FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Virus

Launching Rockets while asking for bailouts!

Jump to newest
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke

https://news.sky.com/story/virgin-orbit-richard-bransons-rocket-fails-on-maiden-flight-11994653

Each launch costs $12 million.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk

If Branson and his investors are paying for the launches whats the problem?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke


"If Branson and his investors are paying for the launches whats the problem?"

clue was in the title

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk

But if he has employees he in the UK then he will intitled to goverment assistance.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Like many big businesses virgin has been split into different companies..so if one fails they all don't.. the launch of the rocket is probably critical to the companies development and without continuing to pursue satalite launch systems the company would be left behind in the race to produce a system....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *arkus1812Man
over a year ago

Lifes departure lounge NN9 Northamptonshire East not West MidlandsMidlands


"If Branson and his investors are paying for the launches whats the problef?

clue was in the title"

Title is fake news, Virgin were refused a bailout so Branson sold half his shares in his space company and ploughed the money into the Airline

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke

He made 3,150 staff redundant from Virgin Airlines. Then asked for bailouts from the Government.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke


"If Branson and his investors are paying for the launches whats the problef?

clue was in the title

Title is fake news, Virgin were refused a bailout so Branson sold half his shares in his space company and ploughed the money into the Airline"

Half shares is still shares. So NOT fake new at all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk


"He made 3,150 staff redundant from Virgin Airlines. Then asked for bailouts from the Government. "

Staff were from Virgin Airways. A completely different business group from the space programme.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke


"He made 3,150 staff redundant from Virgin Airlines. Then asked for bailouts from the Government.

Staff were from Virgin Airways. A completely different business group from the space programme.

"

Both companies are investments inside the Virgin Group

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke

Virgin Group owns:

33% of Virgin Orbit & 51% of Virgin Alantic

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk


"He made 3,150 staff redundant from Virgin Airlines. Then asked for bailouts from the Government.

Staff were from Virgin Airways. A completely different business group from the space programme.

Both companies are investments inside the Virgin Group "

Doesn't matter they are both run as separate entity's so stocks and shares are kept under the correct seperate holdings.

If the investors in the space programme are happy to burn 12 million a launch, it's thier money.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Let him bail his own company out. He lives in a tax haven island so why should tax payers money go to line his deep pockets

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke


"He made 3,150 staff redundant from Virgin Airlines. Then asked for bailouts from the Government.

Staff were from Virgin Airways. A completely different business group from the space programme.

Both companies are investments inside the Virgin Group

Doesn't matter they are both run as separate entity's so stocks and shares are kept under the correct seperate holdings.

If the investors in the space programme are happy to burn 12 million a launch, it's thier money.

"

with 33% of Virgin Group money you mean.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke


"Let him bail his own company out. He lives in a tax haven island so why should tax payers money go to line his deep pockets"

My point exactly lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk


"He made 3,150 staff redundant from Virgin Airlines. Then asked for bailouts from the Government.

Staff were from Virgin Airways. A completely different business group from the space programme.

Both companies are investments inside the Virgin Group

Doesn't matter they are both run as separate entity's so stocks and shares are kept under the correct seperate holdings.

If the investors in the space programme are happy to burn 12 million a launch, it's thier money.

with 33% of Virgin Group money you mean."

This is for the space programme. Work can still continue whilst the 51% of Virgin Airways will be struggling due the pandemic and restrictions on air travel.

Development clearly hasn't stopped for Virgin Orbit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aulaxd500TV/TS
over a year ago

Wigan


"Let him bail his own company out. He lives in a tax haven island so why should tax payers money go to line his deep pockets"

This

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk

But if both his companies he has shares in both pay corporation tax in the UK then he will still be intitled to goverment funding for his staff.

Or are you confusing this with personal wealth that he bought his tax haven with.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke

[Removed by poster at 26/05/20 08:44:06]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ncutgemMan
over a year ago

Bath ish

Being entied TO some thing does not make it maral to accept it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke


"But if both his companies he has shares in both pay corporation tax in the UK then he will still be intitled to goverment funding for his staff.

Or are you confusing this with personal wealth that he bought his tax haven with.

"

He 'chose' to make 3,150 redundant. He could have gone the furlough route yet he chose to make them redundant. He could have chosen to sell Virgin Groups 33% in Virgin Orbit and keep the staff at Virgin Atlantic. Instead he made them redundant and then asked UK Government to bail Virgin Atlantic.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk


"But if both his companies he has shares in both pay corporation tax in the UK then he will still be intitled to goverment funding for his staff.

