Jump to content
  • The above Banner is a Sponsored Banner.

    Upgrade to Premium Membership to remove this Banner & All Google Ads. For full list of Premium Member benefits Click HERE.

AndrewSL76

Platinum Premium Member
  • Content Count

    1,610
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9
  • Feedback

    100%
  • Country

    United Kingdom

AndrewSL76 last won the day on April 30

AndrewSL76 had the most liked content!

8 Followers

About AndrewSL76

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London
  • Stacker/Collector
    Both

My Precious Metals

  • What I am collecting / Investing in
    1. PCGS PR70DCAM Quarter Sovereigns, Half Sovereigns and Sovereigns; 2. Bullion Sovereigns and 1oz Britannia; and 3. Silver bits of history.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,986 profile views
  1. That would make sense, I guess. Everyone seems to be crowdfunding these days. Just as Gina Miller was seen as a flag bearer, so might Simon Dolan. Interesting case - I looked through the papers that he has published. It will be interesting to see if permission to apply is granted. One to keep an eye on.
  2. The Simon Dolan story is interesting. He has a personal wealth of over 200M but is still crowd funding for his litigation. Why? This is not me trying to be argumentative - I genuinely want to know. I asked the same question re Gina Miller previously...Why do these wealthy activists crowdfund when they have personal wealth that would easily cover the litigation costs? I have had to lodge claims in the County Court recently and have paid my own fees and not crowdfunded. Saying that, perhaps that was because no one would have funded me!!!
  3. Some little bits of gold that jack up the stack totals a tad more. Thanks to @Shep for the Half Sov and to the ever brilliant @kneehow2018 for the Phili.
  4. If you want a ten x 1oz Brit yellow top tube, I would happily help add to your woes. That's another 14k to find - plus the postage for the tube!!!!! A.
  5. Love this. I am in the middle of doing something similar. I have yellow lid tubes for sovs and Brits and various silver tubes and quadrums and caps etc. I could start a market stall. Probably going to list most of them on the non pm sales thread soon...
  6. I cannot disagree with that assessment. I don’t think any of us actually disagree on this, I just think it’s semantics over the statement re ‘free from’. I think my point was lost (by me) earlier in the thread but what I was trying to say was that ‘legally’ they are completely free from commercial or political bias, but of course in reality it is nonsense to say that they are not influenced by those who fund them vice versa.
  7. You were cherry picking to suit your argument and then you resorted to passive aggressive insults when the information was put into context.
  8. Thanks for being so clear. Eventually. What a shame your passive aggressive approach had to be tempered with good old honesty. For the avoidance of doubt there have been no mental gymnastics from me on this subject. This really is not rocket science. If you think there have, then this probably says more about you than you will be able to understand.
  9. Which should be expected in the same way other papers take editorial positions. You would not expect Joseph Rowntree Foundation to support right wing journalism (such as the Daily Mail or Telegraph) and you would not expect the Daily Mail or Telegraph to take JRF money. It doesn’t mean that JRF have any influence over what is said. In fact such distance and press freedoms are built into the contracts with Trusts and Funds and Foundations.
  10. There is the line in the sand that allows them to take money from donors in order to support work that has already started. They would not, for instance, be able to take money from an organisation on the basis that they research an item that was not already being worked on. Very faint line and I totally get the fact that looking at this can seem strange. Example 1. Joseph Rowntree Foundation support the Guardian’s work on poverty and destitution. It’s declared and considered ok because there are no specific expectation or demands re a particular line or outcome (This is a true example); Example 2. War Child and UNICEF support the Guardian to write about child poverty in Africa and the UK and expect the Guardian to follow their positions in respect of child poverty (this would never be allowed to happen and is a false example). Therefore the Guardian correctly claim that they are free from commercial and political influence. Added 0 minutes later... What does this mean. Please expand. Genuinely interested!
  11. Because it is confirmed that whilst they receive donations from trusts and funds the purpose of those donation is to support existing journalism and not a particular point of the organisation making the donation. Interesting that you left out that part of the webpage. I deal in facts and evidence in the round. Not cherry picked paragraphs that can be spun into something they were never intended to be. As for the paragraph, this is simple and good governance. I have been a charity trustee and you DO NOT take money unless the source is clear and due diligence has been carried out to ensure no influence will be exerted.
  12. Thanks for replying. Please see my earlier post re meaning of political bias in this specific context. Of course they are biased. The issue is that they state they are free from commercial or political bias - meaning they don’t take money to promote a specific political or commercial agenda.
×
×
  • Create New...

Cookies & terms of service

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies and to our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use