Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Elysium

13,755 posts

186 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
jjlynn27 said:
The point was that it wasn't EU green policies that made UK energy costs high, but the base (pre-tax) cost.
This is correct as I understand it. Our base costs are high as we have chronically under-invested in our generating plant. The coal fired power stations like Ferrybridge and Didcot were running at horrifically low efficiency (<10%) prior to shutdown.

There is no new generation to replace them (other than variable renewables), nuclear is years away and in the meantime the industry is seeking to use high prices to reduce demand.

That will keep the lights on, but it won't help our heaving industry. Meanwhile the French investment in nuclear has paid dividends and they have the cheapest energy in Europe/

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
jjlynn27 said:
FiF said:
....
Energy costs are a very high proportion of manufacturing costs in the primary production of specialist engineering and high alloyed materials, eg aerospace material, plus secondary production into other products. This is a strategic area where UK is good and technically very competent, yet struggles. The comments by other posters that due to previous governments concentration on finance and other service sectors we have an unbalanced economy are imo valid. As are the comments that we have strategic holes in our capabilities.

Anyway be so good as to elucidate why it has previously been decided that HMG are saying the opposite to your statement above. Thanks.
You are right, my statement above is wrong.

I've found my previous post with discussion on energy prices for steel producers.

jjlynn27 on 8th of April said:
Price of electricity for industrial use in Germany is lower than price of electricity in UK for x-large consumers

Prices per kWh.

Germany 8.13
UK 9.78

Data for Jan-June '15.

Source DECC.
The point was that it wasn't EU green policies that made UK energy costs high, but the base (pre-tax) cost.

I'll take it that you agree that UK was pushing for lower taxes on Chinese imports?
From what I recall about that discussion it was indeed an argument between parties about the driving force for higher energy prices for UK steelmakers. Tbh I forget the participants, but as above, I tuned it out as it got to the stage where someone, don?, made a statement where got tangled and comment was completely arse upwards. From that point each side was just in transmit mode and not listening to the other side.

Anyway I think the point about the influence of the EU vs the degree to which things are affected by the desire to be the greenest government in history is debatable. Not sure what the excuse of the Labour party was, but it's clear that a big part is UK govt, but equally part of the reason for non investment in plant is down to, for example, large combustion plant directive and variants. Having said that such directives haven't stopped other nations investing in modern PF plant, but what's stopped UK has been a distinct lack of direction from UK government which has meant unwillingness for investment by utilities. Incidentally the same utilities who might very well be investing in such plant in other markets.

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
Elysium said:
jjlynn27 said:
The point was that it wasn't EU green policies that made UK energy costs high, but the base (pre-tax) cost.
This is correct as I understand it. Our base costs are high as we have chronically under-invested in our generating plant.
We have under-invested, at the cost of UK energy security, but there's plenty of EU in our expensive eunergy bills.

Spot the malign presence of the EU directly in two of these cost-raising measures, and its influence in the others:

  • EU Renewable Energy Directive and UK Renewables Obligation - subsidies for unworkable renewables that taxpayers cough up

  • Feed in Tariffs and ROCs – subsidy for renewable power that raise energy prices including for domestic consumers

  • EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) - a tax on the production of fossil fuels introduced at the European Union level

  • Climate Change Act and Climate Change Levy - we are the only country with politicians foolish enough to enact such pointlessly dangerous and expensive legislation which puts industry and commerce at a disadvantage

The green blob currently adds to typical domestic energy bills and by 2020 it will be responsible for a 33% hike in household energy costs according to a report by the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change committee (the committtee name is from pre-May times).

A family paying £1,250 for their energy bill is paying £112 in green taxes and the EU is partly responsible, or almost wholly responsible if you include our national over-reaction to EU directives.

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
FiF said:
From what I recall about that discussion it was indeed an argument between parties about the driving force for higher energy prices for UK steelmakers. Tbh I forget the participants, but as above, I tuned it out as it got to the stage where someone, don?, made a statement where got tangled and comment was completely arse upwards. From that point each side was just in transmit mode and not listening to the other side.

