can find the other shareholders and prise further shares out of them.

Lawyer plane left yesterday, down to Luton. It has gone on to Naples this morning, so looking unlikely to be Villa related after all. Sorry!

I honestly believe that self-interest is the only legitimate reason to vote for any party. I don't. But a hell of a lot of people do. Unfortunately the Green Party need to start promoting policies such as the living wage more aggressively towards that mentality. Even voting to feel better about yourself can be classed as self interest.

You forgot their ridiculous and outrageous employment laws.

Nearly a like from me Tony, except for the opener, which to me should have read 'is ill informed and *appears* highly offensive' The OP is someone who holds a generally amiable stance across his contributions to VT and has alluded to his not being the most educated person in the past, yet he remains a colourful and worthwhile contributor. By delving into such off topic threads RV demonstrates a desire to contribute and learn, and there are plenty of perhaps better educated political contributors of all areas of the political spectrum on here that can assist him, and the many of us who are prepared to listen and learn, in forming and refining our own views.