Does anybody know who this person is?

I've just seen a video originally brought on Sky News, where the British politician Nigel Farage discuss the problems with the EURO and EU. In the video some unknown politician/other public figure/whatever attacks him verbally in a most childish manner. Nigel mentions his name at one point, but speaks too fast, so I can't hear his name (Hoffstap I heard it as). Can someone tell me who the man speaking at 3:43 is? And if he (hopefully not) has any political influence?

Seriously?

It's Guy Verhofstadt. He was Prime Minister of Belgium for a while, MEP, head of one of the european super-coalitions (although embarassingly I can't remember which).

Certainly a much bigger name than Farange, although I agree he didn't come across all that well there.

Had to Wikipedia it because it was annoying me. He's head of "Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe."

Thanks for the answer. I'm interested in what goes on with the commission and the parliament in general, but except for the "Europe of Freedom and Democracy" -group I don't much care for any of the other groups in the European Parliament.

so the guy you don't like is with the only group you do?

This board needs the "facepalm"-smiley.

The politician I appreciate and respect is Nigel Farage (You know, the guy in the television), and the politician I don't much care for is the man with the funny accent and glasses.

Did that make sense?

I still haven't decided how I feel about the EU to be honest. As a purely free market then its great. As anything else? Dunno.

The problem with the EU is that its too boring to think of for any length of time. I'm not sure whether they've done this consciously or whether its an accident (I suspect the former) but every time I try to think about it my brain steps in and says "No, you cant possibly be actually wanting to think about this. Here, look at these ninja lesbians fighting a dragon." It's like a SEP field from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy but one comprised of boredom rather than strangeness.

I've thought about the EU a bit (kind of an occupational thing). The problem (if that's the word) is that England has a longer history of continuous soveriegnity than most if not all other European states. Soveriegnity in Europe has been fluid right up to the 21st century and is, consequently, not as instilled in the character as it is for the English.

Well, you're a professional historian. You have a far higher tolerance to boredom than the average person. It takes a conscious effort to get through "Divorced Beheaded Died Divorced Beheaded Survived" and I lapse into a coma around the restoration if I try to go through the "Will, Will, Harry, Stee" rhyme.

I think the largest problem is that England has never seen itself as part of Europe. "Fog in Channel" and all that. It ties in to your point about sovereignty but with us being a definable island its easier to say "This is England" and, lets be honest, England has been doing that for a while - "This other Eden" and so on. We see, deep in the depths of our national character, Europeans as aliens while I think most mainland countries see themselves, to some extent, as neighbours.

Actually EU isn't actually beneficial to back-water countries like DK and UK (Not being part of the euro-zone), and it has become a failed attempt at introducing protectionism to anyone but the Germans and to a lesser degree the French. Talking about examples only relevant in DK is tempting, but not very fruitful, so I will take a nervous step into British economy. I have come to understand that London is one of the few large financial centers here in Europe, and that much of the British wealth comes from investing etc. The union wishes to apply taxes on investments etc. which most likely will be forced on the British economy , so Britain etc. can pay for such brilliant investments as saving the Euro from collapsing, bail-outing Greece, Italy, Portugal etc. (I have a feeling that Anna knows what the hell I mean by " investments etc." admittedly I don't know much about economy)
The left would argue, that UK's working class has a hard time. But due to EU it's possible simply to import an East European work-force and under pay them, or simply just move your production to Eastern Europe. And you don't need to have Anna's knowledge of economy to know, that it's bad, when the flow of money in a society slows down, and people stops consuming.

Spoiler:

The EU has a rather new thing implemented that's called "Initiative", which I personally believe is a rather interesting thing.. It may not be the best thing that has happened to the world, but I find that it shows that they are actually trying to make things better for the common people of the EU. Basically this means that if you can get 1.000.000 people from at least 5 countries (or something like that) to sign on a petition the European Government will have to bring this question up. Be it free taxis for everyone or a minimum percentage of electricity usage in a country being supported by Windpower.

However, I personally think that the Euro is one of the most stupid ideas that has ever been added to a larger society. What happens in Greece and Italy is going to give a massive effect to all the other countries involved in the EU and sadly, I don't think that's such a good thing. If Greece can't handle their economy they should pay for that themselves... I could understand if they had an army together or something of the sorts, but I don't believe that the Euro thing is particularily good and as of the last vote about it, niether does most part of the grown-ups in Sweden.