Anyway I think the point about the influence of the EU vs the degree to which things are affected by the desire to be the greenest government in history is debatable. Not sure what the excuse of the Labour party was, but it's clear that a big part is UK govt, but equally part of the reason for non investment in plant is down to, for example, large combustion plant directive and variants. Having said that such directives haven't stopped other nations investing in modern PF plant, but what's stopped UK has been a distinct lack of direction from UK government which has meant unwillingness for investment by utilities. Incidentally the same utilities who might very well be investing in such plant in other markets.
Agree with most of that. As I said in a previous post (not the one where I made pigs ears out of costs), is if you look at the difference between base and base+tax costs, then compare that to Germany, I fail to see how is that in any way shape or form down to EU. It could be, I just don't see the way how.

We are where we are, but I'm afraid (not really, turn of phrase) that people who voted out (if they did) on the assumption that govt is all of a sudden start investing into infrastructure and bring back lost jobs in steel industry, they have another thing coming.

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
German costs don't fall on UK industries and they (Germans) have an artificially low currency to help out - we had a boost in that direction recently but it won't be as permanent or as beneficial.

Search online for these article titles, one is WSJ but you can get it via a search entry point.

"Europe's Green Energy Suicide"

"How is Britain going green? By shutting down industry."

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
jjlynn27 said:
FiF said:
From what I recall about that discussion it was indeed an argument between parties about the driving force for higher energy prices for UK steelmakers. Tbh I forget the participants, but as above, I tuned it out as it got to the stage where someone, don?, made a statement where got tangled and comment was completely arse upwards. From that point each side was just in transmit mode and not listening to the other side.

Anyway I think the point about the influence of the EU vs the degree to which things are affected by the desire to be the greenest government in history is debatable. Not sure what the excuse of the Labour party was, but it's clear that a big part is UK govt, but equally part of the reason for non investment in plant is down to, for example, large combustion plant directive and variants. Having said that such directives haven't stopped other nations investing in modern PF plant, but what's stopped UK has been a distinct lack of direction from UK government which has meant unwillingness for investment by utilities. Incidentally the same utilities who might very well be investing in such plant in other markets.
Agree with most of that. As I said in a previous post (not the one where I made pigs ears out of costs), is if you look at the difference between base and base+tax costs, then compare that to Germany, I fail to see how is that in any way shape or form down to EU. It could be, I just don't see the way how.

We are where we are, but I'm afraid (not really, turn of phrase) that people who voted out (if they did) on the assumption that govt is all of a sudden start investing into infrastructure and bring back lost jobs in steel industry, they have another thing coming.
I think the point that I was trying to make is that it's just not correct to say that the EU has had absolutely no influence whatsoever. Clearly it's also wrong, probably even more so, to say it's all the fault of the EU.

I forgot to answer your other question about tarriffs on Chinese steel, yes the Govt were guilty of some slippery footwork there imo.

Elysium

13,755 posts

186 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
We have under-invested, at the cost of UK energy security, but there's plenty of EU in our expensive eunergy bills.

Spot the malign presence of the EU directly in two of these cost-raising measures, and its influence in the others:

  • EU Renewable Energy Directive and UK Renewables Obligation - subsidies for unworkable renewables that taxpayers cough up

  • Feed in Tariffs and ROCs – subsidy for renewable power that raise energy prices including for domestic consumers

  • EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) - a tax on the production of fossil fuels introduced at the European Union level

  • Climate Change Act and Climate Change Levy - we are the only country with politicians foolish enough to enact such pointlessly dangerous and expensive legislation which puts industry and commerce at a disadvantage

The green blob currently adds to typical domestic energy bills and by 2020 it will be responsible for a 33% hike in household energy costs according to a report by the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change committee (the committtee name is from pre-May times).