Or are you confusing this with personal wealth that he bought his tax haven with.

He 'chose' to make 3,150 redundant. He could have gone the furlough route yet he chaose to make them redundant. He could have chosen to sell Virgin Groups 33% in Virgin Orbit and keep the staff at Virgin Atlantic. Instead he made them redundant and then asked UK Governemt to bail Virgin Atlantic."

Your right he could have. But I'm sure him and his barrage of lawyers knew exactly what they were doing and still kept within the guidlines and regulations to warrant a goverment handout.

Like all multinational conglomerates, they know exactly how to play the game.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke

[Removed by poster at 26/05/20 08:50:10]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke

At the most simplistic level Virgin Orbit could have chosen not to undertake the next to Launches ($24 Million) and loan that amount two keep staff at Virgin Atlantic.

(sorry nails on a crappy keypad)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke

swop the to/two's around lol.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk

Unfortunately the decision was made in favour of launching rockets.

But again the launches could have been funded by the individual backers of the space programme.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *arkus1812Man
over a year ago

Lifes departure lounge NN9 Northamptonshire East not West MidlandsMidlands

The shares Branson sold were in a company call Virgin Galactic, The sale the shares raised $1bn which was used to bail out both Virgin Atlantic and to a lesser extent Virgin Australia.

None of this is connected to Virgin Orbit which is a separate entity and which Virgin Group have a 33% holding,

The government refused the Virgin request for a bailout putting the onus on Branson to fund any bailout which he has duly done. The title of this thread implies that Virgin are seeking a bailout which is not the case.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk


"The shares Branson sold were in a company call Virgin Galactic, The sale the shares raised $1bn which was used to bail out both Virgin Atlantic and to a lesser extent Virgin Australia.

None of this is connected to Virgin Orbit which is a separate entity and which Virgin Group have a 33% holding,

The government refused the Virgin request for a bailout putting the onus on Branson to fund any bailout which he has duly done. The title of this thread implies that Virgin are seeking a bailout which is not the case. "

Thank you

Your a far better wordsmith than myself.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke


"The shares Branson sold were in a company call Virgin Galactic, The sale the shares raised $1bn which was used to bail out both Virgin Atlantic and to a lesser extent Virgin Australia.

None of this is connected to Virgin Orbit which is a separate entity and which Virgin Group have a 33% holding,

The government refused the Virgin request for a bailout putting the onus on Branson to fund any bailout which he has duly done. The title of this thread implies that Virgin are seeking a bailout which is not the case. "

He did seek a bailout.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/12/richard-branson-facing-backlash-over-plea-for-uk-bailout-of-virgin

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke

Off to sunbathe.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk


"The shares Branson sold were in a company call Virgin Galactic, The sale the shares raised $1bn which was used to bail out both Virgin Atlantic and to a lesser extent Virgin Australia.

None of this is connected to Virgin Orbit which is a separate entity and which Virgin Group have a 33% holding,

The government refused the Virgin request for a bailout putting the onus on Branson to fund any bailout which he has duly done. The title of this thread implies that Virgin are seeking a bailout which is not the case.

He did seek a bailout.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/12/richard-branson-facing-backlash-over-plea-for-uk-bailout-of-virgin

"

He does state that Branson was refused a bailout.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke


"The shares Branson sold were in a company call Virgin Galactic, The sale the shares raised $1bn which was used to bail out both Virgin Atlantic and to a lesser extent Virgin Australia.

None of this is connected to Virgin Orbit which is a separate entity and which Virgin Group have a 33% holding,

The government refused the Virgin request for a bailout putting the onus on Branson to fund any bailout which he has duly done. The title of this thread implies that Virgin are seeking a bailout which is not the case.

He did seek a bailout.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/12/richard-branson-facing-backlash-over-plea-for-uk-bailout-of-virgin

He does state that Branson was refused a bailout."

Over to you . . . but consider that he shouldn't have asked in the first place while playing with $12 million rockets. He asked got a no then found money all the sudden - his 3.150 staff are at Virgin Alantic are still redundant however.

Virgin Group are the beneficiaries of all the subsidiary's. So it is the same money.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk


"The shares Branson sold were in a company call Virgin Galactic, The sale the shares raised $1bn which was used to bail out both Virgin Atlantic and to a lesser extent Virgin Australia.

