“Here we go again.

I've already corrected all you garbage innumarable times.

And what mandate did Boots give the council?

In fact, what mandate did all the Boots employees from Derby and other areas outside your tram voting constituencies give the council?

That would be *NONE* then!

.

Lots of companies have either outsourced large chunks of their operations overseas or completely relocated overseas just ot avoid ordinary taxes.

Boots already has overseas operations, so it just has top slim down here and expand somewhere else so their costs would be far less than those companies.

And they would save half a £ *MILLION* a year *ON* *TOP* of what those companies were saving.

.

Companies relocate within the UK all the time:

In fact *YOU* are claiming they will relocate here.

And that's *INTO* an area with an additional half £ *MILLION* a year taxes and roads even more congested by the tram.

So why wouldn't Boots move out?

And as you haven't got a clue how to driver, or even what the roads look like (are you blind? bedridden?) please don't tell me what the tram will or will not do, in fact what it already does or doesn't do!

.

And as for your planning permission "proof":

As the tram is not yet guaranteed to go ahead all that proves is that they would have gone ahead with or without the tram.

Are you *COMPLETELY* unable to think rationally?
.”

“B J it's simple.

What sort of a company would try and face extra costs for relocation, planning ETC to go out of their way to try and kill a public transport alternative to the car off?

The tram is not a rolling roadblock; the reason why it might not have had a bigger impact on car use is because it is not a network yet.

And evidence shows people and businesses will come to Nottingham as a result of the tram; the Medi Park has planning permission, and the NG2 program, going through the planning process as far as I know is based on the tram.

And a public inquiry found that the tram will bring people and businesses in, under the same inspector who, if the A453 gets the go ahead you will be saying is the best thing since sliced bred! Marriage of convenience?

And I notice you still haven't mentioned the elective mandate question.”

“And as for the bus they're supposedly proposing to get people across the "sight" to avoid it:

They *ALREADY* have their own buses running round their site!

Anmd when will you get it through your thick skull that the congestion is the result of traffic that doesn't want to be there being forced onto roads they don't want to be on.

The tram will make *NO* significant reduction in commuter traffic.

But it will form a massive rolling roadblock.

Congestion will get *WORSE* !

.

As for do they just want something for nothing?

They pay a fortune in tax and business rates.

They provide buses round their site.

They *ALREADY* subsidise buses in the area.

And you, who probably pay nothing in tax, and only pay half the cost (at most) of your transport:

Want them to pay even more for your transport so that you can pay even less:

It's YOU who wants something for nothing!!!
.”

“You really are thick, Mr Stupid:

They can raid any budgets they want.

I asked which *YOU* would prefer them to cut.

They don't have to be nice and pay anything to support cycling.

But they do.

But you want them, on *top* of their ordinary taxes.

And *on* *TOP* of their voluntary charitable donations.

To be *FORCED* to subsidise your tram.

If they *ARE* *FORCED* to *subsidise* your tram, why should you expect them to continue subsidising related stuff.

If *you* want them to subsidise something else:

Where *do* *YOU* expect them to get the money from.

Because, having paid their taxes, and been charitable already, they aren't going to cut into their profits any more.

At least not back here in the *real* real world.

So, *again* which charitable budget, that they don't have to spend, do you want them to cut so that they can fund what you want them to be forced to fund.

It's a simple question.

And I'm asking *YOU* .

Not me.

Not Boots.

*YOU* !
.”

“So, B J, which of those budgetss should be raded to fund:

Car park relocation costs.

Planning costs.

Not to mention the bus they're proposing to get people across the sight to avoid it!

Or, indeed, the millions in lost revenue as the result of both congestion if they kill this thing off, and the lossed revenues as the result of not bringing people in to the towns?

Or, given that Boots, the Notts and Derbyshire chamber and the large majority of Beeston and Nottingham support the tram, do they just want something for nothing?

Or do they want effectively a laim duck system?

Which, despite the government taking over the infrastructure, due to train service privatization our railways have almost become due to train operating companies charging mad prices?

So, which one of those budgets should Boots rade to avoid the WPL?

Which one?

Is it:
It's bus subsidies?

It's cycling support?

Or do you just want it to raid pension funds to kill off any chance of anything changing?

Or, shouldn't we instead have them take a bit out their profits to something that will bring the people in?


