[ossi1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

This is the same. Kidding people with half truths. Fine to do it internally if you understand it's not real. Not ok to declare to the outside world as real.

Yeah but George Osborne made crystal ball predictions that the sky would fall in and dressed it up as an official HM Treasury report prior to the vote.

Swings and roundabouts, he didn't need a bus.

[TiredGeek]

Trump likes him, ergo he's not fit for any office.
Trump only wants Boris because then Britain has someone even dumber than him and we'll look even more stupid than the US.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Again that is not quite right though. Did you advise Boris on this, sounds like it!

Internally you may well have talked about gross sales and forgot your rebates. But, when declaring results to the public, companies house, stock exhancge etc, you most definitely declared your net position.

This is the same. Kidding people with half truths. Fine to do it internally if you understand it's not real. Not ok to declare to the outside world as real.

As I said, not good practice but you would be hard pushed to call it lying.

Finance always talked net, it was the sales guys who wanted to forget the rebates

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

As I said, not good practice but you would be hard pushed to call it lying.

Finance always talked net, it was the sales guys who wanted to forget the rebates

What? Are you joking? I referred to companies house and filing your reports, and public information. You could go to prison if you only tell them half the information.

I honestly don't understand your point (again). Yes there was just enough ambiguity within the statement on the side of the bus to avoid a prosecution.

But it was obviously meant as a pretty big statement for the public, or why was it written several feet high on the bus.

Maybe you're being contrary, or just playing devils advocate, but how anyone can say it wasn't deliberately misleading is totally beyond me.

[TouringPleb]

Seems to be a strange Tory leadership campaign. Each is trying to out do the others with promises of harder, faster, deeper Brexit, more coppers, less taxes, and I never thought I'd see this but who's taken the most drugs in their youth.

Strange times.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by ossi1

Yeah but George Osborne made crystal ball predictions that the sky would fall in and dressed it up as an official HM Treasury report prior to the vote.

Swings and roundabouts, he didn't need a bus.

Well looking at last months economy figures and the amount of factory/plant/retail closures recently announced it looks like he was probably right just took longer than he thought.

But don't worry just cry, God for Harry, England, and Saint George! (I think that's the typical brexiters economic plan......)

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I guess the difference is that I used to work in Finance for a company that supplied the big retailers. We could have up to 20% of our sales value going back to them in rebates each year. We didnt used to talk about net sales value, the business (and retailer) always talked about gross sales and then the kickback. So whilst I get why everyone sees it as a lie, to me it is a normal way to talk about things.

But I truly hope everyone thinks he is a liar and he gets nowhere near a position of power because he is a lazy arrogant shit, allegedly!

Really? I find that very strange if not a little scary, I work for a business that supplies over £1 billion into UK retail and the rebates are accrued as the invoice goes out the numbers you see are automatically net.

Who would speak to false numbers? Must be a brexiter thing.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Really? I find that very strange if not a little scary, I work for a business that supplies over £1 billion into UK retail and the rebates are accrued as the invoice goes out the numbers you see are automatically net.

I think you're missing his point though. What he's saying is it's common for businesses to have gross sales prices - and then offer rebates based on various metrics - and internally typically some sales reporting and discussions centre around those gross revenue figures pre-rebate. Of course for the purposes of the accounts what's shown is a net figure post-rebate but quite often it's the finance people who have to keep reminding their sales colleagues that their figures aren't quite as good as they like to make out!

In the context of this thread the figure on the side of the bus was a gross figure and in isolation it was true; however, it clearly wasn't giving the full story without the rebate. Therefore, while it's splitting hairs slightly, IMO the figure on the red bus wasn't a lie, it was a half-truth (i.e. it contained an element of truth but was nevertheless misleading).

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I think you're missing his point though. What he's saying is it's common for businesses to have gross sales prices - and then offer rebates based on various metrics - and internally typically some sales reporting and discussions centre around those gross revenue figures pre-rebate. Of course for the purposes of the accounts what's shown is a net figure post-rebate but quite often it's the finance people who have to keep reminding their sales colleagues that their figures aren't quite as good as they like to make out!

In the context of this thread the figure on the side of the bus was a gross figure and in isolation it was true; however, it clearly wasn't giving the full story without the rebate. Therefore, while it's splitting hairs slightly, IMO the figure on the red bus wasn't a lie, it was a half-truth (i.e. it contained an element of truth but was nevertheless misleading).

It wasn't even a half truth unless you can find the proof that we physically "send" the £350m before our rebates are netted off. Do you honestly believe that happens?

The half truth, as you generously and incorrectly put it, was designed to deceive. Just because it was worded so it could escape a legal challenge, doesn't mean the intention to lie wasn't there.

[TodmordenLad]

To answer your question, Yes.
Although it's Conservative Party members alone who are voting in this circus sideshow, I doubt whether it would make a lot of difference if it were the general public instead.
If turnout is anything to go by, we are a politically apathetic and disengaged nation, and as far as Johnson is concerned, we seem to love and forgive charlatans and bounders, even when they are lying, cheating, self-serving, incompetent c**ts

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I think you're missing his point though. What he's saying is it's common for businesses to have gross sales prices - and then offer rebates based on various metrics - and internally typically some sales reporting and discussions centre around those gross revenue figures pre-rebate. Of course for the purposes of the accounts what's shown is a net figure post-rebate but quite often it's the finance people who have to keep reminding their sales colleagues that their figures aren't quite as good as they like to make out!

I think you're both missing the important part of that though. Report what you want internally. Boris and leave made a public declaration.

If a publicly listed company declared a financial position to the press and ignored half the facts it would be in big trouble. This is what Boris did, he didn't just say it to his colleagues, he declared it to the country.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

I think you're both missing the important part of that though. Report what you want internally. Boris and leave made a public declaration.

If a publicly listed company declared a financial position to the press and ignored half the facts it would be in big trouble. This is what Boris did, he didn't just say it to his colleagues, he declared it to the country.

Which is why the word 'send' was important. As I have understood it, that's what happens. We send it and then the EU sends back whatever we are due in return.

Not for one second am I arguing that it was anything other than a reprehensible and deliberately misleading slogan - to con those who would be worst impacted by us leaving into voting Leave.

It's not a lie though, it's a con trick from some greedy, self-serving, shysters.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

I think you're both missing the important part of that though. Report what you want internally. Boris and leave made a public declaration.

If a publicly listed company declared a financial position to the press and ignored half the facts it would be in big trouble. This is what Boris did, he didn't just say it to his colleagues, he declared it to the country.

Yes, Boris made a public declaration which was a half-truth designed to mislead; however, the figure was debated ad nauseam during the referendum campaign and come voting day you'd have to have been a member of the flat earth society - or possibly on another planet entirely - to seriously believe the £350m was the whole story. It was a rubbish number intended to tempt people to vote Leave in the same way Osborne's immediate recession and emergency budget was a scare tactic to push people towards Remain.

Both sides gilded the lily and made things up in an attempt to secure votes but no great surprise there, it's what politicians do; the surprise is some people are still trying to make an issue out of it three years after the event......

[ossi1]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Well looking at last months economy figures and the amount of factory/plant/retail closures recently announced it looks like he was probably right just took longer than he thought.

But don't worry just cry, God for Harry, England, and Saint George! (I think that's the typical brexiters economic plan......)

I'm not so sure . The report was specifically aimed at the immediate implications of a leave vote and the following two year period and even now it would struggle to hold water. It was simply a scare tactic.

'The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain. '

I mean we can play semantics over a figure on the side of a bus but Osborne was a guy who should have known what he was talking about...and probably did which should raise a few questions in itself.. As I said swings and roundabouts, we all know they a bunch of shysters.

[Bryans69]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

Which is why the word 'send' was important. As I have understood it, that's what happens. We send it and then the EU sends back whatever we are due in return.

Apparently the rebate is deducted before payment is made, so we have never sent that amount in any way, shape or form. Deception at best, lie at worst.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/so-how-much-do...in-pay-the-eu/

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Bryans69

Apparently the rebate is deducted before payment is made, so we have never sent that amount in any way, shape or form. Deception at best, lie at worst.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/so-how-much-do...in-pay-the-eu/

Good research, I knew I'd seen it somewhere. Why on earth would both parties be needlessly transferring billions of pounds in both directions.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Yes, Boris made a public declaration which was a half-truth designed to mislead; however, the figure was debated ad nauseam during the referendum campaign and come voting day you'd have to have been a member of the flat earth society - or possibly on another planet entirely - to seriously believe the £350m was the whole story. It was a rubbish number intended to tempt people to vote Leave in the same way Osborne's immediate recession and emergency budget was a scare tactic to push people towards Remain.

Both sides gilded the lily and made things up in an attempt to secure votes but no great surprise there, it's what politicians do; the surprise is some people are still trying to make an issue out of it three years after the event......

Plenty of voters were on another planet. That's why simple messages like that work, and messages about complicated economic, social and legal relationships don't.

I've seen lots of interviews with people on the street. What is the EU? Dunno. Did you vote leave or remain? Leave. Why? Save the NHS innit bruv. Oh, and too many pakis on the train in the morning. Don't want to sit next to them.

That second bit about the train is an actual quote from one of the parents from our local school. He moved up to Chesterfield from London because he wanted to escape what he saw as an invasion, ruining his daily commute. He said he voted leave for the same reason.

Maybe he's the only one, but I doubt it.

Oh, and as for Osborne, he missed one important factor, the drop in value of the pound boosted UK business. Great for business owners, they get even richer. Shit for Joe Public though, everything costs more.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by ossi1

I'm not so sure . The report was specifically aimed at the immediate implications of a leave vote and the following two year period and even now it would struggle to hold water. It was simply a scare tactic.

'The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain. '

I mean we can play semantics over a figure on the side of a bus but Osborne was a guy who should have known what he was talking about...and probably did which should raise a few questions in itself.. As I said swings and roundabouts, we all know they a bunch of shysters.

Osborne made a prediction of the future, that was wrong. Johnson et al deliberately twisted and hid facts that should not have been open to opinion or predictions. Two entirely different things.

You should be comparing Osborne's predictions to leaves predictions. I.e. A trade deal with the EU would be easy to make, and trade deals with the rest of the world would be completed quickly and our economy would be stronger.

That's where both sides are equal, exaggerating, or rather getting wrong, what may happen in the future.

Manipulating and lying about historical facts is not the same.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

What? Are you joking? I referred to companies house and filing your reports, and public information. You could go to prison if you only tell them half the information.

I honestly don't understand your point (again). Yes there was just enough ambiguity within the statement on the side of the bus to avoid a prosecution.

But it was obviously meant as a pretty big statement for the public, or why was it written several feet high on the bus.

Maybe you're being contrary, or just playing devils advocate, but how anyone can say it wasn't deliberately misleading is totally beyond me.

I said it wasnt lying. I never said it wasnt misleading. The two are different.

I said he was a politician. Say what you can without being held to account for it seems to be their main criteria.

My point was to say that the words chosen were deliberate and not a lie. No more or less.

Obviously all in my humble opinion.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Really? I find that very strange if not a little scary, I work for a business that supplies over £1 billion into UK retail and the rebates are accrued as the invoice goes out the numbers you see are automatically net.

Who would speak to false numbers? Must be a brexiter thing.

Because rebates were invariably based on what they sold on a specific promo and therefore not known at the time of sending out - the stock would stay and be sold after the promo and therefore couldnt be known. Plus some people do only buy 1 when it is buy 1 and get 1 free....

Its a commercial thing... pay what you have agree to pay!

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I said it wasnt lying. I never said it wasnt misleading. The two are different.

I said he was a politician. Say what you can without being held to account for it seems to be their main criteria.

My point was to say that the words chosen were deliberate and not a lie. No more or less.

Obviously all in my humble opinion.

But they were a lie, we don't "send" that money to the EU. So their carefully chosen words were not chosen carefully enough.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Bryans69

Apparently the rebate is deducted before payment is made, so we have never sent that amount in any way, shape or form. Deception at best, lie at worst.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/so-how-much-do...in-pay-the-eu/

So I hadnt seen that, which kind of changes the complexion a tad... !