• About Diversity: And the freedom to speak my mind!

      0 comments

    Above: Royal Dutch Shell’s energy diversification. Click on the image for a readable full size rendition.
    One of the great benefits of being a member of a political party that has less chance of winning any seats that Euromillions lotto players have of winning the jackpot is that it leaves me free to do that which forms the title of today’s post!

    You see were I a member of the Conservative or Labour parties I would have to watch my words.

    As I’ve mentioned before, I am (as of the date of publication) under the state retirement age. I have no paid employment. I am not “signing on” and therefore I am not one of those many categorised in government statistics as unemployed. Government statisticians deem me to be in the class of persons known as “economically inactive” further information can be found at the website of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
    GOTO: https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6252
    In the tax year 6th April 2018 to 5th April 2019, 98% of the money that enabled me to pay my bills came from dividends in companies incorporated either in England & Wales or Scotland. The remaining 2% came (free of income tax) from the sun via the legalised fraud known as the “Feed In Tariff”.

    My shares in Royal Dutch Shell constitute approximately one third of my portfolio with my shares in the Phoenix Group constituting another third. The precise proportions vary continuously as the share values constantly fluctuate. In the case of “RDS” they fluctuate a lot! However, the things that I attach great importance to – the dividends from these companies – fluctuate an awful lot less! Of the two shares mentioned, RDS fluctuates more due to the fact that since crude oil is traded in the US $, the dividends are declared in that currency. The actual amounts that end up in the coffers of the “Peter Rogers Relief From Poverty Fund” (my Lloyds Bank current account) vary with the £/$ exchange rate.

    We now come to the explanation concerning the title of today’s post.

    You see one of the standard “must do” pieces of advice ANY competent and properly authorised independent financial adviser MUST give is this: SPREAD THE RISK.

    Every competent and properly authorised independent financial adviser WOULD state that my portfolio is far too concentrated in too few companies.

    They are correct!

    Indeed, in the 1990s I gave THE VERY SAME ADVICE to my late father. Apart from his state pension, most of his retirement income came from ONE source: Lloyds Bank. I suggested to “Dad” that he diversify and that he should sell up to three quarters of the shares over a period of more than one tax year (to avoid CGT) and to purchase shares in an investment trust that has the objective in securing a stable and growing dividend income. Investing I such as an investment trust is ALWAYS the SENSIBLE thing to do for anybody in my late father’s or my current position. This is because the investment trust had a portfolio valued in the hundreds of millions and not the hundreds of thousands! Thus the portfolio can be spread across a large number of companies giving added security of both capital and income.

    There now follows yet another assembly of text that no sane member of the Conservative or Labour parties would type: I am forever grateful to my late mother for nagging “Dad” into submission and acting on my advice! Had her nagging been unsuccessful I would have been in a very difficult position years later!

    The reason for me not following the my own advice?
    The reason is to be found in Charles Dickens’s David Copperfield with the character Mr Micawber’s famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness:
    “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ‘ought and six, result misery.”

    You see, when I took the decision to sell my house in Leeds and “downsized” I had to do my sums and these sums came up short employing the sensible strategy of diversification – consequently I put together a portfolio that paid a higher income but at the same time expose my investments to greater risk. In today’s jargon infested world it is said that I “increased my risk appetite”!

    Not taking advice is a specialisation of mine!

    When I was in the process of moving, a neighbour in Leeds offered me some advice of their own: “Put your money in bricks and mortar! Buy the place you’ll live in but buy another place as well and put a tenant in it. Also, get a “little job” [their words] to make up the money you’ll need to live on!

    I rejected this advice for the following reasons:

    Buying property to let out to tenants is a good idea IF you are a multi-millionaire many times over and can put together a portfolio of dozens and dozens – preferably hundreds or even better thousands – of modest properties ideally 2 bedroom houses in areas that estate agents describe as “popular” – and employ someone oneself to attend to the paperwork. Buying a single property – which is what four of the owners in the collection of apartments I live in have done – and putting a tenant in it and employing an estate agent to manage it brings in a very poor return. This because the agent takes a generous slice of the income off the top and one has to retain a considerable portion of the income to pay for the maintenance of the property. In addition there is the problem of loosing a tenant as many tenants only rent for a temporary period. This means a loss of income whilst the property is empty.

    There is of course a way in which a very healthy income can be obtained from one modest property such as a 2 bedroom house in a popular area. That is to let it to two women who would describe themselves as “escorts”. Now, for the decent churchgoing readership that constitutes 99.9999999% of the BG’s readership, some words of explanation are required at this point. You see these women do not “escort” young or vulnerable persons making journeys on public transport. They actually provide sexual services to paying clients.

    This of course is an economic activity that is fraught with risk. As a result these women seek to take as many precautions as they possibly can. The two that are at the top of the list are: find a safe property from which to work and work in pairs. The problem is that working in pairs constitutes brothel keeping. Furthermore, the landlord knowingly letting a brothel – and charging an increased rent – will themselves be prosecuted.

    Insofar as the landlord is concerned, the penalties would be severe. Firstly prison would be inevitable. Secondly, a draconian piece of legislation called Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 c. 29 would be viciously and vindictively applied whereby all assets indirectly and directly related to the offence would be confiscated – not to compensate victims but to pay the costs of operating the police service. Therefore any person thinking of renting residential property to an “escort” would be insane.
    The situation for these vulnerable and exploited women is only set to get worse.

    This is because those who form the membership of the two political parties that actually legislate for and govern the UK – the Conservative and Labour parties – are governed by what will constitute an acceptable policy to the group of people who make up of “the politically correct commentariat”.

    The received wisdom of this group in respect of the women known as “escorts” is this:

    #1: There is NO SUCH THING as a non-coerced sex worker.
    #2: À propos of #1 above, ALL sex workers are coerced.
    #3: À propos of #2 above, ALL clients of sex workers are sex abusers.

    This group intend to make the lives of these women even more dangerous by criminalising the buying of sexual services with legislation that makes it a strict liability offence. This in effect means that the status to the sex workers is defined in statute as a victim and the status of the sex buyer is defined in statute as an abuser and therefore the CPS only have to prove that the sex buyer was in the presence of the sex worker to obtain a prosecution.

    This of course makes an absolute joke of “guilty till proven innocent”!

    But then we MUST NOT be surprised. After all, it was elected politicians in the Conservative and Labour parties who for 17,197 days or 47 years and 1 month subjected the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the UNLAWFUL RULE of a foreign power thus betraying their Privy Council Oaths and causing Her Majesty the Queen to be in breach of her Coronation Oath to govern us according to OUR laws and customs.
    Herewith a YouTube video:So you may ask: What is your opinion about those who paying for sex? What should be done with them?

    Well, here again, I’m going to take FULL advantage of my UKIP membership and state my mind irrespective of how “politically incorrect” it is!

    In the 1960s there was a term used to describe the society of the day. This was the “permissive society”. It was an excellent term because it described the situation that pertained very well indeed. The “permissive society” was a situation where persons were allowed to indulge in sexual activity regardless of their marital status or gender. In other words, such behaviour was permitted.

    That was not to say it was approved of and not subject to public censure. What it DID mean was that those performing such activities were no longer arrested, charged and if convicted, punished by the criminal justice system.

    This of course was challenged by and objected to by many who desired a return to earlier, less permissive days.

    A basic, core problem human societies have to deal with is this: That there exists a range of actions and behaviours that are regarded as “wrong”. There is also a range of of actions and behaviours that are regarded as “wrong” to such a degree that criminal justice system is employed to bring the perpetrators of these more heinous actions and behaviours to the courts and punish them.
    In the 1950s men engaging in sexual activity together were prosecuted. If in 1955 (the year I was born) a proprietor of a hotel suspected that two men who were sharing a room were in fact engaging in homosexual activity called the police they would be congratulated. If in 2020 a proprietor of a hotel informed two openly homosexual men intent on sharing a room that they were “disgusting sodomites” – were those homosexuals to call the police it is the hotel’s proprietor who would be arrested.

    This situation comes about when legislators and the public take the attitude that “what is legal is right and what is illegal is wrong” and the “grey area” is swept away.

    So to answer the question about the sex buyer: If the man is married, he is an adulterer. If he is unmarried, he is a fornicator. Either way he is committing a SIN.

    In a Muslim state such as Saudi Arabia he is also breaking the criminal law and if caught and convicted will be punished very severely indeed.

    It is MY opinion that such offences are NOT the business of the Crown Prosecution Service but of Almighty God.

    To those who would suggest that this is allowing such men to get away with it, we would suggest that the ONLY ways such men can get away with such sinning are:

    #1: Repent and obtain absolution. Which means not doing it again!

    #2: Not dying – Ever!