A family paying £1,250 for their energy bill is paying £112 in green taxes and the EU is partly responsible, or almost wholly responsible if you include our national over-reaction to EU directives.
The first three items in your list are effectively the same thing. There is a vague and overarching directive from the EU, which our Government supported, to promote renewable energy.

Renewable Energy Certificates (ROC's) are the tradable (ie the emissions trading scheme) element of the UK Renewables Obligation. This is our legislation, that our Government wanted.

Equally Feed in Tarrifs are not EU driven. The entire process is managed by DECC (I have met the guy who ran this). Other countries implemented FIT's in an entirely different way (ie Germany) and much earlier than us to kick start their own renewable energy industry. All our FIT legislation achieved was a super profit for overseas PV manufacturers who took the FIT into their margin and a home for some pension fund money that invested in multiple developer led FIT projects pricing them effectively as Govt gilts.

There is no new FIT or money to be made in ROC's any more. DECC ended it as they had spent all the cash they were allocated much faster than expected. However, we still need to fund the agreed schemes. Although the FIT is gone, renewable energy scheme returns are identical as the pricing has been dropped to reflect lack of incentives in the UK market.

There is no doubt that we are all paying green taxes. The Govt got some value for this as it kickstarted 5GW of additional generation, but the perverse incentive programmes were not efficient and a lot of people have made a lot of money at our expense.

Have no doubt though, this was driven by OUR govt and not the EU. The situation in France, Germany, Poland etc. is completely different. France didn't push renewables as the carbon intensity of their nuclear energy is so low. Germany used it as a way of boosting manufacturing and poland did not bother at all as their entire generating infrastructure is based on particularly dirty coal fired systems.

The EU can't be blamed for this one

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
Elysium said:
The first three items in your list are effectively the same thing. There is a vague and overarching directive from the EU, which our Government supported, to promote renewable energy.
They're quite specific, were named, and can be followed up by anyone interested enough.

Elysium said:
Renewable Energy Certificates (ROC's) are the tradable (ie the emissions trading scheme) element of the UK Renewables Obligation. This is our legislation, that our Government wanted.
That's what my post said.

Elysium said:
Equally Feed in Tarrifs are not EU driven.
Etc
Good job I didn't say there was a direct drive in that particular vehicle.

We appear to agree on quite a lot here.

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
FoE show how the influence works and how several if not most of the pieces fit together. Our response to the EU's renewables mistake is hardly free of EU influence and iirc the word influence is the one I used for the two points focusing on our government's response (in contrast to the other two which were/are clearly EU).

https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/download...

FoE said:
The UK is committed to delivering its share of the EU target of 20% of energy from sources by 2020.

Currently only 2% of UK energy (and under 5% of UK electricity) comes from renewable sources.

The Government must deliver a huge increase in UK renewable energy if it is to meet its share of the target of 20% of EU energy to come from renewable sources by 2020 (energy includes electricity, transport fuels and heat).

The 15% target which the EU has allocated to the UK would, if adopted, require the UK to generate about 40% of its electricity from renewable sources – an eight fold increase from current levels.

Reforms to the Renewables Obligation (RO) contained in the Energy Bill will only see the UK reach 15% renewable electricity by 2015. Clearly a massive expansion of renewable electricity is required to meet the EU target.
This has EU written all over it.

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 23 July 17:27

Elysium

13,755 posts

186 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
This has EU written all over it.
Sorry, I can't agree. I have spent some time in this sector and met the politicians and civil servants behind our green energy legislation.

Firstly, I don't agree that incentives for renewable energy are a mistake. I think renewables are a useful part of any energy strategy and that the market needed an incentive structure to kickstart it. However, the structure adopted was not efficient.

The document you linked sets out a Friends of the Earth campaign for UK feed in tariffs. They are referring to the EU as a model to follow as many EU countries preceded us in this area. This action was NOT led by centralised EU legislation. We already had our own ROC system, but FOE were pushing for a FIT having seen the industry respond positively in Germany.

Can I remind you that, at the time the article was written and the FIT was introduced Cameron was on a mission to create the Greenest Government Ever:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/1...

This was not about the EU it was driven by our membership of the G8 and our voluntary engagement with the Kyoto protocol. No-one from Europe made us do this stuff. Timing is everything and one of the reasons Germany did this better than us was the global financial crisis.




Edited by Elysium on Saturday 23 July 17:42

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
My original post mentioned two matters directly linked to the EU, unmistakably so. The other two can be seen to be influenced by meeting our share of the EU renewables target and in some cases represent an over-reaction from our (previous Labour) government which subsequent governments have done nothing much to rectify. This is what I said originally and it remains the case. Others can do their own research and make up their own minds.

The sooner we remove ourselves from this EU energy mistake, by one or two steps at least, the better.

Elysium

13,755 posts

186 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
My original post mentioned two matters directly linked to the EU, unmistakably so. The other two can be seen to be influenced by meeting our share of the EU renewables target and in some cases represent an over-reaction from our (previous Labour) government which subsequent governments have done nothing much to rectify. This is what I said originally and it remains the case. Others can do their own research and make up their own minds.

The sooner we remove ourselves from this EU energy mistake, by one or two steps at least, the better.
The first three things in your list are effectively one thing.

We have had our own emissions trading system since 2002 (Renewable Obligations Certificates).

We already had emissions targets as a signatory to the Kyoto protocol.

The UK championed the cause of an EU wide Renewable Energy Directive, which did not come into play until 2009. We were already doing everything in that directive and we wanted other EU countries to follow us.

As is typical with EU legislation they did not.

Feed in Tarrifs originated in the US. Then Germany implemented them very successfully and some other countries copied them. As you have shown lot's of UK organisations lobbied for our own FIT and we got our way.

All of the above was led by the UK - not Europe.

I have met two of our energy ministers in the last 10 years and the senior civil servants who ran the FIT programme for DECC. It's absolutely clear to me that this was UK government policy and that if anything we were trying to lead Europe toward renewables.

I am sure that there are many areas where we have picked up additional costs as a result of EU legislation. Our renewable energy policy is not one of those.




turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
This is getting OT from U-turns and for my part I won't continue the energy discussion beyond this post. For those who still haven't seen the costly and unproductive study by Google engineers/scientists which showed that renewable energy simply cannot work to power a developed western economy, here is a quote from them and a quote from a review of their work which says what they said in barely more words.

Committed Green engineers and scientists who found that renewables simply will not work said:
At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: we felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope,

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
Fortunately we don't as the non-problem not caused by us cannot be solved by us either.

Review of the report by green environmentalists / scientists said:
There is simply no getout clause for renewables supporters. The people who ran the study are very much committed to the belief that CO2 is dangerous – they are supporters of James Hansen. Their sincere goal was not to simply install a few solar cells, but to find a way to fundamentally transform the economics of energy production – to make renewable energy cheaper than coal. To this end, the study considered exotic innovations barely on the drawing board, such as self erecting wind turbines, using robotic technology to create new wind farms without human intervention. The result however was total failure – even these exotic possibilities couldn’t deliver the necessary economic model.

The key problem appears to be that the (energy) cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
Shovelling more money down this dead-end is pointless. The EU and our own governments have been failing spectacularly for some time as a result of an almost hypnotic belief in something that, when tested, simply cannot deliver (beyond a local vanity project or two).

mdavids

675 posts

183 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
Elysium said:
turbobloke said:
My original post mentioned two matters directly linked to the EU, unmistakably so. The other two can be seen to be influenced by meeting our share of the EU renewables target and in some cases represent an over-reaction from our (previous Labour) government which subsequent governments have done nothing much to rectify. This is what I said originally and it remains the case. Others can do their own research and make up their own minds.

The sooner we remove ourselves from this EU energy mistake, by one or two steps at least, the better.
The first three things in your list are effectively one thing.

We have had our own emissions trading system since 2002 (Renewable Obligations Certificates).

We already had emissions targets as a signatory to the Kyoto protocol.

The UK championed the cause of an EU wide Renewable Energy Directive, which did not come into play until 2009. We were already doing everything in that directive and we wanted other EU countries to follow us.

As is typical with EU legislation they did not.

Feed in Tarrifs originated in the US. Then Germany implemented them very successfully and some other countries copied them. As you have shown lot's of UK organisations lobbied for our own FIT and we got our way.

All of the above was led by the UK - not Europe.

I have met two of our energy ministers in the last 10 years and the senior civil servants who ran the FIT programme for DECC. It's absolutely clear to me that this was UK government policy and that if anything we were trying to lead Europe toward renewables.

I am sure that there are many areas where we have picked up additional costs as a result of EU legislation. Our renewable energy policy is not one of those.



We dont need no facts round these parts boy. Now lets quickly change the subject on to something we can blame the EU for.

Elysium

13,755 posts

186 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
mdavids said:
We dont need no facts round these parts boy. Now lets quickly change the subject on to something we can blame the EU for.
Brexit? smile

rs1952

5,247 posts

258 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
mdavids said:
Elysium said:
turbobloke said:
My original post mentioned two matters directly linked to the EU, unmistakably so. The other two can be seen to be influenced by meeting our share of the EU renewables target and in some cases represent an over-reaction from our (previous Labour) government which subsequent governments have done nothing much to rectify. This is what I said originally and it remains the case. Others can do their own research and make up their own minds.

The sooner we remove ourselves from this EU energy mistake, by one or two steps at least, the better.
The first three things in your list are effectively one thing.

We have had our own emissions trading system since 2002 (Renewable Obligations Certificates).

We already had emissions targets as a signatory to the Kyoto protocol.

The UK championed the cause of an EU wide Renewable Energy Directive, which did not come into play until 2009. We were already doing everything in that directive and we wanted other EU countries to follow us.

As is typical with EU legislation they did not.

Feed in Tarrifs originated in the US. Then Germany implemented them very successfully and some other countries copied them. As you have shown lot's of UK organisations lobbied for our own FIT and we got our way.

All of the above was led by the UK - not Europe.

I have met two of our energy ministers in the last 10 years and the senior civil servants who ran the FIT programme for DECC. It's absolutely clear to me that this was UK government policy and that if anything we were trying to lead Europe toward renewables.

I am sure that there are many areas where we have picked up additional costs as a result of EU legislation. Our renewable energy policy is not one of those.



We dont need no facts round these parts boy. Now lets quickly change the subject on to something we can blame the EU for.
That's right. Apparently we've all had more than enough of "experts"

///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
rs1952 said:
mdavids said:
Elysium said:
turbobloke said:
My original post mentioned two matters directly linked to the EU, unmistakably so. The other two can be seen to be influenced by meeting our share of the EU renewables target and in some cases represent an over-reaction from our (previous Labour) government which subsequent governments have done nothing much to rectify. This is what I said originally and it remains the case. Others can do their own research and make up their own minds.

The sooner we remove ourselves from this EU energy mistake, by one or two steps at least, the better.
The first three things in your list are effectively one thing.

We have had our own emissions trading system since 2002 (Renewable Obligations Certificates).

We already had emissions targets as a signatory to the Kyoto protocol.

The UK championed the cause of an EU wide Renewable Energy Directive, which did not come into play until 2009. We were already doing everything in that directive and we wanted other EU countries to follow us.

As is typical with EU legislation they did not.

Feed in Tarrifs originated in the US. Then Germany implemented them very successfully and some other countries copied them. As you have shown lot's of UK organisations lobbied for our own FIT and we got our way.

All of the above was led by the UK - not Europe.

