Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

F1 Abu Dhabi GP

31 views
Skip to first unread message

Jeff Layman

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 8:17:49 AM12/12/21
to
For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.

--

Jeff

MB

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 9:02:46 AM12/12/21
to
On 12/12/2021 13:17, Jeff Layman wrote:
> For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.

No interest in watching cars driving around in circles.

Andy Burns

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 9:06:08 AM12/12/21
to
Jeff Layman wrote:

> For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.

Thanks, I was due to go out, but change of plan, other than Silverstone, is it
the only live race they've shown this season?

Jeff Layman

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 9:11:19 AM12/12/21
to
Didn't they show the British GP live?

--

Jeff

Pamela

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 9:20:18 AM12/12/21
to
It wouldn't be so monotonous if there was a bit more overtaking.

As far as I can tell, the general idea is for viewers to wait until a
mistake is made -- but that can take half a hour.

Jeff Layman

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 9:27:45 AM12/12/21
to
For once this has been an exciting GP, and is going right up to the line.

--

Jeff

JNugent

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 9:37:03 AM12/12/21
to
On 12/12/2021 01:17 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:

> For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.

What about of us who couldn't care less?

[Racing on TV - any sort of it - is deadly B O R I N G.]

JNugent

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 9:37:22 AM12/12/21
to
+1.

charles

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 9:43:25 AM12/12/21
to
In article <sp4vu5$ub1$1...@dont-email.me>, Jeff Layman
that was at Silverstone

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Jeff Layman

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 10:00:08 AM12/12/21
to
On 12/12/2021 14:42, charles wrote:
> In article <sp4vu5$ub1$1...@dont-email.me>, Jeff Layman
> <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2021 14:06, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>
>>>> For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
>>>
>>> Thanks, I was due to go out, but change of plan, other than
>>> Silverstone, is it the only live race they've shown this season?
>
>> Didn't they show the British GP live?
>
> that was at Silverstone

Of course! Doh...

--

Jeff

Sn!pe

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 10:23:41 AM12/12/21
to
What a pity it had such a farcical finish.

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

williamwright

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 10:26:55 AM12/12/21
to
It doesn't concern you then!

Bill

Jeff Layman

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 10:46:18 AM12/12/21
to
"You might wish to think that, but I couldn't possibly comment..."

--

Jeff

Jeff Layman

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 10:48:08 AM12/12/21
to
It was for that very reason I started the post with "For anyone
interested...", but it seems even that doesn't keep the critics away!

--

Jeff

Mark Carver

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 11:38:14 AM12/12/21
to
On 12/12/2021 14:36, JNugent wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 01:17 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>> For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
>
> What about of us who couldn't care less?

You seem to care a bit, you've made two contributions to this thread already

Adrian Caspersz

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 12:29:52 PM12/12/21
to
When I was young, I had a Mattel electric car racing set. They were
small battery operated cars that ye placed on the track and watched spin
round and round, until they randomly crashed out of the track or their
overcharged nicads ran down.

No hand controllers, nothing. Zero skill.

Such fun ....

--
Adrian C

JNugent

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 12:46:18 PM12/12/21
to
Only to point out the mistake of thinking that everyone is interested in
sport, let alone in the more boring sports.

williamwright

unread,
Dec 12, 2021, 12:53:47 PM12/12/21
to
I think that taking the trouble to say you aren't interested in
something is weird. I mean, I'm not interested in nearly everything but
I don't trawl the internet commenting "I'm not interested in New Zealand
tiddlywinks competitions," or "I'm not interested in the history of
Etruscan pottery."

"And what are you interested in?"
"I'm really interested in saying I'm not interested when people say
anything whatsoever."

Bill

Pamela

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 2:41:05 AM12/13/21
to
What exactly is the attraction? I have tried watching but it's so
monotonous. Nothing happens.

Brian Gaff (Sofa)

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 3:30:31 AM12/13/21
to
Yes well, Its all gone mega commercial these days. I hear that if you take
pictures at the event then try to publish them they are likely to come after
you as they own all the rights to photos taken in the venue. The world has
gone mad.
What next, fines for breathing somebody elses clean air perhaps?
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Jeff Layman" <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:sp4spq$2di$1...@dont-email.me...

Brian Gaff (Sofa)

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 3:31:43 AM12/13/21
to
I'm surprised by now they have not simply moved the drivers to a studio and
let them drive the cars remotely.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"MB" <M...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:sp4ve4$gk7$3...@dont-email.me...

Jeff Layman

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 3:32:42 AM12/13/21
to
For most races I would agree, but yesterday we had Perez holding up
Hamilton for several laps so Verstappen could catch up. As the radio
link from Hamilton to the Mercedes team noted on-screen "There's some
dangerous driving going on here". Then the "virtual" safety car appeared
which allowed Verstappen to change to softer tyres which had him
catching up, although not quickly enough - it would probably have taken
another couple of laps past the 58 for him to do so due to Hamilton's
failing tyres. Then we had the crash and real safety car, which allowed
Verstappen another change of tyres and to close up further, but even
that wouldn't have been enough without the extraordinary decision by the
race stewards to allow the lapped cars between Verstappen and Hamilton
to overtake the safety car (but not the other lapped cars behind
Verstappen) and so allow Verstappen to come up behind Hamilton for the
last lap. That effectively guaranteed Verstappen to be the winner.

Mercedes have said they will appeal the decision concerning the safety
car and lapped cars, but it won't make any difference.

Anyway, it was exciting enough to make all the main TV news yesterday
evening and much of the papers today.

If I've got any of that wrong, corrections welcomed.

--

Jeff

Brian Gaff (Sofa)

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 3:34:15 AM12/13/21
to
Is this not the fault of the circuit designers though? If there were more
overtaking opportunities then there would be some racing, at the moment it
seems that defensive driving can in effect keep faster cars and drivers out
of the picture.
Maybe each car should have its own lane.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Pamela" <pamela.priv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsADFE91D...@144.76.35.252...

MB

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 4:03:41 AM12/13/21
to
On 13/12/2021 08:30, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> Yes well, Its all gone mega commercial these days.


I remember one report explaining how the drivers are sponsored by a
number of companies so will wear one cap when they take off their helmet
off, then change to another when they get out of the car, another when
they go up on the podium etc etc!

Just gets very silly.

MB

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 4:05:48 AM12/13/21
to
On 13/12/2021 08:34, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> Is this not the fault of the circuit designers though? If there were more
> overtaking opportunities then there would be some racing, at the moment it
> seems that defensive driving can in effect keep faster cars and drivers out
> of the picture.
> Maybe each car should have its own lane.

They could have a pick-up rail for electrical power down each of those
tracks, oooops toy manufacturers have already thought of that!