Yeah, London is one of the world's major financial centres and it was that that made Cameron veto the treaty (in a rare display of fucking growing some - right or wrong at least he manned up). It's funny, people are trying to claim it will isolate us in the EU - you dont think not being in the eurozone is maybe what did that? Fuck a treaty that'll never be implemented anyway, Maastricht is what (correctly as it turned out) isolated us. That and the CAP rebate.

I do think alot of Britain's issues with the EU are jingoism though. Yes, we can import poles and the like for lower paying wages but the argument they're taking jobs away from some mythical people called "the British" is tenuous at best. They're doing jobs that are unfilled not taking jobs. Number of jobs is not a finite number, the more people working, the more jobs there are and so on.

Wrt Greece, it has to be bailed out. People can whine and whinge and I'm sure they will but this isn't an optional thing. Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, all these shit countries have made the best decision for their countries in joining the Euro because it helps shore up their crappy corruption infested economies. At the end of the day the Euro has become more than a good thing or bad thing and is now simply a force of nature. EU decisions have their own inexorable logic because they can no more take decisions that will collapse the Euro than the UK parliament can collapse the Pound.

Anna Spencer wrote:

I do think alot of Britain's issues with the EU are jingoism though. Yes, we can import poles and the like for lower paying wages but the argument they're taking jobs away from some mythical people called "the British" is tenuous at best. They're doing jobs that are unfilled not taking jobs. Number of jobs is not a finite number, the more people working, the more jobs there are and so on.

This is not a race issue, but a state should feel responsible for the people living within the state. UK only has a limited amount of resources, and a good state and government, would secure that their people gets the needed amount of resources to get by, and still have salt for their eggs. Now if it is true that the number of jobs is infinite how can it be, that more and more industry and work moves away from Britain and the rest of the EU-countries leaving people without a job? I'm pretty sure, that most unemployed people would love to get a job, and so there's potential for companies to create jobs in their region, but still the jobs keep moving away? This underpaying exists so that companies can screw over their old work-force and save money. This would be less intolerable if this new imported workforce at least could afford a decent lifestyle, but that is not the case, it's just the modern face of slave-labor.

Anna Spencer wrote:

Wrt Greece, it has to be bailed out. People can whine and whinge and I'm sure they will but this isn't an optional thing. Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, all these shit countries have made the best decision for their countries in joining the Euro because it helps shore up their crappy corruption infested economies. At the end of the day the Euro has become more than a good thing or bad thing and is now simply a force of nature. EU decisions have their own inexorable logic because they can no more take decisions that will collapse the Euro than the UK parliament can collapse the Pound.

The united US Dollar is a relatively young currency, but if one takes a close look at USA, it's pretty obvious that USA has not gotten rid of corruption(one could even call the problem with corruption "bad"). The Dollar did not save USA's economy. What Ireland, Greece etc. should do now, is to cut off the rope with an anchor attached to it called "Euro" from their legs, allow their currency to fall, re-instate their own currency, rethink, and then rebuild their economy. That may sound like ideological bullshit, but when Iceland's economy went to hell in the beginning of the crisis, Iceland allowed it's banks to crack, survived the chock, and Iceland's economy is getting back on the right track. It's an old rule of capitalism, "That which can't stand by itself must fall" - that is what is so insane about all these bailouts; it's European economy's way of pissing in it's own pants to stay warm.

Barathrum Crumb wrote:

The EU has a rather new thing implemented that's called "Initiative", which I personally believe is a rather interesting thing.. It may not be the best thing that has happened to the world, but I find that it shows that they are actually trying to make things better for the common people of the EU. Basically this means that if you can get 1.000.000 people from at least 5 countries (or something like that) to sign on a petition the European Government will have to bring this question up. Be it free taxis for everyone or a minimum percentage of electricity usage in a country being supported by Windpower.

