The Front Page
EDITOR'S NOTICE: OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE 1,100+ DISABLED PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF AToS ORIGIN MEDICAL EXAMINATION RULINGS, MY FUTURE POSTS WILL BE MADE IN RED TO SIGNIFY AND HONOUR THE BLOOD THAT HAS BEEN SPILLED, STILLED AND POISONED
Why Should You Sign Up With Funding Circle?
Let's say you have some money that you want to put to work, but you don't want to take any major risks with it. You might think about a deposit account with your bank, and earn a whopping 1.5%pa interest; or you might decide that banks are untrustworthy and elect instead to place it in a NS&I account or bond so you can earn an even more whopping 1.75%pa interest. Or there are credit unions, who will pay you a dividend once a year, at around three to five per cent. Or there are ISAs, again at 3 to 5%pa.
I am currently averaging nine point one per cent per annum with Funding Circle and helping to support cash-starved British businesses into the bargain. While there is a risk, the "spread" of monies lent out is such that, if a borrower should happen to go bad on me, I would lose a maximum of £20 out of the £500 that I currently have invested. Even then, Funding Circle takes certain measures to try and regain at least some of the monies lost. So the risk is, in real terms, actually very, very low indeed.
Click on the Funding Circle logo above to take a proper look at what investing with Funding Circle could do for your savings. It'll be, I believe, the best click you ever clicked!
Thanks for visiting. If you like what you find here please tell your friends how to reach us as well.
.jpg)
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” - Edmund Burke
Posted at 05/04/12 - 02:23 PM According to the various other press outlets, there are two options open to UK political parties for funding sources: 1. Big business and the unions making massive donations in order to influence policymaking; 2. Funds being allocated from the taxpayers in order to eliminate the influence mentioned in Option 1 above. Neither is satisfactory, and I am surprised to see the press ignoring the third - so far unmentioned - option, which is to limit party funding to that provided by direct membership fees paid by those who wish to join the party of their choice. The union system is not fair to its members. I have never wanted to fund the Labour Party, yet my union dues - when I had to pay them in the printing industry - were automatically allocated to that organisation. Equally, the big business system is unfair to the staff of those businesses that make massive donations to the Tories. Many of those staff do not wish to fund the Tories, any more than I did when I worked for a large corporation. Yet it is the work of the staff that generates the profits that are then used to make those donations. Still further, the taxpayer base is shrinking in the UK, at the moment thanks to Tory policy causing job losses on an unprecedented scale. The tax revenues currently available cannot - we are told by the Tories - even afford to keep the pensioners maintained properly, as evidenced by the compulsory removal of £100 from the winter allowance for the elderly. this being so, how can the taxpayer funds possibly be used to fund political parties, campaigns and so on? Restricting party funding to that provided by membership fees alone would be a good indicator to those parties of their popularity or lack of it. It is an option that needs to be brought into the open and discussed fully and publicly. One can bet though that the Third Option will not be likely to be raised by the political parties themselves!
Thoughts About Political Party Funding
