evidence that there names
appear on a website that lists corporations trading as private companies
this is what Dunn & Bradstreet do , its why they list them - and for no other reason
(information accessed only for a fee by the way - Edit: John Harris or someone he knew paid it and accessed the info - see links)
get it?
ok to use your analogy : a photo of a person walking down the street shows that they were "walking down the street" but it also shows that they were in that street at that time - the listed names show by virtue of them being listed on that website,which only lists tarding for profit private corporations with private shareholders, that they are private corporations
pfffft
christ this is tedious
I really am going to have to go now
(, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 12:55, Share, Reply)
"(information accessed only for a fee by the way)"
Is that why I can't find the same list on the website? Or have I just missed the link?
(, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 12:58, Share, Reply)
...
and for no other reason
Citation required. Again - I don't know enough about corportate law to say whether this is true or not. But I don't see any reason simply to accept that it is. The same objection a applies to your second point.
Moreover, even if local authorities are acting as private businesses, so what? We know that certain local authorities had investments in Icelandic banks. Presumably, this was because that it was decided that a good way to use their income was to generate further income in future through interest - that is, bung, say, a million there and use it to generate a hundred thousand a year into the future. (The figures are made up - but you get the picture.)
None of this looks all that dodgy to me. It might even be a reasonable idea, all else being equal. Now, if this means that the authority is acting as a company, then it's proper that it should have to register as one, and be regulated as such.
This strikes me as a quirk of accountancy.
It does not lead me to your paranoid conclusions.
I repeat that I'm arguing from a position of ignorance. My rebuilding of the picture, though, seems fairly down-to-earth. If I'm wrong, then fine: but you need to bring more to the table to make me see things your way.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 13:05,
Share,
Reply)
"Moreover, even if local authorities are acting as private businesses, so what? We know that certain local authorities had investments in Icelandic banks. Presumably, this was because that it was decided that a good way to use their income was to generate further income in future through interest - that is, bung, say, a million there and use it to generate a hundred thousand a year into the future. (The figures are made up - but you get the picture.)"
nope, there is a big difference from investing public money for further growth on BEHALF of the people to put back into public services etc
this is revenue and investments creating a RETURN FOR PRIVATE SHAREHOLDERS BENEFIT not public
"None of this looks all that dodgy to me. It might even be a reasonable idea, all else being equal. Now, if this means that the authority is acting as a company, then it's proper that it should have to register as one, and be regulated as such"
let's break it down
if it's acting as a private company it's a run for profit corporation who's priority is to raise profits for shareholders - not to create a greater public service
i.e. say a local authority creates a speed camera - if it's operating as a private company it will be doing so to increase revenue ... it's priority will be to put that revenue into private share holders accounts NOT as it says, to put back into public services to make safer roads etc
money which could be used for public services is instead going to private shareholders - and these are authorities we pay taxes to (or more accurately, you do)expecting a return
you see?
"I repeat that I'm arguing from a position of ignorance."
that's pretty obvious from the above, stick to obscure philosophical musings and buttering up your acolytes on the QOTW board
;P
(, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 13:13, Share, Reply)
At the risk of actually knowing something...
I used to work in a revenue generating role, in the revenue generating arm of a public body. It's not uncommon.
The private company is wholly owned by the public body, and all revenues go into their income, rather than to shareholders.
Put it this way, I'm rather proud that my slick sales skills subsidised YOU THE TAXPAYER to the sums of about £1.75m per year. And that's money that didn't have to be found from central government.
(
prince-igor si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 14:49,
Share,
Reply)
that's great
as I said above, public bodies using public money for investments into private companies for a return made transparent and fully accessible for public scrutiny to be ploughed back into services is one thing
having actual public bodies listed themselves as profit making corporations without knowing the fuill transparency of their accounts shareholders etc out of public scrutiny is quite another
personally I would like to know when they create a new statute and fine structure (as they are in vast numbers each year) - such as £80 fine for putting your bin out early if there's for a good reason for it and not as a new revenue stream for private shareholders - who I'd imagine would bid on new proposed statutes as they are created and loan on a proposed expected return
how do you feel knowing Brown just bailed out a privately owned corporation (bank of england) with millionaire shareholders with public money?
also in the US the Fed reserve is also a privately owned company run for profit for shareholders (JP Morgan (strong Vatican connections hence Princess Tony Blair connection) etc, alot of Crown banks too ) IRS taxation is to pay off the interest on the loan... not for public services
btw - not My tax money ;)
(, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 15:04, Share, Reply)
You remind me of this guy.....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic
(
Brandy_Bumwinkle, Wed 25 Mar 2009, 13:45,
Share,
Reply)