This is a first-class example of the deceit of the union, and it's populism of the worst sort. This proposal is never realistically going to achieve anything. We all know that 1 million people is never going to rally behind a small-scale but cause like "We need to tighten the Schengen-agreement, to battle the growing problem of drugs, by making tighter control of the border between Finland and Sweden aimed towards trucks of a certain size."
I'm sure it's efficient at creating support from people with strong populist views like stoners who wants to "legalize cannabis in EU", and I don't doubt that if Liberals around EU united, they could gather 1 million votes, but such populism would never be allowed since we all know, that conservative forces(not that there's anything wrong about being conservative) never would allow cannabis smoking to happen in broad daylight down at Downing Street - never.
And even if the suggestion was not a hoax, think of the horrors of an EU where this applied? I'm pretty sure that if Jobbik, British National Party, Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Svenskarnas Parti etc. united they could gather one million votes for a petition banning interracial marriages.

Barathrum Crumb wrote:

However, I personally think that the Euro is one of the most stupid ideas that has ever been added to a larger society. What happens in Greece and Italy is going to give a massive effect to all the other countries involved in the EU and sadly, I don't think that's such a good thing. If Greece can't handle their economy they should pay for that themselves... I could understand if they had an army together or something of the sorts, but I don't believe that the Euro thing is particularily good and as of the last vote about it, niether does most part of the grown-ups in Sweden.

Amen

If time=money=goods and services, why not eliminate the middle man?
Set up a system wherein if person work 1/4 of the day making product and/or providing service next day activate all acess pass.

Richard Eichel wrote:

Anna Spencer wrote:

I do think alot of Britain's issues with the EU are jingoism though. Yes, we can import poles and the like for lower paying wages but the argument they're taking jobs away from some mythical people called "the British" is tenuous at best. They're doing jobs that are unfilled not taking jobs. Number of jobs is not a finite number, the more people working, the more jobs there are and so on.

This is not a race issue, but a state should feel responsible for the people living within the state. UK only has a limited amount of resources, and a good state and government, would secure that their people gets the needed amount of resources to get by, and still have salt for their eggs. Now if it is true that the number of jobs is infinite how can it be, that more and more industry and work moves away from Britain and the rest of the EU-countries leaving people without a job? I'm pretty sure, that most unemployed people would love to get a job, and so there's potential for companies to create jobs in their region, but still the jobs keep moving away? This underpaying exists so that companies can screw over their old work-force and save money. This would be less intolerable if this new imported workforce at least could afford a decent lifestyle, but that is not the case, it's just the modern face of slave-labor.

And that's great, rhetoric wise. But its not what we're seeing in practice. Sure, manufacturing is going in Britain as it is in alot of the west but factory =/= only type of work. Stereotypically alot of eastern european immigrants are in construction and other manual trades and that is pure job creation. If I set up as a builder then thats new work, and if theres no work for me in building I'll stop, nothing has been lost. There is nothing preventing a native Brit setting up a building company other than they charge higher rates (stereotypically again) than EU immigrants and so don't do as well.

There isn't a limited amount of resources, at least not on the scale we're talking about. Its not like there is a central list of jobs and once they're all filled then thats it. Companies are formed, and they take on employees. This is how economies grow and whether its done by someone with a UK passport or a Polish passport doesn't matter so long as its done in the UK. You say that jobs are going away but thats simply not true. Our economy is growing. Sure its growing by a miniscule rate but it is growing. Jobs are being created. Without our links to Europe, I'm not certain they would be.

Anna Spencer wrote:

Wrt Greece, it has to be bailed out. People can whine and whinge and I'm sure they will but this isn't an optional thing. Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, all these shit countries have made the best decision for their countries in joining the Euro because it helps shore up their crappy corruption infested economies. At the end of the day the Euro has become more than a good thing or bad thing and is now simply a force of nature. EU decisions have their own inexorable logic because they can no more take decisions that will collapse the Euro than the UK parliament can collapse the Pound.

The united US Dollar is a relatively young currency, but if one takes a close look at USA, it's pretty obvious that USA has not gotten rid of corruption(one could even call the problem with corruption "bad"). The Dollar did not save USA's economy. What Ireland, Greece etc. should do now, is to cut off the rope with an anchor attached to it called "Euro" from their legs, allow their currency to fall, re-instate their own currency, rethink, and then rebuild their economy. That may sound like ideological bullshit, but when Iceland's economy went to hell in the beginning of the crisis, Iceland allowed it's banks to crack, survived the chock, and Iceland's economy is getting back on the right track. It's an old rule of capitalism, "That which can't stand by itself must fall" - that is what is so insane about all these bailouts; it's European economy's way of pissing in it's own pants to stay warm. [/quote]

Yes, thats an old rule of capitalism but we dont live in some Austrian School/Ann Rand state - a decision has been taken, tacitly I should imagine, that a level of state intervention is necessary/desirable. It is ideological bullshit, or something close to it. Its all very well saying "Capitalist theory says we should do x,y,z" but its no more meaningful than saying "Marx says we should do x,y,z" or Keynes, or any other economic ideology. Its not the system we have at the moment. Maybe it would be more efficient if we did, although I doubt it, but you cant make decision in isolation - you cant make decisions based on what should be the case, only on what is.

Barathrum Crumb wrote:

The EU has a rather new thing implemented that's called "Initiative", which I personally believe is a rather interesting thing.. It may not be the best thing that has happened to the world, but I find that it shows that they are actually trying to make things better for the common people of the EU. Basically this means that if you can get 1.000.000 people from at least 5 countries (or something like that) to sign on a petition the European Government will have to bring this question up. Be it free taxis for everyone or a minimum percentage of electricity usage in a country being supported by Windpower.

This is a first-class example of the deceit of the union, and it's populism of the worst sort. This proposal is never realistically going to achieve anything. We all know that 1 million people is never going to rally behind a small-scale but cause like "We need to tighten the Schengen-agreement, to battle the growing problem of drugs, by making tighter control of the border between Finland and Sweden aimed towards trucks of a certain size."
I'm sure it's efficient at creating support from people with strong populist views like stoners who wants to "legalize cannabis in EU", and I don't doubt that if Liberals around EU united, they could gather 1 million votes, but such populism would never be allowed since we all know, that conservative forces(not that there's anything wrong about being conservative) never would allow cannabis smoking to happen in broad daylight down at Downing Street - never.
And even if the suggestion was not a hoax, think of the horrors of an EU where this applied? I'm pretty sure that if Jobbik, British National Party, Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Svenskarnas Parti etc. united they could gather one million votes for a petition banning interracial marriages. [/quote]

I agree (with CJ).

Jimmy wrote:

If time=money=goods and services, why not eliminate the middle man?
Set up a system wherein if person work 1/4 of the day making product and/or providing service next day activate all acess pass.

So are all goods equal? All services? It seems like we'd need some sort of system where a greater value could be assigned to a TV than an apple. We could even allow direct transfer of this inherent value through, I dunno, metal circles or something similar.

In short Jimmy, we had that system. Millenia ago. It was shit and the invention of money was a great leap forwards.

lets say normally people work and are paid compensation for their time.
$X per hour.

now how much is someones time worth to them? $9 $15 $30
an hour?

Now lets say the person will die next month.
how much is their time worth now?

Detail: We don't know how much time we have. could be 80 years from now or in a minute.

logically then would someone want $10 an hour or anything they want that is available that day?

:-)

lets say normally people work and are paid compensation for their time.
$X per hour.

now how much is someones time worth to them? $9 $15 $30
an hour?

Now lets say the person will die next month.
how much is their time worth now?

Detail: We don't know how much time we have. could be 80 years from now or in a minute.

logically then would someone want $10 an hour or anything they want that is available that day?

:-)

Anna Spencer wrote:

And that's great, rhetoric wise. But its not what we're seeing in practice. Sure, manufacturing is going in Britain as it is in alot of the west but factory =/= only type of work. Stereotypically alot of eastern european immigrants are in construction and other manual trades and that is pure job creation. If I set up as a builder then thats new work, and if theres no work for me in building I'll stop, nothing has been lost. There is nothing preventing a native Brit setting up a building company other than they charge higher rates (stereotypically again) than EU immigrants and so don't do as well.

There isn't a limited amount of resources, at least not on the scale we're talking about. Its not like there is a central list of jobs and once they're all filled then thats it. Companies are formed, and they take on employees. This is how economies grow and whether its done by someone with a UK passport or a Polish passport doesn't matter so long as its done in the UK. You say that jobs are going away but thats simply not true. Our economy is growing. Sure its growing by a miniscule rate but it is growing. Jobs are being created. Without our links to Europe, I'm not certain they would be.