Roderick Stewart

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 4:06:46 AM12/13/21
to
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 08:31:39 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)"
<bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>I'm surprised by now they have not simply moved the drivers to a studio and
>let them drive the cars remotely.
> Brian

There's a near equivalent of this already in the many online channels
showing people playing computer games. I don't understand the appeal
of it myself, but it seems to be popular. Think about it - you're
watching somebody on a screen who's watching somebody on a screen, who
isn't really there. If the on-screen game that the on-screen players
were playing were a car racing game, the result would be pretty much
what you describe - and what difference would it really make to the
viewers at home whether or not the cars were real?

Rod.

MB

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 5:00:22 AM12/13/21
to
On 13/12/2021 09:06, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> There's a near equivalent of this already in the many online channels
> showing people playing computer games. I don't understand the appeal
> of it myself, but it seems to be popular. Think about it - you're
> watching somebody on a screen who's watching somebody on a screen, who
> isn't really there. If the on-screen game that the on-screen players
> were playing were a car racing game, the result would be pretty much
> what you describe - and what difference would it really make to the
> viewers at home whether or not the cars were real?

There seem lots of sports events where people in the audience can only
really see what is happening from a large screen.

alan_m

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 5:40:02 AM12/13/21
to
They used to get out of the car and put a sponsor's watch on. Possibly
better than USA motor racing when the after race interview only seems to
be to name as many sponsors as possible.

I have a passing interest in F1 but I don't watch the practice,
qualifying, pre or post race build-ups/let-downs. I also find that
watching edited highlights is more entertaining than watching a whole
live race. I definitely wouldn't pay a TV subscription to watch it and
if it was not Free To Air I wouldn't miss it.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

charles

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 6:30:01 AM12/13/21
to
In article <sp729c$ja4$1...@dont-email.me>,
I can remember seeing a film crew with Velcro patches on their jackets.
They then attached the relevant company logo.

Sysadmin

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 7:45:43 AM12/13/21
to
How did your neighbour's son get on Bill..?

williamwright

unread,
Dec 13, 2021, 12:14:32 PM12/13/21
to
The situation hasn't changed. No help from any official body.

Bill

Chris Green

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 5:18:04 AM12/14/21
to
Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
>
> Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.

That's very clever! :-)

--
Chris Green
·

alan_m

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 6:32:37 AM12/14/21
to
On 14/12/2021 09:39, Martin wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
>
> Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.


Only if they pay enough.

Mark Carver

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 7:09:06 AM12/14/21
to
On 14/12/2021 11:32, alan_m wrote:
> On 14/12/2021 09:39, Martin wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman
>> <jmla...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
>>
>> Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
>
>
> Only if they pay enough.
>
There's no way they can afford it. If Sky do lose it, it'll be going to
Amazon or Netflix, not any UK PSBs

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 9:36:50 AM12/14/21
to
In article <sp729c$ja4$1...@dont-email.me>, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:
I stopped watching 'sports' like F1 many decades ago as they seemed boring
to me. Albeit they may be enjoyable by drivers. If so, good luck to them.

However what I did find weird was now learning that - apparently - when the
'safety car' comes out and the contestants have to queue up behind it, no
account is taken if one was many seconds behind the other just beforehand,
and hence this difference then gets 'lost' when the 'safety car' leaves.

To me that seems daft. I'd have assumed they had a way to add a 'handicap
time' to each car. One which perhaps was then reduced by X seconds per
later lap so it was gradually smoothed away. Lacking this it becomes in the
interest of someone well behind in 2nd or 3rd position to have their team
or a mate engineer an event that causes a 'safety car' episode and lets
then 'catch up'. Failing that, you may as well throw dice to decide who
'won'.

For me, just underlined how daft it was - except perhaps for those who make
loadsamoney from the racing regardless of who wins any individual race.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Andy Burns

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 10:20:05 AM12/14/21
to
Martin wrote:

> Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>> For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
>
> Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.

I ask again ... cite?

AnthonyL

unread,
Dec 14, 2021, 3:33:37 PM12/14/21
to
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:20:02 +0000, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Well after discussing this with a few dozen people the consensus is
now that F1 has become a soap opera which is really in the domain of
Ch4 and none of us will be paying any premium to watch soap.

And they/we won't bother watching the soap if they know the
manipulated storylines so it has to be live to maintain some semblance
of suspense.

Masi has dramatically devalued the franchise with decisions he's
invented this season and sponsors are already looking at their
options.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

Brian Gaff (Sofa)

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 5:56:36 AM12/15/21
to
Yes I'm waiting for F1 drone racing as we speak, or how about submarine
racing?
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"AnthonyL" <nos...@please.invalid> wrote in message
news:61b8fe12....@news.eternal-september.org...

Mark Carver

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 8:57:32 AM12/15/21
to
On 15/12/2021 13:39, Martin wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 11:32:33 +0000, alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 14/12/2021 09:39, Martin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
>>> Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
>>
>> Only if they pay enough.
> In The Netherlands next year not only will the biggest cable company, Ziggo,
> provide full F1 coverage at no extra cost as they did this year, but public
> service broadcaster NOS will too. Are the Dutch getting a bargain or is somebody
> UK exaggerating the cost?
According to this only Ziggo hold the NL rights.

https://www.sportingfree.com/f1/formula-1-tv-channels-list/

Have you got a link to the NOS deal, if they have live FTA coverage, why
would anybody watch on Ziggo  ?

MB

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 8:59:21 AM12/15/21
to
On 15/12/2021 13:34, :
> I can remember seeing a film crew with Velcro patches on their jackets.
> They then attached the relevant company logo.

We were issued with jackets at work with company name held by Velcro so
it was easy to change each they changed the company name. :-)

Sn!pe

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 9:26:28 AM12/15/21
to
Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 11:32:33 +0000, alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 14/12/2021 09:39, Martin wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:17:46 +0000, Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
> >>
> >> Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
> >
> >
> >Only if they pay enough.
>
>
> Whoever buys Channel 4 will pay the bill
>

I read speculation somewhere that the existing C4 board were
contemplating signing up for expensive FI coverage as a means
of poisoning the proposed forced sale of the channel.

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

JNugent

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 9:45:58 AM12/15/21
to
On 15/12/2021 02:26 pm, Sn!pe wrote:

> Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>> alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 14/12/2021 09:39, Martin wrote:
>>>> Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> For anyone interested, C4 are showing the final GP live. It's on now.
>
>>>> Channel 4 will show all F1 live in future.
>
>>> Only if they pay enough.
>
>> Whoever buys Channel 4 will pay the bill
>>
> I read speculation somewhere that the existing C4 board were
> contemplating signing up for expensive FI coverage as a means
> of poisoning the proposed forced sale of the channel.

An Act of Parliament would soon sort that out, if necessary.

The mere prospect of a sale should be enough to steer Bernie E towards
Sky Sports, Netflix or Amazon.

PS: remember when C4 started, and Jeremy & co announced that it would
not show any sports?

charles

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 9:48:22 AM12/15/21
to
In article <spcsbn$d77$3...@dont-email.me>,
I'd never though of that being the reason. makes sense, though.

Andy Burns

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 9:51:50 AM12/15/21
to
JNugent wrote:

> The mere prospect of a sale should be enough to steer Bernie E

who he?