I have met two of our energy ministers in the last 10 years and the senior civil servants who ran the FIT programme for DECC. It's absolutely clear to me that this was UK government policy and that if anything we were trying to lead Europe toward renewables.

I am sure that there are many areas where we have picked up additional costs as a result of EU legislation. Our renewable energy policy is not one of those.



We dont need no facts round these parts boy. Now lets quickly change the subject on to something we can blame the EU for.
That's right. Apparently we've all had more than enough of "experts"
Great post. As in many areas we are pushing hardest for the policy and regulation anyway

It is patently not a reason to brexit as the UK wants to do it (or wanted to).

Well articulated.

It would be nice if it was acknowledged.




Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 23 July 20:04

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
Back on topic, this article discusses what the bases for not leaving the EU are, including via a second referendum, then sets out why the UK will leave the EU without a second referendum.

The consultative nature of the first referendum is addressed. So is so-called "buyers' remorse" and the issue of age-related voting. A particularly interesting section discusses the EU perspective - including a compare and contrast exercise with other recent referenda in EU nations - and how it would be damaging and ultimately self-defeating for the EU if the UK were to remain.

Unlike the theoretical possibility, the practical impossibility of reversing the British referendum result is well-understood across the majority of the EU, apparently.

///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Back on topic, this article discusses what the bases for not leaving the EU are, including via a second referendum, then sets out why the UK will leave the EU without a second referendum.

The consultative nature of the first referendum is addressed. So is so-called "buyers' remorse" and the issue of age-related voting. A particularly interesting section discusses the EU perspective - including a compare and contrast exercise with other recent referenda in EU nations - and how it would be damaging and ultimately self-defeating for the EU if the UK were to remain.

Unlike the theoretical possibility, the practical impossibility of reversing the British referendum result is well-understood across the majority of the EU, apparently.
Read it.

Says vote was not close. Errr.

Then says reversing vote would damage the EU but doesn't explain why at all. Just blurts it out and hopes someone might believe it. Bizarre.

They also see no chance of SM access without FOM. That I do agree with, though the author offers no way forward as a result - it seems the author cares not for the SM and the impacts of leaving it on the UK. I suspect this govt very much will care (thankfully).

So FOM & Norway it is then......



jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Saturday 23rd July 2016
quotequote all
The author @ theDuran link; Alexander Mercouris

Is that the same Alexander Mercouris that leftie telegraph is trying to smear?

Telegraph headlines said:
Past comes back to haunt struck off barrister turned Russia commentator
Barrister struck off over claim that senior law lord had him kidnapped
Telegraph story said:
Alexander Mercouris concocted a web of “tortuous deceit” to convince a client he was pursuing the bogus claim, including forging a Supreme Court judge’s signature, a tribunal heard.
He even alleged that Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, President of the Supreme Court, had him abducted and offered him a £50,000 bribe to abandon the case.
His lies began after he offered to represent Lorna Jamous, 49, a mother seeking damages from a council over standards of care involving her son, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) heard.
Mrs Jamous had been offered a £5,000 settlement by Westminster City Council, but Mercouris told her in October 2009 that he could take further action to get her hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Mercouris, 51, later told his client he had managed to win her a £983,000 payout, prompting her to rack up debts in expectation of the windfall.

However, when she began questioning why the money had not materialised, Mercouris “embarked on ever more bizarre assertions to hide the truth” that the payout had never been awarded, Stephen Mooney, the BSB’s counsel said.

To convince Mrs Jamous, he showed her a forged letter purporting to be from Baroness Hale, Justice of the Supreme Court, expressing concern that the payment had not arrived.

At one point, he talked the mother-of-two out of attending a hearing at which she would have discovered the truth, claiming her presence would “derail sensitive negotiations”.
Next he told her he had applied for an interim £50,000 payment, then claimed his brother had stolen the whole £983,000.
Well, if I don't trust his opinion, I don't know who to trust.

Kidnapped and blackmailed by Lord Phillips rofl




TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED