Risso Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Nobody's denied that they take advantage of royalty payments and group interest, the point that I have been making is that they were loss making even allowing for this. Starbucks make a healthy gross profit, at a GP percentage of around 20%, which from looking around seems to be in line with the industry norm of 20-25%. Even if they were profit shifting say £20m worth of raw materials (ie adding 5% to Gross profit) which would put them in line with Caffe Nero, and you added this back to the £25m royalty fee and £2m interest, they'd be making profit of around £15m, which depending on things like capital allowances and other set offs would net tax to hmrc of say £7m. And then it'd be a case of "Starbucks only paying 2% tax on sales of £400m" and similar nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I am just reading up on the Schofield / Cameron thing from yesterday and am wondering what the real issue is here. Schofield presented Cameron a list that is seemingly available on the Web of people being talked about in reference to the Paedo alegations and Tory members from the Thatcher era. Rightly Cameron did not respond to it and that should have been it. But for Cameron to then mention Gay people in his reply is very worrying showing what seems to be a link between Paedo's and being gay? That is either a bad mistake of words on his part or a sign of complete ignorance and a frightening one at that. That is far more of an issue than Phillip Schofield's so called actions "There is a danger, if we're not careful, that this could turn into a sort of witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay and I'm worried about the sort of thing you are doing right now - giving me a list of names that you've taken off the internet." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 But for Cameron to mention Gay people in his response is very worrying showing what seems to be a link between Paedo's and being gay? That is either a bad mistake of words on his part or a sign of complete ignorance and a frightening one at that. That is far more of an issue than Phillip Schofield's so called actions or as the allegations involved the sexual abuse of boys in care it could of course be nothing sinister at all , unless straight men also abuse young boys ? But , I suspect having known the names on the list and that a few of them are indeed Gay ( if the list is indeed factually correct ) Cameron was trying to warn about people jumping to conclusions ..it's ridiculous to suggest that he is linking paedophilia with homosexuality. I think instead of cheap political points you should be praising Cameron for making the point that this is a matter for the police to investigate, not the Prime Minister and certainly not a former Going Live presenter. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Nobody's denied that they take advantage of royalty payments and group interest, the point that I have been making is that they were loss making even allowing for this. Starbucks make a healthy gross profit, at a GP percentage of around 20%, which from looking around seems to be in line with the industry norm of 20-25%. Even if they were profit shifting say £20m worth of raw materials (ie adding 5% to Gross profit) which would put them in line with Caffe Nero, and you added this back to the £25m royalty fee and £2m interest, they'd be making profit of around £15m, which depending on things like capital allowances and other set offs would net tax to hmrc of say £7m. And then it'd be a case of "Starbucks only paying 2% tax on sales of £400m" and similar nonsense. No-one knows the specific figures for what they pay other divisions for goods and services, because they refuse to reveal them. The interest and royalties are identified in the accounts, the other stuff isn't. The core point is that they announce themselves to investors to be profitable in the UK (to the extent of having said that their UK profits have funded expansion elsewhere), their actions in seeking further expansion in the UK rather than reducing their operation suggests they are profitable, other large chains in a similar line of business make healthy profits, but Starbucks report an accounting loss in the UK, use tax havens, and refuse to be transparent about internal transfer pricing, one of the biggest ways in which multinationals dodge tax. This angle to the discussion started from your remark that public concern about multinationals "stems from ignorance and lack of understanding though, rather than any real avoidance by some of the companies in the press". I am sure you know full well that avoidance is taking place, you know the mechanisms used, you can see from the accounts where information is presented in a way which makes it impossible to quantify exactly what Starbucks (and others; they are just one among many) are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I am just reading up on the Schofield / Cameron thing from yesterday and am wondering what the real issue is here. Schofield presented Cameron a list that is seemingly available on the Web of people being talked about in reference to the Paedo alegations and Tory members from the Thatcher era. Rightly Cameron did not respond to it and that should have been it. But for Cameron to mention Gay people in his response is very worrying showing what seems to be a link between Paedo's and being gay? That is either a bad mistake of words on his part or a sign of complete ignorance and a frightening one at that. That is far more of an issue than Phillip Schofield's so called actions "Phillip Schofield's so called actions" ..... errr .... he DID do what you described. Not really sure whats in doubt about that? :/ Perhaps that he is aware that people on the list are gay? I agree that not going there at all would have been a more prudent response but he was ambushed. He clearly was not linking paedos with homosexuality. The Guardian have discredited Messham's account of the abuse he recieved at exhonerated Lord McAlpine already. McAlpine has also issued a denial. Cameron's response was spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 or as the allegations involved the sexual abuse of boys in care it could of course be nothing sinister at all , unless straight men also abuse young boys ? I think instead of cheap political points you should be praising Cameron for making the point that this is a matter for the police to investigate, not the Prime Minister and certainly not a former Going Live presenter. The allegations going around concern abuse against girls (in the Savile case) and boys (in the North Wales case), and in some cases abuse against both boys and girls by the same people. There are people who confuse paedophilia and being gay, and it tends to be more than the number who confuse paedophiles and paediatricians. The question is whether Cameron may suffer from that mindset, or whether he was just thinking more of the allegations against senior tory figures, than the wider issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Eames your desire to defend Cameron and the Tory party for anything and everything are clouding any reasonable views on this IMO. Why did he mention Gay - that has no relevance whatsoever to the allegations and stating it only then brought into question sexuality of certain people and linking them