> towards Sky Sports, Netflix or Amazon.

Sky seem to have live F1 exclusives in most of europe, with local broadcaster
getting their own country's local race

Mark Carver

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 10:07:07 AM12/15/21
to
On 15/12/2021 14:45, JNugent wrote:
>
> PS: remember when C4 started, and Jeremy & co announced that it would
> not show any sports?

No, your memory is very faulty. C4 from the very outset showed sports,
sports that BBC and ITV had ignored.
Notably American Football.

Although in 1983 ITV persuaded the IBA to let them palm Horse Racing off
onto them on weekdays, (but it only displaced the test card anyway).

JNugent

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 10:47:23 AM12/15/21
to
On 15/12/2021 02:51 pm, Andy Burns wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>
>> The mere prospect of a sale should be enough to steer Bernie E
>
> who he?

Ecclestone?

The one who gave a million pounds to the Labour Party and was exempted
from a tobacco advertising ban. I'm sure there was no connection between
those two things. Oh no, not at all.

He's the one who owns F1, isn't he?

Ah... the internet says "no". He was replaced in 2017.

Well... it was close enough.

JNugent

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 10:49:32 AM12/15/21
to
On 15/12/2021 03:07 pm, Mark Carver wrote:

> On 15/12/2021 14:45, JNugent wrote:
>
>> PS: remember when C4 started, and Jeremy & co announced that it would
>> not show any sports?
>
> No, your memory is very faulty. C4 from the very outset showed sports,
> sports that BBC and ITV had ignored.
> Notably American Football.

When did that start? It wasn't in 1982 - was it?

[Fancy "ignoring" American football!]

> Although in 1983 ITV persuaded the IBA to let them palm Horse Racing off
> onto them on weekdays, (but it only displaced the test card anyway).

That was when the ITV companies still had a certain amount of control
over C4, wasn't it?

Mark Carver

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 11:29:54 AM12/15/21
to
On 15/12/2021 15:49, JNugent wrote:
> On 15/12/2021 03:07 pm, Mark Carver wrote:
>
>> On 15/12/2021 14:45, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> PS: remember when C4 started, and Jeremy & co announced that it
>>> would not show any sports?
>>
>> No, your memory is very faulty. C4 from the very outset showed
>> sports, sports that BBC and ITV had ignored.
>> Notably American Football.
>
> When did that start? It wasn't in 1982 - was it?

Nov 2nd 1982
>
> [Fancy "ignoring" American football!]
>
>> Although in 1983 ITV persuaded the IBA to let them palm Horse Racing
>> off onto them on weekdays, (but it only displaced the test card anyway).
>
> That was when the ITV companies still had a certain amount of control
> over C4, wasn't it?

They had to finance C4 from their own pockets. In exchange for that,
they sold and transmitted the ads on C4 in their own regions.
That arrangement lasted until Jan 1993, and in effect it made the
channel  'ITV 2' in all but name (However, still with the IBA waving
their stick)

JNugent

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 11:36:27 AM12/15/21
to
On 15/12/2021 04:29 pm, Mark Carver wrote:

> On 15/12/2021 15:49, JNugent wrote:
>> On 15/12/2021 03:07 pm, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2021 14:45, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> PS: remember when C4 started, and Jeremy & co announced that it
>>>> would not show any sports?
>
>>> No, your memory is very faulty. C4 from the very outset showed
>>> sports, sports that BBC and ITV had ignored.
>>> Notably American Football.
>>
>> When did that start? It wasn't in 1982 - was it?

> Nov 2nd 1982

That was certainly the date that Four started transmissions.

When did they start their American football relays?

Mark Carver

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 11:49:03 AM12/15/21
to
On 15/12/2021 16:36, JNugent wrote:
> That was certainly the date that Four started transmissions.
>
> When did they start their American football relays?

It was the first weekend that month (Nov 6/7th) I think, but certainly
they started at some point in Nov 1982

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 12:37:20 PM12/15/21
to
The main 'feature' of F1 racing that I've been aware of in recent years has
been the reports wrt the main British driver has been described as
arranging his income and weath to dodge UK tax. Yet gets presented as the
'British' driver to admire.

Maybe the TV presenters do much the same, and see this as part of being
'British'. The ultra-wealthy do seem to treat tax-dodging as a 'sport'. or
'race' to see who can get the most money out of sight as fast as possible.
8-]

Jim


In article <spchl2$3ve$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff \(Sofa\)
<bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes I'm waiting for F1 drone racing as we speak, or how about submarine
> racing? Brian

--

JNugent

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 12:50:12 PM12/15/21
to
Really?

I am sure that my memory of Mr Isaacs declaring that there would be no
sport on Four is not a faulty one.

charles

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 1:14:32 PM12/15/21
to
In article <j1uo6i...@mid.individual.net>,
perhaps American Football isn't a sport?

Mark Carver

unread,
Dec 15, 2021, 1:20:34 PM12/15/21
to
10 seconds worth of ceaseless surfing brings up this :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_sport_on_Channel_4

williamwright

unread,
Dec 16, 2021, 6:04:46 AM12/16/21
to
On 15/12/2021 12:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> The main 'feature' of F1 racing that I've been aware of in recent years has
> been the reports wrt the main British driver has been described as
> arranging his income and weath to dodge UK tax. Yet gets presented as the
> 'British' driver to admire.
>
> Maybe the TV presenters do much the same, and see this as part of being
> 'British'. The ultra-wealthy do seem to treat tax-dodging as a 'sport'. or
> 'race' to see who can get the most money out of sight as fast as possible.
> 8-]

Nothing wrong with any of that. We all sell our labour to the highest
bidder. At least that's what those of us with any sense do. I think it's
strange that in a capitalist society some people think that individuals
should display philanthropy by voluntarily missing out on opportunities
to amass capital. There's nothing clever or moral about leaving yourself
short.

If I excelled at anything to the extent that I could corner a market I'd
exploit the situation to the max. Then I'd have the option of
philanthropic giving according to my own judgement.

Bill

Andy Burns

unread,
Dec 16, 2021, 7:49:15 AM12/16/21
to
Martin wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Sky seem to have live F1 exclusives in most of europe, with local broadcaster
>> getting their own country's local race
>
> All F1 races are shown live in both The Netherlands and Germany by local
> broadcasters.

The German RTL used to show all F1 races live on FTA satellite (19E2), but in SD
only, it was supposed to stop last year, except I think Sky threw them a few
crumbs this year.

williamwright

unread,
Dec 16, 2021, 8:33:52 AM12/16/21
to
On 15/12/2021 13:59, MB wrote:
> We were issued with jackets at work with company name held by Velcro so
> it was easy to change each they changed the company name.

Velcro is good if you have a need to change your reg plates frequently.

Bill

williamwright

unread,
Dec 16, 2021, 8:49:19 AM12/16/21
to
On 15/12/2021 16:36, JNugent wrote:
>> Nov 2nd 1982
>
> That was certainly the date that Four started transmissions.