Interesting. I was building the assumption, that UK was losing jobs on what is going on in DK, and other countries that are members of the EU. But it seems, that what works and doesn’t work in UK is not necessary the same as in DK, and therefore it wouldn’t make sense to make universal laws applied to 500 million people, since it’s next to impossible to make general rulings that work (I hope that provided some cover-fire for my retreat of the “Britain is losing jobs” argument).
So right now the system where you are importing labor-force to take jobs from the river of available jobs that Britain apparently has, the EU border policies, and free movement of people works fine. But when the situation changes, Britain is like other EU countries going to realize, that it’s actually not that swell, that people more or less can move as they please – especially if a person in UK who understands the system well enough can live as comfortably on social benefits as those who have work can (which is pretty much the case in DK, Sweden and to a limited degree Finland).

Anna Spencer wrote:

Yes, thats an old rule of capitalism but we dont live in some Austrian School/Ann Rand state - a decision has been taken, tacitly I should imagine, that a level of state intervention is necessary/desirable. It is ideological bullshit, or something close to it. Its all very well saying "Capitalist theory says we should do x,y,z" but its no more meaningful than saying "Marx says we should do x,y,z" or Keynes, or any other economic ideology. Its not the system we have at the moment. Maybe it would be more efficient if we did, although I doubt it, but you cant make decision in isolation - you cant make decisions based on what should be the case, only on what is.

Even if you can name an example, where supporting something, that is going to fall (and does indeed fall), has turned out as beneficial to those who have falled, that would be an exception that proves the rule. I agree that most ideologies (Be it communism, capitalism, Islam with a salafi approach to economy) are of course flawed, and none of the existing ideologies are perfect, since that would naturally lead to the whole world following that ideology after a few generations, if not immediately. But "That which can't stand must fall" is hard to disagree with, since it's IMO logic for children.

Richard Eichel wrote:

Anna Spencer wrote:

And that's great, rhetoric wise. But its not what we're seeing in practice. Sure, manufacturing is going in Britain as it is in alot of the west but factory =/= only type of work. Stereotypically alot of eastern european immigrants are in construction and other manual trades and that is pure job creation. If I set up as a builder then thats new work, and if theres no work for me in building I'll stop, nothing has been lost. There is nothing preventing a native Brit setting up a building company other than they charge higher rates (stereotypically again) than EU immigrants and so don't do as well.

There isn't a limited amount of resources, at least not on the scale we're talking about. Its not like there is a central list of jobs and once they're all filled then thats it. Companies are formed, and they take on employees. This is how economies grow and whether its done by someone with a UK passport or a Polish passport doesn't matter so long as its done in the UK. You say that jobs are going away but thats simply not true. Our economy is growing. Sure its growing by a miniscule rate but it is growing. Jobs are being created. Without our links to Europe, I'm not certain they would be.

Interesting. I was building the assumption, that UK was losing jobs on what is going on in DK, and other countries that are members of the EU. But it seems, that what works and doesn’t work in UK is not necessary the same as in DK, and therefore it wouldn’t make sense to make universal laws applied to 500 million people, since it’s next to impossible to make general rulings that work (I hope that provided some cover-fire for my retreat of the “Britain is losing jobs” argument).
So right now the system where you are importing labor-force to take jobs from the river of available jobs that Britain apparently has, the EU border policies, and free movement of people works fine. But when the situation changes, Britain is like other EU countries going to realize, that it’s actually not that swell, that people more or less can move as they please – especially if a person in UK who understands the system well enough can live as comfortably on social benefits as those who have work can (which is pretty much the case in DK, Sweden and to a limited degree Finland).

Not quite. 1) I was simplifying somewhat which I shouldn't have done and economic growth is not identical to job creation though its a very good indicator. Umemployment is slowly falling but is still relatively high, but I feel employment stats are overrated. People on an individual level are pretty unimportant. 2) Jobs are there for people who look for them. I set up a business and hopefully will soon have an employee (which is terrifying). There are other ways of doing things. Looking for a job is the most obvious, but far from the only.

2) That only matters if you care about borders. Remove borders (in your head and solely for the duration of this conversation) and look at Europe as a country. There are richer areas, poorer areas, etc. People move to where the work/money is but its never to the detriment of the system as a whole. On that level, free movement of people benefits everyone. Its only if you parcel it up and look only at the UK within Europe or even only at Aarhus in Denmark that it becomes an issue.

CJ wrote:

Anna Spencer wrote:

Yes, thats an old rule of capitalism but we dont live in some Austrian School/Ann Rand state - a decision has been taken, tacitly I should imagine, that a level of state intervention is necessary/desirable. It is ideological bullshit, or something close to it. Its all very well saying "Capitalist theory says we should do x,y,z" but its no more meaningful than saying "Marx says we should do x,y,z" or Keynes, or any other economic ideology. Its not the system we have at the moment. Maybe it would be more efficient if we did, although I doubt it, but you cant make decision in isolation - you cant make decisions based on what should be the case, only on what is.

Even if you can name an example, where supporting something, that is going to fall (and does indeed fall), has turned out as beneficial to those who have falled, that would be an exception that proves the rule. I agree that most ideologies (Be it communism, capitalism, Islam with a salafi approach to economy) are of course flawed, and none of the existing ideologies are perfect, since that would naturally lead to the whole world following that ideology after a few generations, if not immediately. But "That which can't stand must fall" is hard to disagree with, since it's IMO logic for children.

Yes, it is logic for children. But I'm using that as a criticism. Greece being bailed out means Greece stands. You seem to be implying that there is only one set of criteria for standing or falling, that if Greece can't survive in the way you want it to then it has fallen. "If things cant stand then they fall" is a meaningless statement - its true by definition. But it hides a whole lot of complexity regarding whether they stand unassisted or they stand with scaffolding or whatever.

one idea that would be horrible for the world is if the us used hackers to get designs from places like japan of what they provide then withdraw from global economy but merging with canada and mexico and going to old this side of ocean isolationist plot and tell the+world screw you not getting money..kick out un, shut down walstreet and arm nukes and let everyone know it. oh and shut down internet.

would likely collapse global economy and lead to ww3.

Jobs may be there for people who are looking at them - right now, and still not enough jobs. You mentioned that if an unemployed person wanted a job, he could create a small business, and if he didn't have any customers and didn't earn anything, he wouldn't lose any money if he played his cards right. This is of course swell, and I'm glad for our imaginary friend (who will not be named Joe the Plumber) that he didn't lose any money - but he still didn't earn any
A society can impossibly benefit from stocking up a huge labor force, for jobs that might be created. People on social benefits costs money, and it not likely that the EU is going to pay for the money, that UK lose, by feeding other countries' poor and hungry.

I don't mind removing the mental borders/looking at something beyond my own opinion, but there's a big problem with this theory. Europe is not one big country, and there's a reason for it. People are not globally alike, there's ethnic differences between people (Here I'm not talking about blood and racism, ethnicity is a complicated matter) and due to these differences the european people have divided in different countries. Every single attempt during the world history to create one big superstate have failed, and have had enormous costs in human lives, wars etc. I see no reason why we should try and repeat the error.

I don't think Greece's economy has magically been saved. I think that we're just prolonged the inevitable and made sure that the fall comes even harder. What Greece needs now is not putting on more chains, but instead freeing itself from the economic failure that is the euro. I don't know if anything else is reported in Britain, but many Danish experts (and not just the eurosceptics) believes, that if Greece is bailed out again, they will still inevitably fall/go bankrupt.

Also - what line of business is it, that you're in?

oh, uniting?

Make a global political party with a secret society built in and have members run in their countries and they all answer to head of party effectively making vast global shadow goverment.

there ya go. thought of that one awhile ago.
;-)

Sorry about the delay there. Jan 5th is the start of a new tax quarter in the UK and it eats my life.

In the UK there's a system called Direct Payments. In that, people receiving care from social services can, instead of getting the care directly, be given the cost of the care as a monetary payment and use that to arrange the care themselves. The benefit is they can tailor services more precisely to themselves and have people they know and trust providing care rather than strangers.

Obviously, though, with it remaining public money there are a host of accounting requirements to ensure that the money is properly accounted for/audited/etc. and equally obviously most people receiving social services care aren't accountants - some are physically or mentally incapable of managing money at all.

My company provides a range of financial services to people receiving Direct Payments ranging from a telephone advice service to help them meet local government requirements to payroll services if they wish to employ someone to outright receiving the money and managing it on their behalf.

Incorporated in England and Wales on 23rd April last year (company reg. 7614199), recorded with teh Scottish Registrar of Companies on the same date but only as a dormant. Social Services takeup skyrockets during a recession for obvious reasons so it was actually a fairly good time to start it up.