None of this is connected to Virgin Orbit which is a separate entity and which Virgin Group have a 33% holding,

The government refused the Virgin request for a bailout putting the onus on Branson to fund any bailout which he has duly done. The title of this thread implies that Virgin are seeking a bailout which is not the case.

He did seek a bailout.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/12/richard-branson-facing-backlash-over-plea-for-uk-bailout-of-virgin

He does state that Branson was refused a bailout.

Over to you . . . but consider that he shouldn't have asked in the first place while playing with $12 million rockets. He asked got a no then found money all the sudden - his 3.150 staff are at Virgin Alantic are still redundant however.

Virgin Group are the beneficiaries of all the subsidiary's. So it is the same money."

Its not the same money.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke


"The shares Branson sold were in a company call Virgin Galactic, The sale the shares raised $1bn which was used to bail out both Virgin Atlantic and to a lesser extent Virgin Australia.

None of this is connected to Virgin Orbit which is a separate entity and which Virgin Group have a 33% holding,

The government refused the Virgin request for a bailout putting the onus on Branson to fund any bailout which he has duly done. The title of this thread implies that Virgin are seeking a bailout which is not the case.

He did seek a bailout.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/12/richard-branson-facing-backlash-over-plea-for-uk-bailout-of-virgin

He does state that Branson was refused a bailout.

Over to you . . . but consider that he shouldn't have asked in the first place while playing with $12 million rockets. He asked got a no then found money all the sudden - his 3.150 staff are at Virgin Alantic are still redundant however.

Virgin Group are the beneficiaries of all the subsidiary's. So it is the same money.

Its not the same money."

Yet he sold shares in virgin galactic to support virgin atlantic (and still the staff are redundant).

Yes. it is the same money.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolution OP   Couple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION. Stoke

Anyways. Have a lovely day. Gone to sunbathe.

Day off.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk


"The shares Branson sold were in a company call Virgin Galactic, The sale the shares raised $1bn which was used to bail out both Virgin Atlantic and to a lesser extent Virgin Australia.

None of this is connected to Virgin Orbit which is a separate entity and which Virgin Group have a 33% holding,

The government refused the Virgin request for a bailout putting the onus on Branson to fund any bailout which he has duly done. The title of this thread implies that Virgin are seeking a bailout which is not the case.

He did seek a bailout.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/12/richard-branson-facing-backlash-over-plea-for-uk-bailout-of-virgin

He does state that Branson was refused a bailout.

Over to you . . . but consider that he shouldn't have asked in the first place while playing with $12 million rockets. He asked got a no then found money all the sudden - his 3.150 staff are at Virgin Alantic are still redundant however.

Virgin Group are the beneficiaries of all the subsidiary's. So it is the same money.

Its not the same money.

Yet he sold shares in virgin galactic to support virgin atlantic (and still the staff are redundant).

Yes. it is the same money."

Lol really it isn't

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entralscotscpl7Couple
over a year ago

Falkirk


"The shares Branson sold were in a company call Virgin Galactic, The sale the shares raised $1bn which was used to bail out both Virgin Atlantic and to a lesser extent Virgin Australia.

None of this is connected to Virgin Orbit which is a separate entity and which Virgin Group have a 33% holding,

The government refused the Virgin request for a bailout putting the onus on Branson to fund any bailout which he has duly done. The title of this thread implies that Virgin are seeking a bailout which is not the case.

He did seek a bailout.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/12/richard-branson-facing-backlash-over-plea-for-uk-bailout-of-virgin

He does state that Branson was refused a bailout.

Over to you . . . but consider that he shouldn't have asked in the first place while playing with $12 million rockets. He asked got a no then found money all the sudden - his 3.150 staff are at Virgin Alantic are still redundant however.

Virgin Group are the beneficiaries of all the subsidiary's. So it is the same money.

Its not the same money.

Yet he sold shares in virgin galactic to support virgin atlantic (and still the staff are redundant).

Yes. it is the same money."

Your confusing Virgin Galactic with Virgin Orbit.

Two totally seperate subsidiary's.

Virgin Galatic was sold off to assist Virgin Airlines and Virgin Australia.

Whatever was left will have went to Branson as a return for his original investment.

