andywatson

Good news. I'm relieved and very pleased for you and the cat.

If shops, petrol stations and other retailers etc. pass their reduced card transaction charges back to customers as lower prices that's fine by me. The question is will they? I think in many cases they won't be able to resist keeping it. Often when buying "big ticket" items I've suggested lower prices for debit card or even cash payment but it has rarely been accepted.

Unintended consequences of a law from Brussels. If you have a cashback credit card or loyalty card expect to loose the perks. This will cost me about £150 year on my Capital one credit card http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11529393/Death-of-the-credit-card-perk.html

In which case she should complain to youtube that someone has imitated her and request removal. Mr Baxter has had plenty of opportunity to deny that he or his partner posted the recording both on youtube and facebook but has not done so. Mr Baxter has a track record of enjoying a bit of publicity. If it looks like a dog , it smells like a dog and it barks... It's probably a dog.

The conversation on youtube was posted by Katrina Slomczynski who is Mr Baxter's partner so presumably they are both complicit in this. If publishing a secretly recorded conversation without the permission of all parties concerned is an offence, then Cart have been handed an opportunity on a plate. The thread on NUG facebook has now been removed.

A very good question. I'm glad you asked me that.... Buggered if I know. Especially after reading the page below. http://www.volksbolts.com/about.htm

A quick scan of the NUG facebook thread shows that Mr Baxter: Recently stood as a local councillor. Runs a local business called Volksbolts supplying car parts. Including design, sourcing and supply of out of production parts. http://www.volksbolts.com/about.htm Not activities normally considered consistent with CCing.

Your post 290 stated only that : "pretend money is how stock exchanges work" I am aware that analysts, etc base their values on their best estimate of future earnings. -Which you may call pretend money. However this does not change the fact that shares are dealt by stock exchanges in real money hence the daily historical tables based on actual transaction values. Not some notional future value, or pretend money. What you call your "elegant variation" to me is an attempt to change your statement and not too subtle for me. Too condescending maybe.

You should be OK in the village, below Shardlow Lock and under the road bridge on the right. (coming downhill) There are a few moorings further down on the left near the New Inn and Malt Shovel pubs. If these are full keep going down and you'll find some more on the right after Bridge 1 before Derwent Mouth Lock.

I agree. but you have now changed from pretend money (post 290) to speculative value (post 299). My claim (post 292) is that shares are traded in real not pretend money - and that this is how HMRC see it. Or as real as any money is.

The value of the shares takes value of assets and future earnings into account. It includes investors assessments of both of them.

I don't understand your model. It's like buying or selling a boat. As often quoted on here. Once privatised company is worth what it is when sold - not a penny more , not a penny less. Investors take the same view of companies bearing in mind their assets and estimated future earnings They most likely wouldn't buy a 1bn utility company for 5bn. If you don't think money earned by holding or trading shares is real then put that on your next tax return and let us know how you get on.

The money is real enough for HMRC.

Exactly. I am not disputing the figures. I take issue with your implication that BG was worth 47bn when it was sold for a fraction of 9bn.

My knowledge of Shell, British Gas and BG is due to working for them for 20 years as an engineer.