C4 transmitted a test card on ch41 from Emley Moor for a year. The
modulators in VCRs mostly covered that channel, and it was surprising
how many of them used it. A bit chaotic when the test card started.

During that year the guy who had the contract to service the communal TV
systems for one of the local councils went round fitting notch filters
at the head-ends to kill ch41. When programmes started and tenants
complained of poor or no reception of the new channel he charged £15 PER
DWELLING to 'add equipment to enable reception of Channel Four'. Not
bad, £15 x 14 per 14 block, £15 x 60 per 60 block, etc.

Bill

JNugent

unread,
Dec 16, 2021, 9:49:36 AM12/16/21
to
I hadn't heard that, though I remember it as a potential problem for
Channel 5 in the run-up to launch. IIRC, Thames Television, recently
having lost their London franchise, decided not to bid for the fifth
channel simply because of the (as it turns out, over-rated) estimates of
cost of efforts to retune VCRs.

Where I lived in south Lancs, I could get a picture (of sorts) from
Elmley Moor. It was a bit snowy, so I concluded that from my location,
it was almost, but not quite, in a straight line behind Winter Hill. But
YTV was quite watchable - handy when they were showing a different film
from the one shown by Granada.

When the first Videostar machine arrived in 1979, there was no problem
with tuning to its output frequency, though Channel 6 on the TV was less
than ideal - the top of a picture used to breakaway to the left, as
though there was interference. That was cured when I changed the TV and
the last numbered channel was tailored for VCR (with undistorted images).

Everything was rented in those days. The VCR cost £19.95 a month.
Equivalent to about £109 in 2021!

And E180 tapes were £18.95 each (equalling about £103 today). I never
bought any at that price. Trident sold them at £10.95.



Mark Carver

unread,
Dec 16, 2021, 11:56:03 AM12/16/21
to
On 16/12/2021 13:49, williamwright wrote:
> On 15/12/2021 16:36, JNugent wrote:
>>> Nov 2nd 1982
>>
>> That was certainly the date that Four started transmissions.
>
> C4 transmitted a test card on ch41 from Emley Moor for a year. The
> modulators in VCRs mostly covered that channel, and it was surprising
> how many of them used it. A bit chaotic when the test card started.

Also, I gather NRK in Norway contacted the IBA, because it was causing
CCI on the input feed to one of their relays.

Mark Carver

unread,
Dec 16, 2021, 12:03:36 PM12/16/21
to
On 16/12/2021 11:40, Martin wrote:
>>> In The Netherlands next year not only will the biggest cable company, Ziggo,
>>> provide full F1 coverage at no extra cost as they did this year, but public
>>> service broadcaster NOS will too. Are the Dutch getting a bargain or is somebody
>>> UK exaggerating the cost?
>>
>> Have you got a link to the NOS deal, if they have live FTA coverage, why
>> would anybody watch on Ziggo  ?
>
> NOS are doing Zandvoort F! live and summaries of the rest; similar to Channel 4
> with British F1. Ziggo are doing all races. I can't explain why NOS are doing
> this.
>
Well, that makes far more sense, but I was questioning your original
assertion (made in your post yesterday (15/12/21  13:39 GMT) that NOS
are providing live coverage of ALL F1 races ?

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 16, 2021, 12:53:37 PM12/16/21
to
In article <j20kqb...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 15/12/2021 12:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > The main 'feature' of F1 racing that I've been aware of in recent
> > years has been the reports wrt the main British driver has been
> > described as arranging his income and weath to dodge UK tax. Yet gets
> > presented as the 'British' driver to admire.
> >
> > Maybe the TV presenters do much the same, and see this as part of
> > being 'British'. The ultra-wealthy do seem to treat tax-dodging as a
> > 'sport'. or 'race' to see who can get the most money out of sight as
> > fast as possible. 8-]

> Nothing wrong with any of that.

Not if *you're* happy to pay the loss of income for the 'levelling up',
etc, that Tax is used for.


But it seems odd to play up how wonderful they are for 'Britain.


> We all sell our labour to the highest bidder. At least that's what those
> of us with any sense do. I think it's strange that in a capitalist
> society some people think that individuals should display philanthropy
> by voluntarily missing out on opportunities to amass capital. There's
> nothing clever or moral about leaving yourself short.

> If I excelled at anything to the extent that I could corner a market I'd
> exploit the situation to the max. Then I'd have the option of
> philanthropic giving according to my own judgement.

> Bill

I'm sure many drug dealers would agree with you.

Jim

williamwright

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 12:33:13 AM12/17/21
to
Yes and that was when the ERP was reduced. Until then it was about 3dB
above the other three, and at the time I was nursing some small systems
that really needed replacement. The extra bit of signal and extra
channel were enough to cause cross-mod because the amps were running
flat out (because the early 1960s networks were very lossy). I had to
reduce the gain which was the last thing you'd want to do on those
systems. Thing is, they were only 14-blocks and the cost of channel
filters was disproportionate since the systems were going to be replaced
anyway when the money became available.

What made it worse was that some of these systems had old Jaybeam
aerials that happened to have a gain curve more-or-less centred on ch41!

Mind you the Norwegians were always a mardy lot. Didn't they have a moan
about Bilsdale at one point?

Bill

williamwright

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 12:37:48 AM12/17/21
to
On 16/12/2021 17:33, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Not if*you're* happy to pay the loss of income for the 'levelling up',
> etc, that Tax is used for.

It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who's being
tax efficient. It's a characteristic of the left to regard personal
morality as being more important than simple compliance to the tax laws.
If it's wrong what the rich kids do, the law should be changed.

Bill

Mark Carver

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 3:07:34 AM12/17/21
to
On 17/12/2021 05:33, williamwright wrote:
>
> Mind you the Norwegians were always a mardy lot. Didn't they have a
> moan about Bilsdale at one point?
>
>
Quite possibly, but then so did Yorkshire TV !


williamwright

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 8:37:51 AM12/17/21
to
Yes of course!

Bill

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 10:03:12 AM12/17/21
to
In article <j22m19...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 16/12/2021 17:33, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Not if*you're* happy to pay the loss of income for the 'levelling
> > up', etc, that Tax is used for.

> It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who's being
> tax efficient.

OK, so you're happy to pay more tax to cover for them. But why assume you
can also impose that on the rest of us mugs?


> It's a characteristic of the left to regard personal
> morality as being more important than simple compliance to the tax laws.

Nice use of "compliance" there. :-) cf below...

> If it's wrong what the rich kids do, the law should be changed.

The snag being that the 'law' and its application is largely decided by the
"rich kids" and their chumocracy. Yes, the law *should* be changed. That's
been true for decades. But for some odd reason those who gain power and
weath seem to forget this once they have gained the wealth and power. Odd,
eh?...

But it still seems odd to trumpet someone as a wonderful 'British' exemplar
when they dodge tax on a scale that means either less for our NHS, etc, or
you and me have to pay more because they dodge.

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 10:03:13 AM12/17/21
to
In article <j22uq3...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
But they're Southeners! ... at least so far as JJ, me, and Norway are
concerned. 8-]

Robin

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 1:01:03 PM12/17/21
to
On 17/12/2021 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j22m19...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
> <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 16/12/2021 17:33, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> Not if*you're* happy to pay the loss of income for the 'levelling
>>> up', etc, that Tax is used for.
>
>> It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who's being
>> tax efficient.
>
> OK, so you're happy to pay more tax to cover for them. But why assume you
> can also impose that on the rest of us mugs?
>
>
>> It's a characteristic of the left to regard personal
>> morality as being more important than simple compliance to the tax laws.
>
> Nice use of "compliance" there. :-) cf below...
>
>> If it's wrong what the rich kids do, the law should be changed.
>
> The snag being that the 'law' and its application is largely decided by the
> "rich kids" and their chumocracy. Yes, the law *should* be changed. That's
> been true for decades. But for some odd reason those who gain power and
> weath seem to forget this once they have gained the wealth and power. Odd,
> eh?...
>

If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the
1980s.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

MB

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 2:02:49 PM12/17/21
to
On 17/12/2021 18:01, Robin wrote:
> If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
> 1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the
> 1980s.

Labour's Richard Burgon (not the brightest of people) has been
repeatedly claiming he would raise £69 million from a "top 10% wealth
tax" but he has now spent the same £69 million many times!

Also it has been shown in the past that increasing taxes actually bring
in less to the Exchequer.

Richard Burgon’s £69 Billion Answer to Everything
https://order-order.com/page/2/


williamwright

unread,
Dec 17, 2021, 2:54:29 PM12/17/21
to
On 17/12/2021 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who's being
>> tax efficient.
> OK, so you're happy to pay more tax to cover for them. But why assume you
> can also impose that on the rest of us mugs?
>
>
No, re-read what I said.

Bill

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 18, 2021, 5:46:18 AM12/18/21
to
In article <j2487i...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
OK< so you're NOT happy about this. So what do you propose we do to change
the situation?

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 18, 2021, 5:46:18 AM12/18/21
to
In article <f8d02ef6-85b2-c13d...@outlook.com>, Robin
<r...@outlook.com> wrote:

> If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
> 1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the
> 1980s.

Not really. The Ultra-High Wealthy generally aren't *in* such stats because
they can afford to appear 'not really here in the UK' so far as income or
wealth are concerned. So the official figures for the "top x%" are just for
those that *don't* hide their wealth or income.

The 'invisible' ones use tricks that let them gain wealth 'outwith the UK'
by means other than a 'salary', etc.

OK, they may have had to stump up a million quid to buy a UK passport, but
then all else is done via companies outwith the UK. So they stay in, say, a
big house 'owned' by a non-UK company, etc, when they 'visit' the UK. They
have a UK passport, along with others. A non-UK company holds the wealth
and gets any income - using tax dodges that make it seem like 'costs' for
any UK arm.

e.g. The trick where chain brand shops pay huge royalties on that brand
name, etc, to a non-UK company that 'owns the franchise'. Here it is
treated as a business *cost*, but is profit - abroad - for the owners. Big
examples include well known coffee shops and opticians and 'chemists' shop
chains. They get tax deductions, we lose the tax, the profits go abroad.
The owners can buy a UK passport if they wish, and then 'visit' the UK to
use property owned abroad.

UK Government welcomes them - particularly the ones that make generous
donations to political parties, etc. Ermine becomes a prospect. And thus
the money-go-round continues in plain sight, but largely beyond UK tax.

No real income here, wealth not taxed, nothing to see, move along...

MB

unread,
Dec 18, 2021, 6:32:14 AM12/18/21
to
On 18/12/2021 10:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> UK Government welcomes them - particularly the ones that make generous
> donations to political parties, etc. Ermine becomes a prospect. And thus
> the money-go-round continues in plain sight, but largely beyond UK tax.

Not exclusive to the UK government, the Scots play the same game on a
smaller scale and of course the Irish gave many companies and wealthy
people low tax rates.

The previous head of the EU (forgotten his name, the one that was
usually drunk), in his previous post as Luxembourg PM gave low tax rates
to many big multinationals like Amazon so they would operate from there
(at least on paper).

In the US, individual states do the same.

JNugent

unread,
Dec 18, 2021, 12:04:39 PM12/18/21
to
So many things which be=g other questions, but...

"...then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."

How does that work?

williamwright

unread,
Dec 18, 2021, 1:02:25 PM12/18/21
to
On 18/12/2021 10:45, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j2487i...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
> <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 17/12/2021 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not to the rich guy who's
>>>> being tax efficient.
>>> OK, so you're happy to pay more tax to cover for them. But why assume
>>> you can also impose that on the rest of us mugs?
>>>
>>>
>> No, re-read what I said.
>
> OK< so you're NOT happy about this. So what do you propose we do to change
> the situation?
>
> Jim
>


I haven't said a word about whether I'm happy about it not. I said that
my happiness or otherwise is immaterial to the rich guy. He's entitled
to pay whatever tax the law demands and not a penny more.

Bill

charles

unread,
Dec 18, 2021, 1:19:03 PM12/18/21
to
In article <j26il5...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
In this village, the old Georgian Rectory is owned by a Swedish Investment
Company. It is used by that company's UK boss.

Robin

unread,
Dec 18, 2021, 4:07:21 PM12/18/21
to
On 18/12/2021 10:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Can you demonstrate the failures of successive UK governments by naming
countries that have tackled the issue of the super-rich successfully? NB
by "successfully" I mean to get more tax from such people as opposed to
making sure those people don't spend much time/money in the country.
That would serve to eliminate the possibility that it's just plain
fucking difficult to tax the income and gains of the super rich - as
opposed to telling them to fuck off and spend/invest their money elsewhere.

Similarly, as regards the corporations which shift profits, can you name
countries which have tackled them more successfully than the UK? It's
15+ years since I worked with people who grappled day by day with the
issue (in the UK and in the OECD) but the UK was of course constrained
by treaties. (Including the EU: some of us remember M&S v Halsey.) But
I've been encouraged by the progress made recently through the OECD with
the two-pillar plan. If you reckon the UK governments could have dealt
with it unilaterally, how?

JNugent

unread,
Dec 18, 2021, 7:48:47 PM12/18/21
to
Is "this village" in the UK or abroad?

Roderick Stewart

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 5:38:06 AM12/19/21
to
On Sat, 18 Dec 2021 21:07:19 +0000, Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:

>Can you demonstrate the failures of successive UK governments by naming
>countries that have tackled the issue of the super-rich successfully?

One thing that the monetary system conspicuously lacks, unlike nearly
every other system I can think of, is a maximum limit on the amount
any individual can possess. Elsewhere there are power limits,
temperature limits, pressure limits, speed limits and so on, so that
nothing gets out of hand, but not with money. Sadly, the time when it
might have been practical to implement such a thing is probably long
past, as the richest entities on the planet are now more powerful than
any government, and can easily keep the latter under control simply by
offering places for their snouts in the same trough.

Rod.

MB

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 6:09:26 AM12/19/21
to
On 19/12/2021 10:38, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> One thing that the monetary system conspicuously lacks, unlike nearly
> every other system I can think of, is a maximum limit on the amount
> any individual can possess.

Could only work under a totalitarian system.

Can you imagine the reaction of all the football fans when told that all
their best players will be leaving the country?

Similarly all their favourite TV stars and pop singers.

etc etc.


Roderick Stewart

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 7:54:46 AM12/19/21
to
Yes, it would have to apply to the concept of money itself, so that it
applied everywhere. It wouldn't work if different countries had
different rules. We already have some differences in the tax rules
between countries and people exploit those, so presumably they'd
exploit any other differences that they could.

But somehow we've managed to achieve international co-operation
regarding the value of money, which is effectively just tokens that
don't have any real intrinsic value, and people mostly respect that
system without the need for totalitarian government, so in theory it
should be possible to modify it to include limits.

Rod.

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 10:35:03 AM12/19/21
to
In article <j26il5...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> So many things which be=g other questions, but...

> "...then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."

> How does that work?

IIUC the going rate for buying a UK passport is about a million quid. If
you show you've got that kind of wealth, you can get a passport. You can
then fly in and stay here. The live in a property 'owned by a company
outwith the UK'. You ensure that - so far as IRC are concerned, get no pay
from any UK source. But the offshore company allows you to stay there
without charging you rent. (And of course, you own that company.)

Lots of ultra-high-worth (sic) people do this in London. There was a recent
book doumenting it. I did buy a copy. I'll see if I can find it so I can
give the title and author. As books go, it is boring, but the facts it
lists are illuminating.

You can add in all the land - lots of it in Scotland - that is owned by
offshore companies and then used in this way. I think some of them also
have private heliports so the 'visitors' can get to and from the local
airports without having to stoop to travelling along the roads that mere
'locals' use.

Private Eye has also often documented this, and its links with the Tories.
There was an interesting item on Jacob Reely-Smug in the latest issue.
Byzantine financial arrangements. When it comes to tax dodging, Balony
Baffle Brains, eh? Particularly when UK Government has cut back the number
of people at IRC who can investigate. Just add in LLPs, tax havens that
fail to disclose benrficial ownership, etc. Stir to mix up an opaque soup
of tax dodging and wealth-concealment.

The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official figures.
They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 10:35:03 AM12/19/21
to
In article <j26m1f...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:


> I haven't said a word about whether I'm happy about it not. I said that
> my happiness or otherwise is immaterial to the rich guy. He's entitled
> to pay whatever tax the law demands and not a penny more.

Even when he pays the politicians to arrange that he can dodge tax, rather
than contribute to when you need the NHS?

You seem remarkably devoid of any concern for the burden their behaviour
dumps on others. Like the 'left behind' who need 'levelling up', not being
dumped.

If so, you may be a part of the problem for those who struggle with
poverty, etc.

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 10:35:04 AM12/19/21
to
In article <7fc9d08b-66cf-ba33...@outlook.com>, Robin
<r...@outlook.com> wrote:
> Can you demonstrate the failures of successive UK governments by naming
> countries that have tackled the issue of the super-rich successfully?

Nope. Since I live in the UK (pro tem) my concern is for how people here
are being exploited via tax dodging. I'm sure similar games are deployed
elsewhere as well, but that's where it becomes useful to have the various
discoveries like the "Panama Papers", etc. If you look there you can
probably answer your own questions.

Yes, the ultra-wealthy do play countries off against each others. Just as
the bribe... erm support policians who let them do it. cf below...

I can say that allowing dodges like LLPs and the use of tax havens that
fail to disclose beneficial ownership need to be ended so we can get a
clearer view to decide who should actually pay tax in the UK. Similarly,
I'd say that when legal eagles come up with a new 'cunning plan' to dodge
tax it should need to be 'registered' in some way which can be decided
openly by UK Government *before* it can legally be employed.

If other Governments have different ideas, that's for them to decide.


> I've been encouraged by the progress made recently through the OECD with
> the two-pillar plan. If you reckon the UK governments could have dealt
> with it unilaterally, how?

You tell us if you have special knowledge of the area. Clearly the current
system is broken, so should be changed. The corruption it breeds extends to
the top - as some 'Lords' could admit if honest about how they gained
ermine!

My personal view at present is that we need a wealth tax to be applied to
those who fall into the category of non-doms or visitors who 'stay' in big
properties 'owned outwith the UK'. In reality the main result of the
present system is to drive up land and property prices. Which is a big
problem for ordinary citizens.

CF PE Ad Naus. Write to them if it bothers you. :-)

Jim

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 10:35:04 AM12/19/21
to
In article <j27drc...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > In this village, the old Georgian Rectory is owned by a Swedish
> > Investment Company. It is used by that company's UK boss.

> Is "this village" in the UK or abroad?

As an aside I can say that the Scots Government has legislated for a full
*public* register of all Land Ownership which can then be scrutinised. One
of the main reasons for this is to expose where the problem exists and then
deal with it. It has also passed other related legislation which at present
those 'down south' can currently only dream about.

e.g. to allow groups of tenants to buy their land and cease to be tenants
of a controlling estate who charges them for the priviledge.

e.g.2. The effective abolition of what in England is 'leasehold'.

So changes *are* possible if people decide they've had enough of being
taken for mugs. You can see some examples if you just look across a close
border.

Beware Lawyers and Accountants who will tell you the situation can't be
improved. They may mean *their* situation, not yours! :-) Note also - as
also in the MOD - the tendency for Civil Servants to 'go native'. Also cf
PE ad Naus wrt the "Revolving Door" effect here. "Nothing can be done for
the first time!" can be a mantra that lives on long after "Yes minister".
8-]

JNugent

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 10:57:18 AM12/19/21
to
>You've missed the point, which wasn't the slightest bit complicated.

You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."

How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?

JNugent

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 10:59:22 AM12/19/21
to
On 19/12/2021 10:59 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j27drc...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>> In this village, the old Georgian Rectory is owned by a Swedish
>>> Investment Company. It is used by that company's UK boss.
>
>> Is "this village" in the UK or abroad?
>
> As an aside I can say that the Scots Government has legislated for a full
> *public* register of all Land Ownership which can then be scrutinised. One
> of the main reasons for this is to expose where the problem exists and then
> deal with it. It has also passed other related legislation which at present
> those 'down south' can currently only dream about.
>
> e.g. to allow groups of tenants to buy their land and cease to be tenants
> of a controlling estate who charges them for the priviledge.
>
> e.g.2. The effective abolition of what in England is 'leasehold'.
>
> So changes *are* possible if people decide they've had enough of being
> taken for mugs. You can see some examples if you just look across a close
> border.
>
> Beware Lawyers and Accountants who will tell you the situation can't be
> improved. They may mean *their* situation, not yours! :-) Note also - as
> also in the MOD - the tendency for Civil Servants to 'go native'. Also cf
> PE ad Naus wrt the "Revolving Door" effect here. "Nothing can be done for
> the first time!" can be a mantra that lives on long after "Yes minister".
> 8-]

The "aside" has nothing to do with my question and does not answer it.

But you've snipped so much of the context that I can't now be bothered
to restate it.

Robin

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 12:01:30 PM12/19/21
to
On 19/12/2021 10:50, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <7fc9d08b-66cf-ba33...@outlook.com>, Robin
> <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> Can you demonstrate the failures of successive UK governments by naming
>> countries that have tackled the issue of the super-rich successfully?
>
> Nope. Since I live in the UK (pro tem) my concern is for how people here
> are being exploited via tax dodging. I'm sure similar games are deployed
> elsewhere as well, but that's where it becomes useful to have the various
> discoveries like the "Panama Papers", etc. If you look there you can
> probably answer your own questions.
>
> Yes, the ultra-wealthy do play countries off against each others. Just as
> the bribe... erm support policians who let them do it. cf below...
>
> I can say that allowing dodges like LLPs and the use of tax havens that
> fail to disclose beneficial ownership need to be ended so we can get a
> clearer view to decide who should actually pay tax in the UK. Similarly,
> I'd say that when legal eagles come up with a new 'cunning plan' to dodge
> tax it should need to be 'registered' in some way which can be decided
> openly by UK Government *before* it can legally be employed.
>
> If other Governments have different ideas, that's for them to decide.


So we have no evidence that what you want is achievable in a democracy
where government is subject to the rule of law.

>> I've been encouraged by the progress made recently through the OECD with
>> the two-pillar plan. If you reckon the UK governments could have dealt
>> with it unilaterally, how?
>
> You tell us if you have special knowledge of the area. Clearly the current
> system is broken, so should be changed. The corruption it breeds extends to
> the top - as some 'Lords' could admit if honest about how they gained
> ermine!


I make no claims of special knowledge beyond a few bits of work on tax
policy and legislation up to 2005. And that serves mainly to confirms
an observation I'd also make about other areas of public policy: many
people seem convinced they know not just what they /should/ be done but
that it /could/ be done in practice but for useless/venal politicians
and officials. And that includes people who would scorn similar
comments on their own fields of expertise.

> My personal view at present is that we need a wealth tax to be applied to
> those who fall into the category of non-doms or visitors who 'stay' in big
> properties 'owned outwith the UK'. In reality the main result of the
> present system is to drive up land and property prices. Which is a big
> problem for ordinary citizens.
>
> CF PE Ad Naus. Write to them if it bothers you. :-)

IMO Richard Brooks has done some good work as a journalist but tends to
be long on identifying problems and short on solutions. And comes with
an agenda (as he did when he was a tax inspector).

MB

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 12:10:22 PM12/19/21
to
On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official figures.
> They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.

What is wrong with that, I doubt any of them are a drain on the NHS.
They usually provide employment in rural areas, often the main employer.

A few years ago we visited the house owned by one of wealthiest people,
there is small community around the estate with a whole range of
activities, the house is rented out some of the time when they are away,
many local businesses and craftsmen have benefited from work done there.



Robin

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 12:38:07 PM12/19/21
to
On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
A few brief points:

a. nothing new in this: much the same under Labour governments

b. oh, wait, something's changed. The flat owned by a foreign company
will (assuming it's worth >£500,000) be subject to the Annual Tax on
Enveloped Dwellings. That's a tax introduced when the Tories were in
government in 2013

c. the individual will pay taxes such as VAT in the UK and the company
council tax or business rates

d. you omit to say what the solution is - ie what tax the UK should
charge the individual if they have no income or gains or property in the
UK. Be nice to have at least some idea.

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 12:57:51 PM12/19/21
to
In article <ogaurgllt729p2h3d...@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes, it would have to apply to the concept of money itself, so that it
> applied everywhere. It wouldn't work if different countries had
> different rules.

cf below

> We already have some differences in the tax rules
> between countries and people exploit those, so presumably they'd exploit
> any other differences that they could.

No doubt. Countries do, indeed, run different tax systems - e.g. Scotland
now differs from England. But those differences also lead to offseting
other changes. e.g. If UHW people can't dodge tax via exploiting
'ownership' the costs of owning a home or factory or office in the UK may
well be reduced. Which could be very helpful.

> But somehow we've managed to achieve international co-operation
> regarding the value of money, which is effectively just tokens that
> don't have any real intrinsic value, and people mostly respect that
> system without the need for totalitarian government, so in theory it
> should be possible to modify it to include limits.

Yes. Indeed, different countries *do* have different tax regimes, etc, etc.

So the idea that we can't possibly change anything would be a myth.

Hence we can decide to make changes that benefit most ordinary honest
people even if it upsets a few high-wealth tax dodgers.

The main problem is that our Goverment and much of the print media is run
by them, for them. Chumocracy International.

The secondary level is all the schemes and devices they use to hide what
goes on, so we can't easily recognise the detail and scope, and deal
with it.

PE ad naus, for example.

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 12:57:51 PM12/19/21
to
In article <spn3t4$jcs$1...@dont-email.me>, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 19/12/2021 10:38, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> > One thing that the monetary system conspicuously lacks, unlike nearly
> > every other system I can think of, is a maximum limit on the amount
> > any individual can possess.

> Could only work under a totalitarian system.

> Can you imagine the reaction of all the football fans when told that all
> their best players will be leaving the country?

In terms of tax dodging, many probably already have!

> Similarly all their favourite TV stars and pop singers.

As above, I suspect.

However if the *players* are what they enjoy, no doubt a multinational TV
company will still sell fans access to view much as they do now. And who
knows, maybe some younger teens may get a chance to play for their favoured
UK team and become a success. It may also cause fans to realise that some
current 'stars' cost them more than the high price of game tickets and TV
viewing by dodging tax so that the fans end up paying more tax and/or
having a poorer NHS, etc.

williamwright

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 1:20:01 PM12/19/21
to
On 19/12/2021 10:38, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j26m1f...@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
> <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I haven't said a word about whether I'm happy about it not. I said that
>> my happiness or otherwise is immaterial to the rich guy. He's entitled
>> to pay whatever tax the law demands and not a penny more.
>
> Even when he pays the politicians to arrange that he can dodge tax, rather
> than contribute to when you need the NHS?

So are you saying that the government is complicit in large scale
corruption?

>
> You seem remarkably devoid of any concern for the burden their behaviour
> dumps on others. Like the 'left behind' who need 'levelling up', not being
> dumped.

I haven't seen anything to show that the lawful management of tax
liability of the rich significantly impacts on the poor. You postulate a
'burden' with no evidence of its existence.