Virgin Orbit has nothing to do with Virgin Airways so the post title is incorrect.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eddy and legsCouple
over a year ago

the wetlands

And by the same token

Why should I be paying taxes to furlough people on 80 % of their wages ? Why can't they just sell their house and borrow money from the bank ?

I'm not saying I don't agree with it but I have to ask what's the difference ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And by the same token

Why should I be paying taxes to furlough people on 80 % of their wages ? Why can't they just sell their house and borrow money from the bank ?

I'm not saying I don't agree with it but I have to ask what's the difference ?

"

The difference is that the government should exist to support and work for the people. And the furlough scheme is to stop people from going bankrupt, or having to sell their home etc. Not to make sure the Branson types can maintain their profit margins.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eddy and legsCouple
over a year ago

the wetlands


"And by the same token

Why should I be paying taxes to furlough people on 80 % of their wages ? Why can't they just sell their house and borrow money from the bank ?

I'm not saying I don't agree with it but I have to ask what's the difference ?

The difference is that the government should exist to support and work for the people. And the furlough scheme is to stop people from going bankrupt, or having to sell their home etc. Not to make sure the Branson types can maintain their profit margins."

So Branson going bankrupt is ok ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And by the same token

Why should I be paying taxes to furlough people on 80 % of their wages ? Why can't they just sell their house and borrow money from the bank ?

I'm not saying I don't agree with it but I have to ask what's the difference ?

The difference is that the government should exist to support and work for the people. And the furlough scheme is to stop people from going bankrupt, or having to sell their home etc. Not to make sure the Branson types can maintain their profit margins.

So Branson going bankrupt is ok ?"

I shouldn't imagine there is any snowballs chance in hell he will go bankrupt.

But assuming that's a possibility. Maybe he could be furloughed on 80% of his wage? That would cost the tax payer less than keeping his various businesses in profit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"And by the same token

Why should I be paying taxes to furlough people on 80 % of their wages ? Why can't they just sell their house and borrow money from the bank ?

I'm not saying I don't agree with it but I have to ask what's the difference ?

"

I think that’s a brilliant point.

Why should Richard have to sell everything he’s earned when we won’t do it

A hypocrite isn’t a flying animal in Harry Potter!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago

Dubai & Nottingham


"He made 3,150 staff redundant from Virgin Airlines. Then asked for bailouts from the Government. "

This is the reality of building great businesses you have to also do tough shitty stuff. Those decisions works be board decisions, individuals are not companies. He’s a great guy though, supported loads of new bands when he was young , did a great job at VM before selling to LGI , built a great airline and inspires a lot of people. Compare to likes of BJ , JRM, Hunt who just generate money to hoard away in investments and contribute nothing of any use or fun to society

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *candiumWoman
over a year ago

oban

Having a space programme is more important. It's not just playing with rockets.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Let him bail his own company out. He lives in a tax haven island so why should tax payers money go to line his deep pockets"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"https://news.sky.com/story/virgin-orbit-richard-bransons-rocket-fails-on-maiden-flight-11994653

Each launch costs $12 million."
Totally different companies in different countries

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *arkus1812Man
over a year ago

Lifes departure lounge NN9 Northamptonshire East not West MidlandsMidlands


"The shares Branson sold were in a company call Virgin Galactic, The sale the shares raised $1bn which was used to bail out both Virgin Atlantic and to a lesser extent Virgin Australia.

None of this is connected to Virgin Orbit which is a separate entity and which Virgin Group have a 33% holding,

The government refused the Virgin request for a bailout putting the onus on Branson to fund any bailout which he has duly done. The title of this thread implies that Virgin are seeking a bailout which is not the case.

He did seek a bailout.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/12/richard-branson-facing-backlash-over-plea-for-uk-bailout-of-virgin

He does state that Branson was refused a bailout.

Over to you . . . but consider that he shouldn't have asked in the first place while playing with $12 million rockets. He asked got a no then found money all the sudden - his 3.150 staff are at Virgin Alantic are still redundant however.

Virgin Group are the beneficiaries of all the subsidiary's. So it is the same money.

Its not the same money.

Yet he sold shares in virgin galactic to support virgin atlantic (and still the staff are redundant).

Yes. it is the same money.

Lol really it isn't "

I despair somtimes and often wonder why I come onto this forum Keep smiling

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heaspieswingerMan
over a year ago

Peak District


"https://news.sky.com/story/virgin-orbit-richard-bransons-rocket-fails-on-maiden-flight-11994653

Each launch costs $12 million."

There’s a word for him. Begins with a c. Any guesses?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *igsteve43Man
over a year ago

derby


"If Branson and his investors are paying for the launches whats the problef?

clue was in the title

Title is fake news, Virgin were refused a bailout so Branson sold half his shares in his space company and ploughed the money into the Airline

Half shares is still shares. So NOT fake new at all."

Actually is fake news as branson made nobody redundant as he is purely a shareholder these days

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eoeclipseWoman
over a year ago

glasgow

This is the beauty of limited companies, each one is a person in its own right, so they are separate and distinctive from one another.

Parent companies are not required to bail them out, like kids they can go on benefits if stuck (analogy) and as a shareholder in all of them Branson is an owner & reaps the rewards with limited if any personal losses

(should mostly be in lower dividends/remuneration....as if that happens ROFL)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

He's a fairly grotesque specimen and ee were right to refuse him extra money. It's 1 of the few, perhaps the only, things that we got right

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eddy and legsCouple
over a year ago

the wetlands

Wealth is relative

The numbers needed to pay all the staff and keep the fleet of planes grounded would wipe out his personal wealth fairly quickly, even if he was able to liquidise his assets which wouldn't be easy in the current climate

It's the same as questioning why the government pay furlough to people with a nice house, couple of grand in the bank and having barbecues in the garden with the kids squandering the free money. Or those in benefits that actually get a foreign holiday.

It's all relative

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eoeclipseWoman
over a year ago

glasgow

It's not, it all has a cost somewhere & his businesses are separate from him & his personal assets... that's why there is limited companies so the owners can keep assets even if the business fails tragically. There's been woke recent changes but not that much.

And besides that no one needs a mansion or a personal Island. That's wealth in excess & way beyond needs....greed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eddy and legsCouple
over a year ago

the wetlands


"

And besides that no one needs a mansion or a personal Island. That's wealth in excess & way beyond needs....greed. "

It's all relative, those in council estates would say nobody needs to own a house it's wealth in excess and greed

One man's thousand is another man's million

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eoeclipseWoman
over a year ago

glasgow

And that opinion got us to climate change crisis.

There is no need for it or a vast majority of the stuff that we do & own.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk


"And that opinion got us to climate change crisis.

There is no need for it or a vast majority of the stuff that we do & own. "

Eh

So because someone can own an island they are the majority responsible for climate change?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eoeclipseWoman
over a year ago

glasgow

The business they own are!

Flying...big one rich people fly more frequently..more pollution put person.

Everything that business makes required raw materials from somewhere on earth...deforestation, mining, oil..there's so many links in the supply chains no business can guarantee ethical & sustainable practice....or they go do it in countries that don't give a monkeys about anything but personal gain for their elite & money.

Advertising...pushing products though marketing tactics to buy stupid stuff you don't need & a need to upgrade it the latest nonsense 2/3 times a year.

How much rubbish is about from virgin? How much land have they contributed to mining for raw materials for components such as cobalt, gold etc?

Space services? As much as space is truly fascinating, we leave rubbish up there & really your just going into a box....we cannot live up there, there's nothing even close enough that we could live on as we do on earth.

And please explain to me this: if the rich are so good, just & deserving then why are they ripping up the earth, claiming to own commodities such as land & water, minerals, food stocks (even fish) (that no one actually owns, it's a capitalist creative), hording mass amounts of the commodities as their own and denying others access to them.

If you really think that the rich do the best by the world in their actions then please explain how the past 200-300 years of mechanical & fossil industries have drawn the co2 so I close to you hose of the past 5 mass extinction, so close to breaking point now.

All this for money & personal gain at the top....nothing good about it.

And don't go there with giving to charities.....charities wouldn't be needed in such extremes if they weren't doing what they are doing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entralscotscpl7Couple
over a year ago

Falkirk


"The business they own are!

Flying...big one rich people fly more frequently..more pollution put person.

Everything that business makes required raw materials from somewhere on earth...deforestation, mining, oil..there's so many links in the supply chains no business can guarantee ethical & sustainable practice....or they go do it in countries that don't give a monkeys about anything but personal gain for their elite & money.

Advertising...pushing products though marketing tactics to buy stupid stuff you don't need & a need to upgrade it the latest nonsense 2/3 times a year.

How much rubbish is about from virgin? How much land have they contributed to mining for raw materials for components such as cobalt, gold etc?

Space services? As much as space is truly fascinating, we leave rubbish up there & really your just going into a box....we cannot live up there, there's nothing even close enough that we could live on as we do on earth.

And please explain to me this: if the rich are so good, just & deserving then why are they ripping up the earth, claiming to own commodities such as land & water, minerals, food stocks (even fish) (that no one actually owns, it's a capitalist creative), hording mass amounts of the commodities as their own and denying others access to them.

If you really think that the rich do the best by the world in their actions then please explain how the past 200-300 years of mechanical & fossil industries have drawn the co2 so I close to you hose of the past 5 mass extinction, so close to breaking point now.

All this for money & personal gain at the top....nothing good about it.

And don't go there with giving to charities.....charities wouldn't be needed in such extremes if they weren't doing what they are doing. "

You do know all that is irrelevant as most of the things you have listed are driven by the mass consumer.

The ritch are simply capitalising on what jo normal demands.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entralscotscpl7Couple
over a year ago

Falkirk


"The business they own are!

Flying...big one rich people fly more frequently..more pollution put person.

Everything that business makes required raw materials from somewhere on earth...deforestation, mining, oil..there's so many links in the supply chains no business can guarantee ethical & sustainable practice....or they go do it in countries that don't give a monkeys about anything but personal gain for their elite & money.

Advertising...pushing products though marketing tactics to buy stupid stuff you don't need & a need to upgrade it the latest nonsense 2/3 times a year.

How much rubbish is about from virgin? How much land have they contributed to mining for raw materials for components such as cobalt, gold etc?

Space services? As much as space is truly fascinating, we leave rubbish up there & really your just going into a box....we cannot live up there, there's nothing even close enough that we could live on as we do on earth.

And please explain to me this: if the rich are so good, just & deserving then why are they ripping up the earth, claiming to own commodities such as land & water, minerals, food stocks (even fish) (that no one actually owns, it's a capitalist creative), hording mass amounts of the commodities as their own and denying others access to them.

If you really think that the rich do the best by the world in their actions then please explain how the past 200-300 years of mechanical & fossil industries have drawn the co2 so I close to you hose of the past 5 mass extinction, so close to breaking point now.

All this for money & personal gain at the top....nothing good about it.

And don't go there with giving to charities.....charities wouldn't be needed in such extremes if they weren't doing what they are doing.

You do know all that is irrelevant as most of the things you have listed are driven by the mass consumer.

The ritch are simply capitalising on what jo normal demands.

"
ritch, richard

Should have said wealthy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eddy and legsCouple
over a year ago

the wetlands


"The business they own are!

Flying...big one rich people fly more frequently..more pollution put person.

Everything that business makes required raw materials from somewhere on earth...deforestation, mining, oil..there's so many links in the supply chains no business can guarantee ethical & sustainable practice....or they go do it in countries that don't give a monkeys about anything but personal gain for their elite & money.

Advertising...pushing products though marketing tactics to buy stupid stuff you don't need & a need to upgrade it the latest nonsense 2/3 times a year.

How much rubbish is about from virgin? How much land have they contributed to mining for raw materials for components such as cobalt, gold etc?

Space services? As much as space is truly fascinating, we leave rubbish up there & really your just going into a box....we cannot live up there, there's nothing even close enough that we could live on as we do on earth.

And please explain to me this: if the rich are so good, just & deserving then why are they ripping up the earth, claiming to own commodities such as land & water, minerals, food stocks (even fish) (that no one actually owns, it's a capitalist creative), hording mass amounts of the commodities as their own and denying others access to them.

If you really think that the rich do the best by the world in their actions then please explain how the past 200-300 years of mechanical & fossil industries have drawn the co2 so I close to you hose of the past 5 mass extinction, so close to breaking point now.

All this for money & personal gain at the top....nothing good about it.

And don't go there with giving to charities.....charities wouldn't be needed in such extremes if they weren't doing what they are doing. "

And of course none of his staff are handsomely rewarded

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eoeclipseWoman
over a year ago

glasgow

Oh yes, some staff are handsomely rewarded because they need other folk with money to spend to keep up their ideal of spend, spend, spend regardless of the environmental costs or the humans lower down the chain.

The consumer has power as to where they spend their money, but not really because vast majority of businesses work in the same capitalist manner & Even some of the "eco" shops don't have full control over their supply chain.

