Jump to content

Caswall

Members
  • Content Count

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Caswall

  • Rank
    Registered User

Personal Information

  • Location
    A Sheffield post code.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The Forbes list, which Oxfam allegedly use, shows the net worth of the top ten in 2019 as $131BN rising to $177BN in 2021. A 35% increase, not double. Perhaps Oxfam should buy a different calculator if they think 177 is double 131, or maybe they should just concentrate on sending food to countries that insist on breeding beyond their ability to feed themselves.
  2. Your statement is not a link to evidence. Here are the numbers for the top 10 wealthiest people in the UK, form the Sunday Times Rich List: Sunday Times Rich List 2019 Hinduja family £22BN David & Simon Reuben £18.66BN Sir Jim Ratcliffe £18.15BNB Sir Len Blavatnik £14.37BN Sir James Dyson £12.6BN Kirsten & Jorn Rausing £12.25BN Cahrlene & Michel de Carvalho £12BN Alisher Usmanov £11.4BN Roman Ibramovich £11.2BN Mikhail Fridman ` £10.9BN Total 143.53BN Sunday Times Rich List 2021 Sir Len Blavatnik £23BN David & Simon Reuben £21.5BN Hinduja family £17BN Sir James Dyson £16.3BN Lakshmi Mittal £14.7BN Alisher Usmanov £13.4BN Kirsten & Jorn Rausing £13BN Roman Ibramovich £12.1BN Cahrlene & Michel de Carvalho £12BN Guy Weston & family £11BN Total 154BN That's fact, unlike Anna B's opinion which she describes as fact. What is factual is that the top ten wealthiest achieved a 3.5% annual increase to their total pot over 2 years. Perhaps my mathematics is a tad rusty, but I'm struggling to see how that is ''doubling their money'?
  3. I won't question "Corbyn was . . . . a thoughtful pragmatic man with ideas and integrity that would have helped the majority of people in this land" - it's too funny for that, but could you please link to the 'evidence' you have for the 'fact' that the rich have doubled their money?
  4. I'm not aware of any restrictions here in the UK that are not being applied by dozens of other countries in response to a certain international state of emergency. Of course, if you want to blame one political party in one country for that, fill your boots. As for social services, you seem to dramatise this situation as though they are removing all. Rather, they just don't have the imaginary money tree Labour likes to think it has, and have to limit spending to what is achievable.
  5. No, they were socialists; they had swathes of socialist policies. What modern left-wingers find so terribly painful to digest is that the Nazi brand of socialism evolved into a totalitarian regime, as is the inevitable end-game for all socialist and communist models.
  6. It's all become somewhat of a blur of constant change, this bizarre need some people have to erase history, deny aspects of culture, and in some cases even force change on long-established brand names. I'm still coming to terms with the happy colonial faces having been removed from jam jars.
  7. The brown shirts were the militant arm of the National SOCIALIST Party, their role not dissimilar to that of Momentum in Labour today.
  8. Sounds about right as a deterrent. The same should apply to the four Bristol rioters.
  9. Hardly so when exactly that happened to a protesting idiot while vandalising a statue in the States.
  10. As happened to one poor little poppet in Virginia: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/confederate-monument-virginia-protests-a9561981.html
  11. If there are no children involved, the division of assets is pretty much a cut down the middle to provide balanced amount for each side, irrelevant of who put the most into the marriage, or even if one party contributed nothing. The court does not consider any element of 'fault' or grounds of the divorce - the more expensive the lawyer, the bigger their bill for saying 'you have to give her half'. There are few exceptions of what assets are included in the total sum - one being portions of a pension fund that may have been accumulated pre-relationship. Of course if there are kids, they will be provided for to the significant benefit of the partner who has custody. When asked if he intended to marry again, I believe Stan Laurel once answered "No, I think I'll just find a random woman I don't like in the street and buy her a nice house".
  12. Are we here to discuss the subject at hand, or to inquire into other posters' personal lives?
  13. Nor should it - unless one expects everybody posting on SF to have a liberal/left mindset?
  14. While others among us think desprtitdan describes matters quite accurately.
  15. Try convincing the Falklands Islanders of that. They - as they have done for many generations - consider themselves to be nothing to do with Argentina, and have proven through overwhelming vote (and overwhelming refusal to accept significant financial offers form Argentina) - that they wish to remain British citizens. Have you spent any time on the Falklands to develop your knowledge of it and arrive at your views on the place?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.