to Paedophilia only then reinforces long held totally ignorant views. You are trying and failing to defend Cameron for what was obviously a massive mistake on his part either through ignorance or stupidity or both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The allegations going around concern abuse against girls (in the Savile case) and boys (in the North Wales case), and in some cases abuse against both boys and girls by the same people. There are people who confuse paedophilia and being gay, and it tends to be more than the number who confuse paedophiles and paediatricians. The question is whether Cameron may suffer from that mindset, or whether he was just thinking more of the allegations against senior tory figures, than the wider issue. the news source I read said the Schofield list was Specifically about the North Wales boys home ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I am just reading up on the Schofield / Cameron thing from yesterday and am wondering what the real issue is here. Schofield presented Cameron a list that is seemingly available on the Web of people being talked about in reference to the Paedo alegations and Tory members from the Thatcher era. Rightly Cameron did not respond to it and that should have been it. But for Cameron to then mention Gay people in his reply is very worrying showing what seems to be a link between Paedo's and being gay? That is either a bad mistake of words on his part or a sign of complete ignorance and a frightening one at that. That is far more of an issue than Phillip Schofield's so called actions Will the latest smoke coming about the Tory party Paedophile link be dealt with correctly? How will this impact the party or any party if one of their members is found to be guilty? No doubt political mileage will be made but is this outside the realms of what party politics should be about? Heaven forbid anyone would try and make political mileage out of it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 the news source I read said the Schofield list was Specifically about the North Wales boys home ?? Does it matter really where the list was referring to? Cameron rightly ignored the list in as much as he did not read it. He is right in saying that lists on the web should not be used as the basis for witch hunts etc, BUT he totally then ruined that by mentioning Gay's. Ignorant or Stupid - you decide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Eames your desire to defend Cameron and the Tory party for anything and everything are clouding any reasonable views on this IMO. Why did he mention Gay - that has no relevance whatsoever to the allegations and stating it only then brought into question sexuality of certain people and linking them to Paedophilia only then reinforces long held totally ignorant views. You are trying and failing to defend Cameron for what was obviously a massive mistake on his part either through ignorance or stupidity or both Probably (as I;ve already said,) because people on that list are known to Cameron as being gay. Its not rocket science. Overall it wasn't helpful ( as I've already said). But for you to use this issue as some petty attempt to further demonise Cameron says far more about you, drat than any attempt at "defence" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Heaven forbid anyone would try and make political mileage out of it How is it political mileage Tony? That comment, as you well know was in reference to the specific Paedo allegations. What Cameron did yesterday was nothing to do with that but was a sign of a bigot, an idiot or a big mistake in words - as you well know. The fact that PM tried to reinforce that long held ignorant view linking Pedophilia and Homosexuality is a very worrying and disturbing one and something that he should never have done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 9, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 9, 2012 Even I'm with Cameron on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 the news source I read said the Schofield list was Specifically about the North Wales boys home ?? Cameron's response appears to have been without reading the list, though I think Schofield referred to allegations against senior tories, which Cameron will know refer to North Wales. So the question is whether he made his comment for this reason, or for the reason Drat suggests. I'm sure the North Wales issue will be the bigger concern to him, as it's politically threatening, where the Savile thing was initially treated as a way to pillory the BBC. Oddly, the talk of punishing the institution for failing to deal with the faults of its members seems to have receded lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 9, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 9, 2012 Even I'm with Cameron on this one. Indeed. I don't like Cameron much either (he often comes across as an arrogant aggressive clearing in the woods, and I don't like a lot of his politics obviously), but I'm with him on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 How is it political mileage Tony? That comment, as you well know was in reference to the specific Paedo allegations. What Cameron did yesterday was nothing to do with that but was a sign of a bigot, an idiot or a big mistake in words - as you well know. The fact that PM tried to reinforce that long held ignorant view linking Pedophilia and Homosexuality is a very worrying and disturbing one and something that he should never have done he did no such thing and you well know it ( we are back to my "who" not the "What" argument all over again) the words he used were particularly against people who are gay .. He knew the names on the list , probably knows the sexuality of them as well , hence his comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Tony have you read what Cameron said? Do you agree he made a mistake in even mentioning people being Gay? Was it a badly worded reply? There are a lot of people out there who would love to establish a link between Homosexuality and Pedophilia - often they are religious fanatics and a lot of ultra right wing organizations. I am fairly confident that Cameron does not really subscribe to that view BUT yesterday he chose to reply to a subject talking about alleged Paedo's obtained from the web by mentioning Homosexuality. It was a stupid comment and as you well know, people typically will make similar comments through bigotry, ignorance, stupidity (I will include making a mistake in this bit). As the PM on a subject that is so emotive (and rightly so) he should never have made that mistake. He was dealing with the issue quite correctly by not reading the list and could have easily just seen that we have to be careful on witch hunts (as we saw a few years ago etc). To mention homosexuality was a mistake in his response, one considering all of the other things he should not have made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 perhaps he should have thrown an egg at Schofield, or punched him. Just to lighten up things 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 9, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 9, 2012 I'd pay good money to see Cameron and Schofield have a scrap. It'd be hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I wouldn't pay, I'd borrow it from Starbucks 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts