Brexit negotiation stance - agreed by all 27 member in 15 minutes

[cyprusgrump]

I didn't delete anything. You should check your information.

Jim
.

Ah, perhaps the Tooth fairy removed it then...? because it looks like this now...

[Jim B]

It must have been because it wasn't me.

Jim

[Firefly]

Well someone did, come on own up whoever you are.

Jackie

[Jim B]

Was it you Jackie?

I'll say it again then. Rees Moggs MIL just received a grant of 7.5 million pounds from P Hammonds department; I couldn't get a grant to insulate my loft.

It's all in the FT

Jim

[Royal]

I'll say it again then. Rees Moggs MIL just received a grant of 7.5 million pounds from P Hammonds department; I couldn't get a grant to insulate my loft.

It's all in the FT

Jim

Err, actually, she didn't receive a grant, neither does she own the ancestral home. The charity which owns the home has received the grant for renovations pending saving the house and grounds for the nation...

http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/jacob-ree ... story.html

[Jim B]

She's on the board of Trustees. I'm sure if he had of delved in to his personal fortune made from coal mining (which just happened to be the cause of the houses subsidence ) he could have afforded to have it repaired. And isn't it a coincidence the trust recently lost a court case for 100 million against the government. You couldn't make it up.
Jim

[cyprusgrump]

I'll say it again then. Rees Moggs MIL just received a grant of 7.5 million pounds from P Hammonds department; I couldn't get a grant to insulate my loft.

It's all in the FT

Jim

Err, actually, she didn't receive a grant, neither does she own the ancestral home. The charity which owns the home has received the grant for renovations pending saving the house and grounds for the nation...

http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/jacob-ree ... story.html

Precisely.

[Firefly]

Jim

Did I remove your post ? Oh if only I could

Jackie

[Jim B]

I know you would love to Jackie but then all you would have left is the Self Appreciation Society and wouldn't that be boring.

[Royal]

Jim

Did I remove your post ? Oh if only I could

Jackie

[Royal]

She's on the board of Trustees. I'm sure if he had of delved in to his personal fortune made from coal mining (which just happened to be the cause of the houses subsidence ) he could have afforded to have it repaired. And isn't it a coincidence the trust recently lost a court case for 100 million against the government. You couldn't make it up.
Jim

Jim,

Stop digging your hole even deeper! Your original post (as shown by cyprusgrump) accused Jacob Rees Mogg of receiving from the Chancellor "a £7.6 million grant to do up HIS ancestral home". This was totally false as he did not receive the grant nor is it HIS ancestral home. Your next post on the subject stated that his MIL received the grant of £7.6 million. Again, false. She did not receive the grant and does not own the house for which the grant has been given. As I have pointed out, it is a charity which owns the property and the plan is for the restoration to open up the house for the public to visit and eventually own.

Now, you say that she is on the Board of Trustees and I will take your word for that. However, we have come a long way from Jacob Rees Mogg having his snout in the trough, or indeed his Mother in Law. Everything so far seems perfectly reasonable and above board to me, so you decide to slur him with having made his money from coal mining which actually caused the subsidence in the first place! Do you actually have some evidence that he made his fortune from coal mining or is this just another Jim B fantasy? As far as I can see from his profile, he was a self made millionaire by the age of 16 primarily through shrewd investments.

Give it up Jim.

[cyprusgrump]

She's on the board of Trustees. I'm sure if he had of delved in to his personal fortune made from coal mining (which just happened to be the cause of the houses subsidence ) he could have afforded to have it repaired. And isn't it a coincidence the trust recently lost a court case for 100 million against the government. You couldn't make it up.
Jim

Jim,

Stop digging your hole even deeper! Your original post (as shown by cyprusgrump) accused Jacob Rees Mogg of receiving from the Chancellor "a £7.6 million grant to do up HIS ancestral home". This was totally false as he did not receive the grant nor is it HIS ancestral home. Your next post on the subject stated that his MIL received the grant of £7.6 million. Again, false. She did not receive the grant and does not own the house for which the grant has been given. As I have pointed out, it is a charity which owns the property and the plan is for the restoration to open up the house for the public to visit and eventually own.

Now, you say that she is on the Board of Trustees and I will take your word for that. However, we have come a long way from Jacob Rees Mogg having his snout in the trough, or indeed his Mother in Law. Everything so far seems perfectly reasonable and above board to me, so you decide to slur him with having made his money from coal mining which actually caused the subsidence in the first place! Do you actually have some evidence that he made his fortune from coal mining or is this just another Jim B fantasy? As far as I can see from his profile, he was a self made millionaire by the age of 16 primarily through shrewd investments.

Give it up Jim.

It was probably Thatcher's fault...

[Firefly]

CG

Of course it is, it always will be........whatever the issue happens to be

Jackie

[Jim B]

Royal

So you don't know how it works then; you must have led a very sheltered life.

Jim

PS Read the FT article or is that too left wing for you.

[Royal]

Read the FT article or is that too left wing for you.

I told you before, Jim, sadly, I do actually take the time to read links, and the FT article was no different. There is nothing there which refutes anything I have said, and you have been gratuitous with the facts, preferring instead to blacken the name of a fine and respectable MP to fit in with your skewed views.

So you don't know how it works then; you must have led a very sheltered life.

What on earth do you mean by this? Do you 'know how it works' in some gnostic way that others do not understand?

[Jim B]

OK Royal
Don't you think it strange that the Government fought the Trust in Court over 100 million pound claim, Won and then turns around and gives the same Trust it's been fighting in Court 7.5 million pounds; that is not gratuitous as you suggest, it's the truth. I do know how things work, I've worked in industry all over the world all my life and seen how things happen, nothing mysterious about it, not blackening anyone's name, just trying to explain to you how the wheels are greased.

Over and Out

Jim

[Royal]

Don't you think it strange that the Government fought the Trust in Court over 100 million pound claim, Won and then turns around and gives the same Trust it's been fighting in Court 7.5 million pounds.

No, actually, I don't think it strange (but then I've led a very sheltered life).

The Trust which owns the property raised £7 million of private capital to acquire it for the nation. I note from the article that the reason for the ill repair was the then Labour Government's decision to allow mining in the gardens of this property after nationalising the coal industry in 1945 - hence the litigation to call the present government to account for this act of gross negligence. I'm not privy to why the court case failed, but it may quite likely have been due to the fact that the current owners acquired the property In its current state and are not entitled to the damages that (possibly) the owners at the time (the Fitzwilliams) may have been entitled to.

Nevertheless, Government grants for such renovation projects are neither novel nor contentious - especially when related to our national heritage.

Your attempt to besmirch Jacob Rees Mogg over this matter is deplorable.

[Jim B]

Royal

I will bow to your more informed knowledge and retract any inferred negative comments; please accept my apologies.

jim

[Dominic]

For the record, the post in question wasn't deleted by admin. It was definitely deleted though.

When was it deleted, you all cry?

Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:39 pm.

I know who deleted it. If anybody PMs me asking if it was them, I will confirm it to them via PM, but I am not going to say here, because firstly, they may have deleted it by accident, and secondly, there is nothing wrong with deleting a post you have made, especially if nobody has responded to it. Do not PM me asking if it was somebody else though.

What I find odd, CG, is that you had actually taken a screen print of the post. It was only up for a few minutes! How many screen prints do you have filed away?

[cyprusgrump]

For the record, the post in question wasn't deleted by admin. It was definitely deleted though.

When was it deleted, you all cry?

Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:39 pm.

I know who deleted it. If anybody PMs me asking if it was them, I will confirm it to them via PM, but I am not going to say here, because firstly, they may have deleted it by accident, and secondly, there is nothing wrong with deleting a post you have made, especially if nobody has responded to it. Do not PM me asking if it was somebody else though.

What I find odd, CG, is that you had actually taken a screen print of the post. It was only up for a few minutes! How many screen prints do you have filed away?

Just two as it happens!

I clicked the 'quote' button to reply to the post in question and the system said it no longer existed... So I clicked the back button on my browser and took a screen shot...