Sunday, January 3, 2010

Finally the truth begins to come out

Bovey to pay back £1 million

So despite being in a property boom,the companies made no profit just losses,so in the last 2 years they paid themselves £4.3 million in loans then bovey waived them effectively giving them free money....is it me or is this so outrageous its unbelievable....and HBOS must have known too

Posted by taffee @ 02:57 PM (2652 views)
Please complete the required fields.



68 thoughts on “Finally the truth begins to come out

  • Fallingbuzzard says:

    I think he’s going to find out that limited liability isn’t quite as limited as he thinks.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • fallingbuzzard says:

    I think he’s going to find out that limited liability isn’t quite as limited as he thinks.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I also find it odd that the russian who paid looney amounts of money for their house has never moved in to it…..amazing what money greed and keep up with the jones’s does to people……again….these ‘businesses’ never made any money-ever- yet they received £4.3 million over the last 2 years……did hbos know?….who from hbos lent him the money?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • markj69 str05 says:

    Responsibility – Negligence – Accountability – I bet you’ll never find or see any of these!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Anthea is presenting a programme which shows us “how to keep vermin out of the house” – easy Anthea, get divorced.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • tenant super says:

    Even the Irish banks who were, in many respects as corrupt and incompetent as UK banks had the nouse to insist on personal guarantees for lending money to the likes of Bovey.

    See http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/its-not-just-business-its-personal-1996977.html

    “Developers, financiers, restaurateurs, nightclub impresarios and a range of other businessmen from across Ireland’s entrepreneurial classes all signed agreements in which they variously promised to surrender personal assets — up to and including the keys to their family homes — in the event they were unable to service the loans they had taken to build their empires… While the nation prospered, the question of calling on such undertakings simply didn’t arise…But with the economy diving ever deeper into the doldrums and the National Asset Management Agency (Nama) set to take over up to €54bn in property loans from the banks, beginning from this year, the kid gloves would finally appear to be coming off. ”

    “how to keep vermin out of the house” is that for real…ha ha ha

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • so shouldn’t we be concerned who at hbos dealt with bovey and signed it all off?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • tenant super says:

    Our bankruptcy laws in this country are inadequate. They allow vermin like Bovey to pay themselves handsomely from technically insolvent companies. This was, as you rightly point out, a failing by HBoS. The terms and conditions attached to the banks’ bail-out were also inadequate. They allow bankers to pay themselves handsomely from technically insolvent companies, so they’re just as bad. Even if the banks had been allowed to fail, bankruptcy laws cannot recover the bloated salaries of the banks top brass during their last few years.
    I repeat that it is the losses which are socialised.

    It is problematic to draft legislation that enables retrospective recovery of salaries/ dividends when companies are bankrupt. Many small business owners will pay themselves very little when struggling to stay afloat. What we need are a change to the bankruptcy laws where up to the last eight years worth of personal wealth acquired from the bankrupt business can be seized by the courts if a judge is reasonably convinced that the person acted immorally (as well as simply illegally) by for example taking high risks, paying themselves excessively when bankruptcy remained a real possibility.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Bovey is the sort that will have little or no conscience for these losses.

    He will turn it around without a thought for anyone but himself and be making millions again while you lot

    still harp on about how its so unfair and unjust it has all been. You make your own luck in this world.

    And he’s had a touch of bad luck whilst he slums it in his £5 million downsized hovel, Yeah (smart cookie).

    Let’s just hang him and his bitch, and then we will all feel that much better, yes?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • what people want is a level playing field…as it stands we prosecute single mums who don’t tell the council their boyfriend has moved in,but no-one has been prosecuted for bringing the financial world to its knees or killing 250,000 people in illegal wars in afganistan or iraq

    how long will the people put up with this?…one reason that if they didn’t do something there would have been social unrest on a huge scale
    as stated by boe comittee members.

    how long though can they prop everything up

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “Let’s just hang him and his bitch, and then we will all feel that much better, yes?”

    Well, it’s a start.

    I jest, I prefer chain gangs.
    Lynchings would be the only way those calling for justice would ever see any.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • gone-to-colombia says:

    It is only fitting that the poster icons of the boom should become the criminals of the crash.
    They sold their souls on the way up, now it´s time to pay the price on the way down.

    Our society needs a folk memory of failure to ensure that such a route to ´wealth´ is not followed again any time soon.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • smugdog said…

    And he’s had a touch of bad luck whilst he slums it in his £5 million downsized hovel, Yeah (smart cookie).

    or just a greedy and corrupt social climbing parasite the likes of which would have been guillotined during the French revolution.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • tenant super says:

    @ N. Pete… it is tempting to feel all revolutionary when people make money in questionable ways. I know someone who recently left her job selling hand held massagers for £75 (no, not of the intimate variety) because the company told her to target the over 65s. She was right to resign as her conscience made the job stressful. However I do not think we should send these kind of companies to the real or metaphorical guillotine because they rip people off.

    There are other industries as bad in some ways as the BTL industry. Take for example pharmaceuticals. Like housing, life saving drugs are not a luxury but an essential but pharma companies strangle supply and fix prices through drug patents. However distasteful this may seem, as a believer in free markets I think we do not have any grounds for preventing profiteering through medicine or housing.

    Part of this problem comes from the notion of human rights. People think they have a ‘right’ to housing and healthcare. There is no doubt that the human rights movement has improved the lives of countless people. However, a human or natural right is a supposed justifiable demand of an individual on other people. Yet the universal declaration of human rights does not mention the obligation of individuals within this framework.

    It is questionable whether human rights actually exist outside their legal enactment. The epistemological criticism of human rights challenges the idea that there is any objective basis for rights. Hume argued that some rights are necessary for society to function but are an artificial construct. More recently, Richard Rorty has argued that human rights are based on a sentimental vision of humanity. Despite a widespread belief in human rights, their basis has never been satisfactorily resolved. If Bentham was correct that the concept of natural rights is ‘nonsense on stilts’ then we are formulating our morality out of nonsense.

    I believe the correct response to the current corporatism problem is allowing a free market on the way up and on the way down (profit and loss are privatised and bankruptcy laws are reformed to reflect this) not introducing socialism on the way up now that the government has socialised loss. Remove meddling like high level housing benefit and reposession forbearance laws. Then the sale and rental market would correct, people would be able to take care of their housing needs themselves and Bovey would probably set up a business selling massage machines to pensioners.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • cat and canary says:

    smugdog,

    “He will turn it around without a thought for anyone but himself and be making millions again while you lot
    still harp on about how its so unfair and unjust it has all been. You make your own luck in this world.”

    .. envy is a waste of your own time, agreed.

    But let us never again confuse the difference between “making profit at any cost” and “making profit through hard work, and then acting socially responsible in that newly gained position of power”

    Too many people making profit at any cost would result in a dsyfunctional society.

    …unless you believe we don´t already have one?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • such a wind up smuggy!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • tenant super @14

    That was a very elaboate response, but i’m afraid a lot of it went sailing overhead. I still think these sort of people should be put in stocks.

    How about I’m a celebrity in stocks, please don’t throw a rotten cabbage in my face.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • elaborate, whoops

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • tenant super says:

    True, I am being unnecessarily complicated. I want to see Bovey go to ruin but for different reasons – not because he was a parasite but because he was a failed parasite who killed his host and should have died financially himself.
    I would also endorse the stocks/ debtors jail if carried out for the purpose of recovering his personal debt.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Ultimately it boils down to the banks inability to assess risk correctly.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Hear, hear, Tenant Super, enjoying your posts today.

    Obama’s healthcare as example, human rights might be seen as a government ploy for expansion, in the guise of good. Unproven, but convenient.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Whether it’s Bovey, Kirsty, Phil, the bankers, or anyone else for that matter, as long as we have someone to blame.

    We have to, the world should have collapsed and you should have been kings surveying the destruction,

    picking up bargains and preaching to the withering souls that “you told them so all along”.

    But it didn’t happen, and it doesn’t look like it will, so you see, someone to blame make you feel just a little bit better.

    But you see, we have short memories, he will be back, along with many more and best of luck to him because it’s the

    likes of us that will fall for it again and again, we are their fodder. A different breed on a different level.

    (Thanks Techie!)

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • tenant super – whether we believe that human rights are natural or a construct is irrelevant, really. Either way they are necessary for society, otherwise what is the point of an organised society? If we don’t see the necessity to protect the weakest in our society, then why have laws, or the police, for example? This is the nonsense that we end up with when libertarianism and concepts of ‘freedom’ and laissez-faire are taken to their logical conclusions. We end up with a society where the function of laws are to protect the interests of the few. Where is the incentive to participate in such a society?
    You say that profiteering in health and housing is acceptable because of the benefits of the free market, but what are those benefits so great that allow one individual to make excess money to the detriment of another?
    To be frank I’d want no part in such a society and I’ll bet you wouldn’t either if you were faced with it as anything other than a theoretical concept.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • rumble @22

    Obama’s healthcare as example, human rights might be seen as a government ploy for expansion, in the guise of good. Unproven, but convenient.

    Or the Bush/Blair wars for WMD’s or a ploy to gain control of the oil. Unproven but convenient. And the war on terror, an excuse to destroy civil liberties maybe.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “A different breed on a different level.”

    “the likes of which would have been guillotined during the French revolution”

    Bet you don’t disagree with that. Says something?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • tenant super says:

    Shipbuilder – I do believe that the law and police should protect property, certain freedoms and autonomy. I have never heard a case for socialism that has been able to convince me that it is either just or logical though I am open to being convinced otherwise. I believe in profiteering in health and housing is acceptable not because of consequences or the benefits of the free market but because I think free markets are what you get when you adhere to certain moral imperatives.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Shippy,
    “You say that profiteering in health and housing is acceptable because of the benefits of the free market, but what are those benefits so great that allow one individual to make excess money to the detriment of another?”

    Not to the detriment – prior to the existence of the enterprise there were no drugs. Expensive drugs, versus no drugs – surely someone who starts an enterprise is entitled to price their product as they wish – they’re not obliged to run the enterprise? The high prices might encourage other startups, the competition then reducing the price naturally. The natural vs the contrived. Natural tends to win – too many variables.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Prior to the enterprise there were reasonably affordable houses. Average houses for the average family on an average income.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • tenant super – when you mention what the law and police should protect, then surely that implies rules and therefore ‘rights’. I’m not sure why you mention socialism – I don’t see it as a choice between one or the other. There are many different types of socialism as there are of libertarianism. Moral imperatives to me also suggest rights – presumably you are talking about freedom of the individual.
    The problem with that is we currently have a society where wealth and property is already distributed and therefore freedoms of current and future generations are already compromised. In addition, the freedom to profiteer impinges on the freedom of others to live their lives without interference.
    Where is my freedom to live off the land, for example? Well at the moment I must earn it, so effectively once all land is owned, all future generations are born with a debt. Is that freedom?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “Prior to the enterprise there were reasonably affordable houses.”
    The enterprise that built the houses? Eh?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Rumble – the problem is that you are talking about a theoretical ideal, not reality. As tenant super said, pharma companies profiteer by abusing their position in the market – patents restrict other entries in the market place. The argument was that this is acceptable because to restrict it would be to restrict market freedom. I say what is the point of market freedom if it does not prevent such activity – such activity is not freedom but the abuse of one person’s freedoms at the expense of another.
    Whether the drugs are available or not has nothing to do with the existence of a free market – people invent and sell things no matter what the mechanism.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • That should be ‘the abuse of one person’s freedoms for the benefit of another’.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Prior to the enterprise of people like Bovey, Allsop, and all the other property bandwagoners.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Shipbuilder, that patent point slipped my mind, possibly because, would you believe, I have a problem with that system too!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Rumble – I actually believe that natural rights are a bit of a nonsense as well – what I understand Bentham was saying was that rights do exist but are created through laws and so we decide the type of society we wish to have. Freedom is therefore never the ultimate freedom to do as we wish but always a degree of freedom, a compromise, which somewhat dilutes the purity of the free market concept when faced with reality and therefore reduces its effectiveness.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • tenant super says:

    Shipbuilder, I accept your comment about lack of freedom when so much is dictated by station of birth. That’s why one of the few taxes I do support is inheritence tax, which should be used to support excellence in education. My father grew up in a caravan and that was repossessed and the family was homeless. His passport out of a deeply impoverished life was a decent grammar school.

    I am not sure how the freedom to profiteer impinges on the freedom of others to live their lives without interference. If I invent a drug which destroys the HIV virus, because I (in a metaphorical sense) own my mind and have either made this discovery in my own small company or rented to my mind to an employer for an agreed salary, I or my employer owns this discovery. It is the fruit of my labour which belongs to me or the person I have rented my labour to. I then have to pay millions for clinical trials and licensing. I might, when I have made enough money to recover the costs of development and what I consider a reasonable profit grant licences to Indian firms to make cheaper generic versions (as does happen) but that is motivated by beneficence which is a virtue not because less fortunate people have a right to demand that I surrender this intellectual property to save their lives.

    Novice Pete, BTL and speculation has contributed to the bubble but this would have burst naturally had the government not bailed out individuals and institutions. I believe in a mixed economy where certain infrastructure such as transport and energy is run on our behalf by the state but inadequate or unfortunate individuals are not bailed out. Both housing benefit and repossession forbearance pressures are examples of this. Smugdog I fear is right… there doesn’t look like there’s going to be a crash. As I own a place, I’m not a loser in one respect. But as someone who wants to upsize I am a loser as the jump up is bigger. I am still a loser if I upsize abroad because of Sterling’s devaluation.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • shippy,

    this is pretty over my head stuff and I think you are great at putting things in perspective but you said
    “I actually believe that natural rights are a bit of a nonsense as well “.

    Here is my dilema, would you deny a baby it’s need to be fed. Is it all just the law of survival of the fittest.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Pete, you need a government to force you to feed a starving baby?
    The world won’t fall apart without government controlling everything. People might get burned, they might learn, they might read hpc instead of watching x-tripe, develop responsibility. I maintain that a contrived system is unmanageable and therefore in the interest of managing it and fulfilling promises a formula will have to be developed and everyone will have to behave according to that formula, which means that when the formula implementers say jump you will have to jump, and that if anyone has a thought outside formula bounds, should they be capable, splat goes the system and everyone into mania. House of cards. Nothing wrong with basic rules, but the more the messier.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I would add that you are correct shipbuilder in that moral imperatives are about what is right (and wrong) but I do not believe in the concept of rights as a justified demand made by an individual if the thing they are demanding has to be paid for by somebody else.
    Novice Pete, it is a misunderstanding that when I say I don’t believe in natural rights, it means I would let a baby starve or see the severely disabled on the streets. I still believe in good and also in virtue.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • lynching by a mob of taxpayers (yes, the taxpayer is saddled with Bovey’s debt) is the only practical and fair response

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Novice Pete – what I meant is that where do natural rights start and stop – ultimately the rights are what we decide.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @42 shipbuilder said…

    ultimately the rights are what we decide”.

    Yes but it’s not “we”, who decide, it’s big business who decides on our behalf.

    With government complicity, voted in by us. I’m confused by all this, sorry if I’m not making sense.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • tenant super – your example is an extreme one, but undoubtedly your making a profit beyond what is required for overheads, continuing R&D etc. is restricting how many people the drug is available to and so is an detriment to those people vs a system where no profit is made.
    I have no problem with profit when items are ‘luxuries’.
    Of course the decision is up to your own personal morals and therefore you have that freedom. However, again in reality we live in a society where corporations are legally obliged to maximise profit, but that is by the by – is the freedom to profit more important than maximising benefit to everyone? What worries me is that we have a society where that is even a question.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • If ultimately the rights are what we decide, who decides and on what basis? I think it was Oregon where the government sent out a survey listing medical conditions asking the general public to tick those conditions which they think should be covered under the state medicaid. In the end they had to scrap the idea of letting the people decide because the white majority decided not to cover sickle cell (seen as a ‘black’ disease) or Tay Sachs (seen as a ‘Jewish’ disease). So asking the people what they think should be set as ‘rights’ doesn’t always throw back an intelligent answer.

    As 70% of britons own property, bail-outs of individual property owners is seen as a good thing by the majority because it ‘could be me’ and it keeps up the value of my home.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mountain goat says:

    HPC doesn’t let me post this article, but while we considering lynchings as the last resort to justice RollingStone: Obama’s Big Sellout .

    What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.

    Then he got elected.

    What’s taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • tenant super said…
    “I would add that you are correct shipbuilder in that moral imperatives are about what is right (and wrong) but I do not believe in the concept of rights as a justified demand made by an individual if the thing they are demanding has to be paid for by somebody else.”

    It’s not paid for by someone else if it is a publicly owned enterprise. Therefore it comes down to a question of how as a society, we wish to organise ourselves.
    We have given away the ability for us to freely access land (through property rights) to sustain ourselves, the logic being that the basics are provided for us – for me, someone making a profit from that is immoral.
    Some believe that the efficiency saving over a public company would outweigh the profit, but in my opinion that is unproven and wrong – efficiency is about management, not profit.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • tenant super – surely in a free society, the people decide the rights, otherwise the society is not totally free? You surely can’t argue for freedom to make profit but not freedom to decide laws. Is there a higher moral authority? The government, the church?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “With government complicity, voted in by us.”

    A ridiculous exercise – the bigger the government, the more complex the system, the less possibility of voter Bloggs understanding the system and casting a meaningful vote.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Obama in my opinion has just turned out to be another stooge of the people who really run the show, bankers and big business.
    Any talk of lynchings should definately start with G.W. Bush, D. Cheney, D. Rumsfeld, T.Blair and so on.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • As you say SB, “Of course the decision is up to your own personal morals and therefore you have that freedom.”

    To me the dilemma is this- I personally want to help severely disabled people have somewhere to live and food to eat. I don’t believe the government has the right to force me to do this. However, if this is voluntary, then would enough people give to support the severely disabled? Looking after the disabled is not because the disabled have a natural right to be looked after. I think we can assume, supporting the disabled is good because almost everyone seems to think so. It is a categorical imperative – a good that anyone in my situation should do and so perhaps it is sensible to do this via taxation.

    The same applies to my HIV cure drug. I can choose to give it away at discount once I have covered costs but not to do so this is not taking anything away from them. To me, maximising benefit to everyone necessarily entails taking something from one group of people to give it to another and the justification for this is what I have never been able to grasp. As a moral absolutist rather than a consequentialist, Robin Hood was wrong.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Not sure I understand how “It’s not paid for by someone else if it is a publicly owned enterprise” … the money has to come from somewhere. If some people are saying I have a right to “insert thing that costs money” there will always be a group of people who take out more than they put in to the publically owned enterprise and this is paid for by those forced to pay in more than they take out.

    The laws should be decided deontologically by those who understand jurisprudence. To me, deontology should be used in the formulation of an ethical and legal system not rights-based ethics or utilitarianism as these are both logically flawed. Virtue ethics can inform my own personal morality if I so choose.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “Looking after the disabled … perhaps it is sensible to do this via taxation. ”

    I’m not convinced this is necessary. Too much faith in my fellow man?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • tenant super – you’ve misrepresented my argument there – covering costs and keeping the enterprise going is fine, but making a profit is taking something away when compared against a system where no profit is made. My belief is that for certain basic needs, we pick the system where no profit is made. Can you really see no justification for saving lives vs making profit? For non-essentials, make as much profit as you want. If you want to make profit, go into another industry.
    Of course Robin Hood was a consequentialist when you take the wider view, if you believe that the rich had already stolen from the poor in the first place – their land, their labour – that is the crux of the argument.
    Perhaps the justification for maximising benefit to everyone is maximising benefit to everyone? It does not mean making everyone equal.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “Looking after the disabled … perhaps it is sensible to do this via taxation. ”

    I’m not convinced this is necessary. Too much faith in my fellow man?

    I think it is socialist government excusing of personal responsibility, sit-on-your-selfish-ass, that makes government more necessary – vicious cycle. Expansive government trains people to be irresponsible, selfish idiots. Idiocracy.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Seeing as I’ve devolved from rumble to ramble…

    Socialist policies create contrived community, rather than allowing it to develop naturally.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Rumble – do you think the concept of individualism and competition behind a free-market system will lead to community?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • 52. tenant super said…
    “Not sure I understand how “It’s not paid for by someone else if it is a publicly owned enterprise” … the money has to come from somewhere. If some people are saying I have a right to “insert thing that costs money” there will always be a group of people who take out more than they put in to the publically owned enterprise and this is paid for by those forced to pay in more than they take out.”

    That depends on how the service is run and funded – if we are talking tax, then I am for a land value tax. LVT is not redistribution, but in fact rent to the wider community for use of their land. Depends on your view of property rights and land.
    Of course with all taxes you are paying for more than just a service, with greater equality for all comes a more settled society.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the debate and learnt a few things – thanks and goodnight.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Rumble, finally I agree with some of your points (some crossed wires along the way perhaps). But I still think it’s not the socialism concept that is at fault. It is unrestrained capitalism, the never ending quest for more profit, more security, more power. It is a consequence
    of wealth and the fear of losing it that has lead to ever more interfering government to protect the wealthy.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Can you really see no justification for saving lives vs making profit?

    Unfortunately, try as I might no! I see this as a good to be freely chosen but not a ‘justified demand’ which is what a ‘human right’ supposedly is.

    I have enjoyed the debate also, thank you!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I have enjoyed this discourse and have much to think on. Thanks to all on this great site, good night.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @ rumble “Too much faith in my fellow man”

    I think so. People will give voluntarily but I am not sure it will be enough or regular enough.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I think so. I think individualism could lead to responsibility, competition already exists but with nepotistic politicization. Think of sports people who compete but have respect for each other. When there’s a natural disaster people pull together to help voluntarily and spontaneously. I think there may well be seeming paradox. Is there a shrink in the house?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @Tenant
    @ rumble “Too much faith in my fellow man”
    “I think so. People will give voluntarily but I am not sure it will be enough or regular enough.”

    Think of open source software.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I think the answer depends on how much people would be required to give as a percentage of their disposable income and what that slice leaves them with. It is easier for Bill Gates to give millions to third world project than it is for me to give a few thousand to some causes that I support.

    Anyway, fascinating though this has been, I must also retire!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • little professor says:

    I have nothing sensible to add.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>