E PEtition to waive the £500,000 VAT bill on the Bomber Memorial
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as I said in my earlier post, it's not just the VAT: Defence Secretary Philip Hammond accused of hypocrisy over Bomber Command Memorial - Telegraph
S-D
S-D
Paxing All Over The World
My father was in Bomber Command. I contributed to the memorial is in name (he came through and lived many more years) and signed as #481. I'll circulate my family and his grandchildren.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philippines
Age: 81
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bump, 622. If everybody tries to enlist a few others who in turn do the same, should be able to make the magic number. Have just involved my old ATC squadron .....
1479 now. Posted via WriteToThem - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free :-
Dear Chugalug2's MP,
I am very pleased that at last a proper National Memorial has been dedicated in Central London to the 55573 aircrew of Bomber Command who gave their lives so that freedom and democracy would prevail in the WWII struggle against Nazism, albeit some 67 years late.
What I am not pleased about is that the MOD has left the veterans to foot the over half million pound shortfall in the cost of security after a £200,00 grant from the DCMS, which it was understood to have agreed to match.
It is unseemly that HMG, which is demanding a further half million pounds of VAT from the privately raised subscriptions to the cost of this memorial should behave in this way. It should take a lead from the Dominions, especially New Zealand that provided an aircraft to fly surviving veterans to London and back for the ceremony.
In comparison HMG's actions appear mean and callow. Is that because it is? If it is not it should make amends now by refunding all of the VAT and paying outright for the security costs of the Dedication Ceremony. As it paid nothing for the memorial itself, and will pay nothing for its upkeep, this is the least it can do to acknowledge the debt that this Nation owes to Bomber Command which had losses exceeding 50% of aircrew in a bitter campaign that lasted from the beginning to the end of the War in Europe.
Yours sincerely,
Chug
Dear Chugalug2's MP,
I am very pleased that at last a proper National Memorial has been dedicated in Central London to the 55573 aircrew of Bomber Command who gave their lives so that freedom and democracy would prevail in the WWII struggle against Nazism, albeit some 67 years late.
What I am not pleased about is that the MOD has left the veterans to foot the over half million pound shortfall in the cost of security after a £200,00 grant from the DCMS, which it was understood to have agreed to match.
It is unseemly that HMG, which is demanding a further half million pounds of VAT from the privately raised subscriptions to the cost of this memorial should behave in this way. It should take a lead from the Dominions, especially New Zealand that provided an aircraft to fly surviving veterans to London and back for the ceremony.
In comparison HMG's actions appear mean and callow. Is that because it is? If it is not it should make amends now by refunding all of the VAT and paying outright for the security costs of the Dedication Ceremony. As it paid nothing for the memorial itself, and will pay nothing for its upkeep, this is the least it can do to acknowledge the debt that this Nation owes to Bomber Command which had losses exceeding 50% of aircrew in a bitter campaign that lasted from the beginning to the end of the War in Europe.
Yours sincerely,
Chug
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,035
Received 2,903 Likes
on
1,244 Posts
I never noticed, Damn Ipad auto corrects stuff and it sometimes slips past me 
but then again
He who casts the first stone......... 
Keep going guys, good to see we are getting some votes.
but then again
why would anyone want to wave a VAT bill? So people can see you've got it?
Now if you wanted to waive a bill thats different...
Now if you wanted to waive a bill thats different...
Keep going guys, good to see we are getting some votes.
Last edited by NutLoose; 2nd Jul 2012 at 13:34.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thats isn't a possesive, so arguably does not take an apostraphe - it would be replacing an vowel. You don't use an apostraphe in its, do you? And yet isnt is normally written with one..........I was taught at skool NOT to use an apostraphe for a missing letter, only for the possesive - even though historically the use would be correct.
Old style vs new style (1970s) teaching I guess
Old style vs new style (1970s) teaching I guess
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 2nd Jul 2012 at 18:46.