And since we want to mention mandates for something; a point you decided to not cover.

People voted Labour back in in 2007 knowing that this was an idea they were considering and, I'm sorry, but if people vote labour not taking this in to account that's their own look out.

And all the issues were raized at a public inquiry!

So, I'm afraid, that's that.

Finished!”

“Errrmmmmmmmmm, Mr Moron:

Why do I need *ANY* figures to back it up?

Allianbce Boots *ALREADY* pays its Business Rates and Corporate Taxes.

Plus road tax and fuel duty on its vehicles.

Plus all it's employees pay their taxers (and those that drive: their road taxes and up to around 350% fuel duties).

Then there's all the VAT raised on it's products.

So why should it pay any other taxes companies in Derby or Leicester or even Arnold don't have to?

Never mind those abroad.

.

And it's part of a world wide group a presence in probably at least a dozen countries.

Why should those in other countries subsidise your tram?

.

And only about 5% of the workforce work at Beeston:

Why should the other 95% subsidise your tram?

In fact, why should those at Beeston?

.

And that "Billion" is probably before tax.

And out of that is what Boots would use to develop and expand and do any good works, as well as pay shareholders (which will probably be things like pension funds, anyway).

Oh, and did you know that Boots pays enormous sums to provide cycling facilities and subsidise buses?!?!?!

So, Mr Not At All Selfish:

What snob toff luxury do you want Boots to give up so that it can pay for *YOUR* tram?

It's bus subsidies?

It's cycling support?

Or do you just want it to raid pension funds to give you the particular form of public transport you prefer because you don't think the bus is good enough for you?

You mindless, selfish, self-centred, ignorant bigot!
.”

“B J, so what are the numbers for the Nottingham division? Because, having made that assertion you will naturally have found the figures to back it up.

And you say people don't want it?

So how do you account for the fact that Nottingham City Council proposed the WPL in 2006, and Labour were returned in 2007?

Or indeed that the Beeston extention was proposed back in 2001, and a Lib-Lab administration was returned at Broxtowe Borough Council both in 2003 and 2007?

Clearly, the people do not believe you.”

“Errrmmmmmmmmm, Mr Moron, The Madhouse:

I've said myself that the Boots part is based in Nottingham.

That doesn't alter the fact the figures you were quoting were the global profits.

On which taxes are paid globally.

And they also, no doubt, provide the public with additional benefits.

As usual, you still haven't addressed, in faxct the thought hasn't even crossed your tiny mind, why they should take a massive *ADDITIONAL* chunk out of *LOCAL* profits to pay for something the government, the council, and even the passengers don't think it worth paying for?!?!?

And you have the brass neck to call *them* selfish?!?!?!

.

As for short termist:

The tram will not improve access:

As the more loose lipped tram fanatics used to gleefully boast:

The tram is a rolling roadblock!

.

The tram will not bring in any more customers.

And drive away hoardes of non passengers.
.”

“Like I say B J, if you improve transport access to a town, you bring people in to it, and thus in to Boots stores, thus with the potencial to increase their profits.

So, not only are they selfish, but shorttermist.

And, I think you'll find that the Boots part of the group is Nottingham based.”

“Errmmmmmmmmmmm, Mr Moron:

You are confusing it with Alliance Boots, an international company that "employs over 115,000 people. Its wholesale and distribution network serves over 140,000 pharmacies, doctors, health centres and hospitals from over 370 pharmaceutical wholesale distribution centres in 16 countries. We operate more than 3,200 health and beauty retail stores in nine countries".

And:

"Has three owned manufacturing facilities (UK, France, Germany) and one associate assembly plant (Poland)."

Along with " five principal associate and joint venture business interests" abroad.

.

All of which not only pay their taxes and dues, but probably give a littel extra, or maybe a lot extra, through corporate responsibilty activities.

So why should this international group fork out another half a million a year, on top of its local business rates and national corporate taxes on the bits based in Nottingham for the privilege of providing employment here?

.

There are far cheaper places it could move its local operations to.

Many countries have upped sticks and left the country completely for savings in normal costs and taxes.

Why should Boots stay and not only give up those savings, but those savings *PLUS* another half a £ *MILLION* a year.

.

Did I mention you a *MORON* ?

You clearly have never had *ANY* contact with the real world!
.”