>
> If so, you may be a part of the problem for those who struggle with
> poverty, etc.
And if your groundless hypothesis has no basis in fact I'm not part of
the problem. In fact, I could be part of the solution. You never know...

Bill

MB

unread,
Dec 19, 2021, 2:17:25 PM12/19/21
to
On 19/12/2021 15:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> However if the*players* are what they enjoy, no doubt a multinational TV
> company will still sell fans access to view much as they do now. And who
> knows, maybe some younger teens may get a chance to play for their favoured
> UK team and become a success. It may also cause fans to realise that some
> current 'stars' cost them more than the high price of game tickets and TV
> viewing by dodging tax so that the fans end up paying more tax and/or
> having a poorer NHS, etc.

They are not going to touch a football unless paid many millions of
pounds so it does not seem top fit with the claim of a maximum income.

I suspect most here are "dodging" tax with tax relief on mortgages,
pensions etc.



BrightsideS9

unread,
Dec 20, 2021, 5:07:21 AM12/20/21
to
Most dodging tax on mortgages, tell me more and how.

--
brightside S9, how

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 20, 2021, 5:13:29 AM12/20/21
to
In article <spnp1s$glk$1...@dont-email.me>, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official
> > figures. They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.

> What is wrong with that,

Un-snip what prompted the comment to find out.

"Robin" had commented that:

] If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
] 1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the
] 1980s.


I was respnding to that. cf below...

> I doubt any of them are a drain on the NHS.

My response was that this "top 1%" don't include a group of other
ultra-rich people who for tax purposes are 'phantoms' in the UK because
they arrange for their income and wealth to all manifest *outside* the
UK - even when they live here. And they gather money from here and then
shift it abroad.

They *do* dodge the taxes that helps fund the NHS. Again, go back to what
you snipped alleging that the "top x% paid Y% of UK tax". That statement is
false because many of the "top" income and wealth people hide it abroad. So
don't show up on these official figures.

This has been documented multiple times by many investigative journaliists.
cf PE, 'Panama Papers" etc, etc, ad naus over decades now.

The reality, as exposed in a variety of investigations, is that this loss
to us is quite substantial. So consider if they, say, had to pay up. It
might mean a similar sum to the "30%" being *added* to our tax take. That
could make a dramatic impact on funding for the NHS, Social Care, or
even the much-fabled "levelling up" for those in areas of the UK where
decent jobs, housing, transport, etc, are scarce.

> They usually provide employment in rural areas, often the main employer.

> A few years ago we visited the house owned by one of wealthiest people,
> there is small community around the estate with a whole range of
> activities, the house is rented out some of the time when they are away,
> many local businesses and craftsmen have benefited from work done there.

Wonderful. So how does that compare with the tax they dodge and the effect
they have on lifting land and property prices in general? Maybe hard to
answer given that the real info is hidden from us. The problem is that
the collude with top politicians and own the newspapers, so hide in
plain sight.

Sure, *some* of the ultra-rich like to show how generous and kind they
are. But does that come close to what they'd contribute if they *all*
paid tax, etc, without the dodging? All your comment does is take us
back to the fudal system and relying on the Lord of the Manor being
a 'jolly good chap' when the feel like it.

Jim Lesurf

unread,
Dec 20, 2021, 5:13:29 AM12/20/21
to
In article <j2932r...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."

> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?

Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking about
something I didn't write.

JNugent

unread,
Dec 20, 2021, 7:08:24 AM12/20/21
to
On 19/12/2021 06:00 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j2932r...@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> You said: "[they] then 'visit' the UK to use property owned abroad..."
>
>> How can anyone "visit property abroad" while in the UK?
>
> Your've converted "OWNED abroad" into just "abroad". So you're asking about
> something I didn't write.

Not at all.

How can one use the UK to visit property that isn't in the UK?

JNugent

unread,
Dec 20, 2021, 7:13:30 AM12/20/21
to
On 19/12/2021 06:07 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <spnp1s$glk$1...@dont-email.me>, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 19/12/2021 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> The result is that the most wealthy don't appear in the official
>>> figures. They are the "0%" off the graph at the top.
>
>> What is wrong with that,
>
> Un-snip what prompted the comment to find out.
>
> "Robin" had commented that:
>
> ] If the system is rigged to favour the rich it's a bit odd that the top
> ] 1% pay close to 30% of all income tax - more than at any time since the
> ] 1980s.
>
>
> I was respnding to that. cf below...
>
>> I doubt any of them are a drain on the NHS.
>
> My response was that this "top 1%" don't include a group of other
> ultra-rich people who for tax purposes are 'phantoms' in the UK because
> they arrange for their income and wealth to all manifest *outside* the
> UK - even when they live here. And they gather money from here and then
> shift it abroad.
>
> They *do* dodge the taxes that helps fund the NHS. Again, go back to what
> you snipped alleging that the "top x% paid Y% of UK tax". That statement is
> false because many of the "top" income and wealth people hide it abroad. So
> don't show up on these official figures.

That does not militate against what the PP said. He said that 1% of the
UK's population (not people who live elsewhere - sheesh!) pay 30% of the
UK's income tax receipts.

Is that correct or incorrect?

Please note that the fact that some other people pay tax elsewhere is
not relevant to the answer.

> This has been documented multiple times by many investigative journaliists.
> cf PE, 'Panama Papers" etc, etc, ad naus over decades now.

What has?

That some people don't live in the UK and don't pay income tax here?

> The reality, as exposed in a variety of investigations, is that this loss
> to us is quite substantial. So consider if they, say, had to pay up. It
> might mean a similar sum to the "30%" being *added* to our tax take. That
> could make a dramatic impact on funding for the NHS, Social Care, or
> even the much-fabled "levelling up" for those in areas of the UK where
> decent jobs, housing, transport, etc, are scarce.

"could"

Do you know what the term "weasel words" means?

>> They usually provide employment in rural areas, often the main employer.
>
>> A few years ago we visited the house owned by one of wealthiest people,
>> there is small community around the estate with a whole range of
>> activities, the house is rented out some of the time when they are away,
>> many local businesses and craftsmen have benefited from work done there.
>
> Wonderful. So how does that compare with the tax they dodge and the effect
> they have on lifting land and property prices in general?

Please provide the evidence upon which you rely for asserting that the
people referred to by the PP dodge taxes or "lift land and property
prices in general".

> Maybe hard to
> answer given that the real info is hidden from us.

Lack of information doesn't seem to stop you from reaching - or leaping
to - conclusions, does it?

> The problem is that
> the collude with top politicians and own the newspapers, so hide in
> plain sight.

Evidence, please.

> Sure, *some* of the ultra-rich like to show how generous and kind they
> are. But does that come close to what they'd contribute if they *all*
> paid tax, etc, without the dodging? All your comment does is take us
> back to the fudal system and relying on the Lord of the Manor being
> a 'jolly good chap' when the feel like it.

Evidence that they don't pay tax?

No, I thought not...
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages