UK Politics - Bluff and Bluster

[A wilding]

52 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

So you are saying private homeowners selling their properties are getting hosed because of government interference, and saying nothing about it because of 'reasons'? 

There is a little more than that to explain why oligarchs are so fond of the UK: the availability of shell companies that enable them to obscure ownership and conceal assets; a very favourable tax system (i.e. they can avoid paying any); an extremely favourable legal system (e.g. anyone saying anything about them they don't like can be sued into oblivion); status, influence and access all available for sale; etc.

It will be interesting to see how much of this is actually changes as a result of the Ukraine war. My guess, based on the evidence so far, very little.

 

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

I didn't write that, so I don't know why you say I did.

The inference is aiding, abetting, facilitating extremely favorable terms, so on, and so forth, with money changing many hands between the transfer of title to properties.  Not to mention easements of all kinds. Not necessarily illegal, though but certainly neither ethical nor moral, particularly for a political figure.  A very bad look. 

Lordessa knows how the British press, politicos and people howled at the Americans doing it in the Gilded Age, buying up the historical patrimony, marrying the debutants (though usually it was the impecunious Brit lords marrying US robber barons' daughters and getting a new lease on ye hallowed ancestral pile) and buying titles -- and sometimes, as with the husband I think it was? of The Lady Astor of NYC's 400, buying residency as well. And entire subset of fiction, both vulgar and literary, was devoted to these matters, to the great delight of fellows like Julian Fellows. At least as much non-fiction has been published concerning these matters as well, perennial in the perennially popular  'histories' of the posh, infamous and wealthy.  

But one can see a huge difference here in these sales to the USians of yore, as the Brits got back as much as they gave, whereas w/ the Russians it's just the opposite.

 

Seriously though, is there some translation app I can get for this? Does it make sense to anyone else?

[A wilding]

Is there anyone else that @Zorral does not make sense to?

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, A wilding said:

Is there anyone else that @Zorral does not make sense to?

Actually I find Zorral's postings very detailed but quite understandable.

[BigFatCoward]

7 hours ago, A wilding said:

There is a little more than that to explain why oligarchs are so fond of the UK: the availability of shell companies that enable them to obscure ownership and conceal assets; a very favourable tax system (i.e. they can avoid paying any); an extremely favourable legal system (e.g. anyone saying anything about them they don't like can be sued into oblivion); status, influence and access all available for sale; etc.

It will be interesting to see how much of this is actually changes as a result of the Ukraine war. My guess, based on the evidence so far, very little.

 

Those issues are not specific to Russians though are they, she was implying that they were. 

[BigFatCoward]

6 hours ago, maarsen said:

Actually I find Zorral's postings very detailed but quite understandable.

90%. They always throw in some mangled gibberish and/or some paranoid ramblings to spoil what up until that point was a reasoned and detailed post. 

Lordessa knows how the British press, politicos and people howled at the Americans doing it in the Gilded Age, buying up the historical patrimony, marrying the debutants (though usually it was the impecunious Brit lords marrying US robber barons' daughters and getting a new lease on ye hallowed ancestral pile) and buying titles. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

10 hours ago, A wilding said:

There is a little more than that to explain why oligarchs are so fond of the UK: the availability of shell companies that enable them to obscure ownership and conceal assets; a very favourable tax system (i.e. they can avoid paying any); an extremely favourable legal system (e.g. anyone saying anything about them they don't like can be sued into oblivion); status, influence and access all available for sale; etc.

It will be interesting to see how much of this is actually changes as a result of the Ukraine war. My guess, based on the evidence so far, very little.

 

Ofc not, those Etonian Tory Twats are using the same tricks to conceal their wealth from the tax man (cue Cameron and the Panama Papers). So there's little incentive to close those loopholes. Anybody betting against Boris Johnson and his family or Rees-Twat doing it? ATAD being one of the Brexit drivers.

 

[A wilding]

7 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

90%. They always throw in some mangled gibberish and/or some paranoid ramblings to spoil what up until that point was a reasoned and detailed post. 

Lordessa knows how the British press, politicos and people howled at the Americans doing it in the Gilded Age, buying up the historical patrimony, marrying the debutants (though usually it was the impecunious Brit lords marrying US robber barons' daughters and getting a new lease on ye hallowed ancestral pile) and buying titles. 

Certainly the language is certainly picturesque (though I would say "paranoid" is a little strong). But the parallel being made is surely clear enough, even if its applicability could possibly be argued (though I personally see its force). Though I suppose that it does require a certain amount of knowledge of 19th and early 20th century British history.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, A wilding said:

I suppose that it does require a certain amount of knowledge of 19th and early 20th century British history.

Which one presupposes, certainly in the UK Politics thread.  Evidently that shouldn't be expected?

Well, hmm, I am now recalling a Brit poster here who indicated he had no idea what was referred when there was a discussion of the English past as to the Angles and the Saxons. I thought that was a joke that I didn't understand. 

Evidently my delight in English language play is offensive too, since, I guess ... that too ... presupposes a certain amount of knowledge of the varieties of markers, signifiers, dialects, rhetorical devices common to the English language, such as alliteration and repetition, that run back at least as far as Chaucer and Beowulf. 

So then, 'uumble* apologies, most umble indeed from your most 'umble servant.

* Referencing Uriah Heep, from Charles Dickens's David Copperfield (1850), the primary villain in the second half of the novel.

[Raja]

Man, that Boris comment about Ukraine and Brexit is so bad. I know they're desperate to show that Brexit is a success, but that's not the way to go about it. Shameful.

[lessthanluke]

20 hours ago, A wilding said:

Is there anyone else that @Zorral does not make sense to?

I have very little clue what Zorral is trying to say about a quarter of the time.

Mostly makes sense then some random out of nowhere rant that makes no sense and has no relevance to the current conversation. 

[Zorral]

It's a good thing, then, you have sologdin as consolation!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Very, Very Easy Late 19th, Early 20th Century Non-obscure English History and Pop Entertainment pop quiz:

1) Who was Lady Randolph Churchill?

2) Who was  Cora, Countess of Grantham?

3) For what did Lawrence Fox apologize regarding 1917?

Answers:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Randolph_Churchill

https://richardlangworth.com/lee-remick

2) https://www.tatler.com/article/downton-abbey-real-life-inspiration
https://downtonabbey.fandom.com/wiki/Cora_Crawley

3) https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-51233734

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/how-1917-highlights-erased-contributions-indian-soldiers-during-wwi-n1132381

[mormont]

19 minutes ago, Raja said:

Man, that Boris comment about Ukraine and Brexit is so bad. I know they're desperate to show that Brexit is a success, but that's not the way to go about it. Shameful.

The saddest thing is that this is our Prime Minister and genuinely, I don't believe there is a single person on this thread of any poitical persuasion who expected any better from him.

[BigFatCoward]

14 hours ago, Zorral said:

Which one presupposes, certainly in the UK Politics thread.  Evidently that shouldn't be expected?

Well, hmm, I am now recalling a Brit poster here who indicated he had no idea what was referred when there was a discussion of the English past as to the Angles and the Saxons. I thought that was a joke that I didn't understand. 

Evidently my delight in English language play is offensive too, since, I guess ... that too ... presupposes a certain amount of knowledge of the varieties of markers, signifiers, dialects, rhetorical devices common to the English language, such as alliteration and repetition, that run back at least as far as Chaucer and Beowulf. 

So then, 'uumble* apologies, most umble indeed from your most 'umble servant.

* Referencing Uriah Heep, from Charles Dickens's David Copperfield (1850), the primary villain in the second half of the novel.

Fucking right, double down on that shit. Don't let anybody, including me, tell you how to write. 

[Which Tyler]

On 3/20/2022 at 7:17 PM, Raja said:

Man, that Boris comment about Ukraine and Brexit is so bad. I know they're desperate to show that Brexit is a success, but that's not the way to go about it. Shameful.

He now wants to go to Kyiv and have a face to face - basically, he's been out of the spotlight for 5 minutes and he doesn't like it

[Werthead]

 

[The Anti-Targ]

The P&O thing may well not be because of Brexit, but it's hardly a Brexit benefit either (except perhaps to P&O). And when you get Farage outrage tweeting that Brexit was meant to be about protecting UK jobs as a response to the P&O firings, and the union representing the P&O workers recommending vote leave in 2016, on the basis that it would protect UK maritime worker jobs. Then it's clear Brexit has not delivered the job preservation benefit that some people thought they were voting for when promoting leave or casting a leave vote. If the perception was that Brexit was meant to prevent this sort of thing, then the P&O firings are the fault of Brexit in that Brexit did not deliver the allegedly promised job security. Surely since a substantial amount of leave rhetoric was about keeping foreigners away from UK jobs it's not unreasonable for people to conclude these job losses are a Brexit failure. 

[Spockydog]

Didn't take long for the gammons and anti-woke hyenas to being attacking Nazanin Zaghari.

Some of the stuff they are saying is quite disturbing.

Am I surprised, though? Am I fuck.

 

 

[Spockydog]

Really important case before the High Court today. 

 

[A wilding]

I thought that you were going to go for the case in which the journalist has just successfully defended his right to keep his sources anonymous ...

Which was an interesting one, as the source was apparently a self confessed terrorist, but his information helped overturn a miscarriage of justice in which some other people were locked up for his crimes:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-60833230