Cowes Week sponsor revealed today (From Daily Echo)

BT

So there IS money about.

What a pity that the sponsors, whoever they are, could not put the money into something that would benefit the 'have nots' rather than the 'haves'.

Linesman wrote:
So there IS money about.

What a pity that the sponsors, whoever they are, could not put the money into something that would benefit the 'have nots' rather than the 'haves'.

What about all the tax that the new sponsor will pay to the government? Will this not benefit the 'have nots' if you'll pardon the pun?

Linesman wrote:
So there IS money about. What a pity that the sponsors, whoever they are, could not put the money into something that would benefit the 'have nots' rather than the 'haves'.

Nice sentimental sound bite.
Wish your favourite New Labour had also practised what you are preaching
.

Cows Week is an important event; it is very expensive to run, so sponsorship for it is good news.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Linesman wrote: So there IS money about. What a pity that the sponsors, whoever they are, could not put the money into something that would benefit the 'have nots' rather than the 'haves'.

Nice sentimental sound bite. Wish your favourite New Labour had also practised what you are preaching . Cows Week is an important event; it is very expensive to run, so sponsorship for it is good news.

Cows week may be an important event, because cows produce milk and meat.

Cowes week is a fun week for the few.

Torchie1 wrote:

Linesman wrote: So there IS money about. What a pity that the sponsors, whoever they are, could not put the money into something that would benefit the 'have nots' rather than the 'haves'.

What about all the tax that the new sponsor will pay to the government? Will this not benefit the 'have nots' if you'll pardon the pun?

Sponsorship is considered to be advertising and is set against tax.

Linesman wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Linesman wrote: So there IS money about. What a pity that the sponsors, whoever they are, could not put the money into something that would benefit the 'have nots' rather than the 'haves'.

What about all the tax that the new sponsor will pay to the government? Will this not benefit the 'have nots' if you'll pardon the pun?

Sponsorship is considered to be advertising and is set against tax.

That is correct. It mostly comes out of advertising budgets.
Thanks to this kind of advertising nation has gained some world class sports men and women.
But every sponsorship deal is not guaranteed success, as Conservatised New Labour found out hard way by securing sponsorship from Hindujas for that 'dome' in Greenwich.
You may remember exact amount, which was huge sum given to New Labour by Bernie, it came out of profits made out of sponsorships!
I may not be a fan of Bernie E or his son of fascist Mosley friend, but they showed us the real greedy face of New Labour, didn’t they?

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Linesman wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Linesman wrote: So there IS money about. What a pity that the sponsors, whoever they are, could not put the money into something that would benefit the 'have nots' rather than the 'haves'.

What about all the tax that the new sponsor will pay to the government? Will this not benefit the 'have nots' if you'll pardon the pun?

Sponsorship is considered to be advertising and is set against tax.

That is correct. It mostly comes out of advertising budgets. Thanks to this kind of advertising nation has gained some world class sports men and women. But every sponsorship deal is not guaranteed success, as Conservatised New Labour found out hard way by securing sponsorship from Hindujas for that 'dome' in Greenwich. You may remember exact amount, which was huge sum given to New Labour by Bernie, it came out of profits made out of sponsorships! I may not be a fan of Bernie E or his son of fascist Mosley friend, but they showed us the real greedy face of New Labour, didn’t they?

The plans for the dome, and contracts for its constrution were signed before Labout came to power.
What did you expect them do do?
Do a 'Nimrod'?

With regard 'Thanks to this kind of advertising nation has gained some world class sports men and women.'

So that's who we blame for screwing up in the World Cup?

I wonder how much of their money gets spent in the UK, and how much is spent abroad.

Yes, I suppose we did see the greedy face of New Labour.
The greedy face that saw the introduction of the minimum wage, that the fat cats of industry said they could not afford, and would kill their business.

The greedy humbugs also raised the heating allowance for the elderly and the infirm so that they could keep warm during the winter. (I bet that does not rise with inflation under the new, caring coalition government.)

Just a couple of examples of their greed, so you can feel quite justified to sail your yacht in to Cowes, safe in the knowledge that your entry fee for racing has been reduced, thanks to sponsorship from a company based in Scotland, where there is no hardship just full employment.

Enjoy your champers in the evening!

Linesman wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Linesman wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Linesman wrote: So there IS money about. What a pity that the sponsors, whoever they are, could not put the money into something that would benefit the 'have nots' rather than the 'haves'.

What about all the tax that the new sponsor will pay to the government? Will this not benefit the 'have nots' if you'll pardon the pun?

Sponsorship is considered to be advertising and is set against tax.

That is correct. It mostly comes out of advertising budgets. Thanks to this kind of advertising nation has gained some world class sports men and women. But every sponsorship deal is not guaranteed success, as Conservatised New Labour found out hard way by securing sponsorship from Hindujas for that 'dome' in Greenwich. You may remember exact amount, which was huge sum given to New Labour by Bernie, it came out of profits made out of sponsorships! I may not be a fan of Bernie E or his son of fascist Mosley friend, but they showed us the real greedy face of New Labour, didn’t they?

The plans for the dome, and contracts for its constrution were signed before Labout came to power. What did you expect them do do? Do a 'Nimrod'? With regard 'Thanks to this kind of advertising nation has gained some world class sports men and women.' So that's who we blame for screwing up in the World Cup? I wonder how much of their money gets spent in the UK, and how much is spent abroad. Yes, I suppose we did see the greedy face of New Labour. The greedy face that saw the introduction of the minimum wage, that the fat cats of industry said they could not afford, and would kill their business. The greedy humbugs also raised the heating allowance for the elderly and the infirm so that they could keep warm during the winter. (I bet that does not rise with inflation under the new, caring coalition government.) Just a couple of examples of their greed, so you can feel quite justified to sail your yacht in to Cowes, safe in the knowledge that your entry fee for racing has been reduced, thanks to sponsorship from a company based in Scotland, where there is no hardship just full employment. Enjoy your champers in the evening!

Are you sure you are not confusing New Labour with semi socialist Old Labour?
Yes it was Barbra Castle who linked pensions with earnings. The link that was abolished by that woman Thatcher whom tory Blair praised and Bungler Brown invited to Downing Street to feed with tax payer's money
.
So hardly surprising although dear old Barbra Castle kept on campaigning for the link to be restored till her death New Labour not only refused to ditch the evil policy of Thatcher but also insulted pensioners with 75p per week pension rise
.
If these traitors, most of whom came to Labour from Liberals and Tories and hijacked the party of the people, had even an ounce of socialism in their right wing virtual Tory blood they would have awarded pensioners decent pensions, and peanut concessions you have mentioned would not have been necessary
.
Is it not clever of you not to mention how much out of pensions pot was misused by Bungler Brown?
.
Hardly surprising most of New Labour supporters like your good self can only make excuses for New Labour on this and various other sites under assumed IDs and don't dare to put your real names on the posts.

I feel so sorry for a person who is so keen to sit down at his computer and inform everyone that he thinks Labour should still be in the age of the Blackboard and Easel.

You appear to be prepared to 'move with the times', but want Labour to remain in the dark ages.

It is because it was unwilling to change that it was in the political wilderness for so many years.

You want conditions to change, but want Labour to revert to the days of Kier Hardy.

With regard your comments on the sponsorship of Cowes week.

If advertising is so beneficial to the economy, why the hell are you not complaining about the closure of the BBC Overseas Service?

That has built up an unenviable reputation world-wide, and is an excellent advertisment for the United Kingdom.

That is being closed down, or at least reduced, under the administration of The Party of Big Business.

Linesman wrote:
I feel so sorry for a person who is so keen to sit down at his computer and inform everyone that he thinks Labour should still be in the age of the Blackboard and Easel. You appear to be prepared to 'move with the times', but want Labour to remain in the dark ages. It is because it was unwilling to change that it was in the political wilderness for so many years. You want conditions to change, but want Labour to revert to the days of Kier Hardy. With regard your comments on the sponsorship of Cowes week. If advertising is so beneficial to the economy, why the hell are you not complaining about the closure of the BBC Overseas Service? That has built up an unenviable reputation world-wide, and is an excellent advertisment for the United Kingdom. That is being closed down, or at least reduced, under the administration of The Party of Big Business.

Those overpaid idiots of Sky should have questioned not that brilliant lady's ability on offside rule but yours!
When was I ever asked about my views on BBC world service?
It may shock you but I am against cutting of relatively reliable services provided by BBC to many areas of our earth.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Linesman wrote: I feel so sorry for a person who is so keen to sit down at his computer and inform everyone that he thinks Labour should still be in the age of the Blackboard and Easel. You appear to be prepared to 'move with the times', but want Labour to remain in the dark ages. It is because it was unwilling to change that it was in the political wilderness for so many years. You want conditions to change, but want Labour to revert to the days of Kier Hardy. With regard your comments on the sponsorship of Cowes week. If advertising is so beneficial to the economy, why the hell are you not complaining about the closure of the BBC Overseas Service? That has built up an unenviable reputation world-wide, and is an excellent advertisment for the United Kingdom. That is being closed down, or at least reduced, under the administration of The Party of Big Business.

Those overpaid idiots of Sky should have questioned not that brilliant lady's ability on offside rule but yours! When was I ever asked about my views on BBC world service? It may shock you but I am against cutting of relatively reliable services provided by BBC to many areas of our earth.

I was commenting on you and your outlook.

It is you that is prepared to live in the computer age, but you still want the Labour Party to live in the past.

If Clement Attlee were still alive and leader of the Labour Party, with his cabinet members still with him, working to the same manifesto, the party would never have been elected again.

The needs of the country when he achieved success at the polls is vastly different to the needs now.

Michael Foot was an old-school socialist, but although he was a very intelligent man, great debater and orator, he did not stand a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a Labour Prime Minister. Similarly Kinnock.

Until you can come to terms with the fact that Labour today cannot hope to form a government if it does not move with the times, and does not think that the policies that produced success in 1947 are appropriate for the 21st century.

Linesman wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Linesman wrote: I feel so sorry for a person who is so keen to sit down at his computer and inform everyone that he thinks Labour should still be in the age of the Blackboard and Easel. You appear to be prepared to 'move with the times', but want Labour to remain in the dark ages. It is because it was unwilling to change that it was in the political wilderness for so many years. You want conditions to change, but want Labour to revert to the days of Kier Hardy. With regard your comments on the sponsorship of Cowes week. If advertising is so beneficial to the economy, why the hell are you not complaining about the closure of the BBC Overseas Service? That has built up an unenviable reputation world-wide, and is an excellent advertisment for the United Kingdom. That is being closed down, or at least reduced, under the administration of The Party of Big Business.

Those overpaid idiots of Sky should have questioned not that brilliant lady's ability on offside rule but yours! When was I ever asked about my views on BBC world service? It may shock you but I am against cutting of relatively reliable services provided by BBC to many areas of our earth.

I was commenting on you and your outlook. It is you that is prepared to live in the computer age, but you still want the Labour Party to live in the past. If Clement Attlee were still alive and leader of the Labour Party, with his cabinet members still with him, working to the same manifesto, the party would never have been elected again. The needs of the country when he achieved success at the polls is vastly different to the needs now. Michael Foot was an old-school socialist, but although he was a very intelligent man, great debater and orator, he did not stand a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a Labour Prime Minister. Similarly Kinnock. Until you can come to terms with the fact that Labour today cannot hope to form a government if it does not move with the times, and does not think that the policies that produced success in 1947 are appropriate for the 21st century.

My dear friend,
I respect your views but do not share parts of those. Just like I do not agree with large chunks of what New Labour stands for but still voted for their candidate on the basis ‘the devil I know is safer than the devil I don’t know’.
In your case at least the views are of somebody who is not keen on Tories, a consolation!
I do not believe that much has changed since times you have mentioned apart from supply of Labour, which immediately after the war was very short.
Otherwise gap between wealthy and the poor is greater, housing still a problem, country’s infrastructure and industrial bases in a mess, although this time not due to Hitler’s bombing but due to Thatcher and ‘thatcherism’ implemented by New Labour. And of course country is under huge debt once again.
Only thing that has changed is perceptions, right wing media has encouraged new pregnancy of misunderstanding.
Any way I don’t think we are going to agree so better let us agree to disagree…At the end of the day I don’t see enemy on the left but it is on the right, yes on that basis you do a very good job and I genuinely respect you for that.
Viva Socialism
Kind regards

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Linesman wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Linesman wrote: I feel so sorry for a person who is so keen to sit down at his computer and inform everyone that he thinks Labour should still be in the age of the Blackboard and Easel. You appear to be prepared to 'move with the times', but want Labour to remain in the dark ages. It is because it was unwilling to change that it was in the political wilderness for so many years. You want conditions to change, but want Labour to revert to the days of Kier Hardy. With regard your comments on the sponsorship of Cowes week. If advertising is so beneficial to the economy, why the hell are you not complaining about the closure of the BBC Overseas Service? That has built up an unenviable reputation world-wide, and is an excellent advertisment for the United Kingdom. That is being closed down, or at least reduced, under the administration of The Party of Big Business.

Those overpaid idiots of Sky should have questioned not that brilliant lady's ability on offside rule but yours! When was I ever asked about my views on BBC world service? It may shock you but I am against cutting of relatively reliable services provided by BBC to many areas of our earth.

I was commenting on you and your outlook. It is you that is prepared to live in the computer age, but you still want the Labour Party to live in the past. If Clement Attlee were still alive and leader of the Labour Party, with his cabinet members still with him, working to the same manifesto, the party would never have been elected again. The needs of the country when he achieved success at the polls is vastly different to the needs now. Michael Foot was an old-school socialist, but although he was a very intelligent man, great debater and orator, he did not stand a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a Labour Prime Minister. Similarly Kinnock. Until you can come to terms with the fact that Labour today cannot hope to form a government if it does not move with the times, and does not think that the policies that produced success in 1947 are appropriate for the 21st century.

My dear friend, I respect your views but do not share parts of those. Just like I do not agree with large chunks of what New Labour stands for but still voted for their candidate on the basis ‘the devil I know is safer than the devil I don’t know’. In your case at least the views are of somebody who is not keen on Tories, a consolation! I do not believe that much has changed since times you have mentioned apart from supply of Labour, which immediately after the war was very short. Otherwise gap between wealthy and the poor is greater, housing still a problem, country’s infrastructure and industrial bases in a mess, although this time not due to Hitler’s bombing but due to Thatcher and ‘thatcherism’ implemented by New Labour. And of course country is under huge debt once again. Only thing that has changed is perceptions, right wing media has encouraged new pregnancy of misunderstanding. Any way I don’t think we are going to agree so better let us agree to disagree…At the end of the day I don’t see enemy on the left but it is on the right, yes on that basis you do a very good job and I genuinely respect you for that. Viva Socialism Kind regards

Like you, I did not agree with large parts of what was done under both Blair and Brown, but by the same token I do not think that everything that was done under Thatcher was bad (although, for the life of me, I would need considerable time to identify anything good!)

The Labour Party has always been 'a broad church'. It is the differences of opinion within the party that has enabled it to grow and adapt to the needs of the time.

"Anyway I don't think we are going to agree so better let us agree to disagree."

I have read many of your comments, and think that we share more opinions than those on which we disagree.