In addition to that you've got consumers who think that there is no cost in these items other than monetary value and that waste disappears...just vanishes. So you've got blissfully ignorant consumer by the billions & companies lobbying worldwide governments to do what they like.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oldswarriorMan
over a year ago

Falkirk


"Oh yes, some staff are handsomely rewarded because they need other folk with money to spend to keep up their ideal of spend, spend, spend regardless of the environmental costs or the humans lower down the chain.

The consumer has power as to where they spend their money, but not really because vast majority of businesses work in the same capitalist manner & Even some of the "eco" shops don't have full control over their supply chain.

In addition to that you've got consumers who think that there is no cost in these items other than monetary value and that waste disappears...just vanishes. So you've got blissfully ignorant consumer by the billions & companies lobbying worldwide governments to do what they like."

So its not the fault of the rich, the blissfully ignorant consumer is to blame.

Its just smart business. You can't blame the people that are making money from choices that masses make.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The shares Branson sold were in a company call Virgin Galactic, The sale the shares raised $1bn which was used to bail out both Virgin Atlantic and to a lesser extent Virgin Australia.

None of this is connected to Virgin Orbit which is a separate entity and which Virgin Group have a 33% holding,

The government refused the Virgin request for a bailout putting the onus on Branson to fund any bailout which he has duly done. The title of this thread implies that Virgin are seeking a bailout which is not the case. "

Also seem to think Branson has very deep pockets full of cash....his quoted wealth is the value of his shares in the various companies (which have plummeted) so not a good time to sell, which would also cause further falls.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eddy and legsCouple
over a year ago

the wetlands

[Removed by poster at 30/05/20 10:29:54]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eddy and legsCouple
over a year ago

the wetlands


"Oh yes, some staff are handsomely rewarded because they need other folk with money to spend to keep up their ideal of spend, spend, spend regardless of the environmental costs or the humans lower down the chain.

The consumer has power as to where they spend their money, but not really because vast majority of businesses work in the same capitalist manner & Even some of the "eco" shops don't have full control over their supply chain.

In addition to that you've got consumers who think that there is no cost in these items other than monetary value and that waste disappears...just vanishes. So you've got blissfully ignorant consumer by the billions & companies lobbying worldwide governments to do what they like.

So its not the fault of the rich, the blissfully ignorant consumer is to blame.

Its just smart business. You can't blame the people that are making money from choices that masses make.

"

Well if people didn't use Virgin Atlantic then it wouldn't be there.

Mind you I can't see the people complaining about rocket launches forking out an extra couple of hundred to fly BA (it possibly a lot more if VA goes bust)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Does anyone actually believe that he booked the launch 3 months ago? or that there would not have been penalties for canceling it?

Just more fake news trying to stir up the people who have not made it quite as good as others in this world.

Virgin as a company have over the years more than likely supported sponsored many charities and good causes but as soon as things get a bit tight some are very quick to point at the rich folks and play the blame game

And no I'm not rich nor do I work for virgin

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *eoeclipseWoman
over a year ago

glasgow


"Oh yes, some staff are handsomely rewarded because they need other folk with money to spend to keep up their ideal of spend, spend, spend regardless of the environmental costs or the humans lower down the chain.

The consumer has power as to where they spend their money, but not really because vast majority of businesses work in the same capitalist manner & Even some of the "eco" shops don't have full control over their supply chain.

In addition to that you've got consumers who think that there is no cost in these items other than monetary value and that waste disappears...just vanishes. So you've got blissfully ignorant consumer by the billions & companies lobbying worldwide governments to do what they like.

So its not the fault of the rich, the blissfully ignorant consumer is to blame.

Its just smart business. You can't blame the people that are making money from choices that masses make.

"

If it wasn't made in the first place consumers couldn't buy it & there would be no feeling of loss of something that didn't exist. Bear in mind the vast majority of things we don't actually need to live and get thrown away frequently.

Companies are also the first port of call on raw materials & the degradation that goes along with harvesting them. So yes the companies are the sole source of alot of environmental as well as constantly wanting to expand & become richer & richer to point of ridiculous means.

Consumers have power in buying I.e. where they spend their money, as I said before you can barely avoid non ethical/non environmental companies when they all do the same models, therefore in that sense the consumer has little control over the goods on offer, literally just have the power of whether or not to buy stupid non sense goods in the first place.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top