Imho not for profit is a smokescreen. I doubt its even recognised officially. If the company makes no profit, there are no taxes due on profit, if it does there are. Thats the crux of it. If there is money in the bank just pre tax return, it gets spent. No doubt on some reward for volunteers or summat. Involving tennents and a session at ufosheep.com
Icke and co can still live a nice media lifestyle at the donqters expense, regardless. Like that ritchie bloke who lives in an apartment in wembley off of it. As its a limited company, the owners are not financially exposed beyond their investment. Which is pretty much nothing. Especially when offset against returns like flights etc. Which ties into the lie that tpv is nowt to do with ickes company. Icke gets on a plane say. Tpv pays for it as he is say interviewing someone. Do we have any doubt he may also do some book plugging whilst he's on the trip?

This thing is a transparent scam.

SilvaRizla wrote: I was not talking about company debt, if there are any irregularities in the way the company was run, it falls on the director(s). I have run several companies as I said in previous post so I understand the concept of limited liability

diforumreject wrote:
Oh right I see yes, you're correct.

Don't forget though, there won't be any irregularities because they aren't required to submit detailed accounts

feather wrote: yes please do

knobmeup wrote:
When there is a 'profit' situation, the shareholders cream off the bulk of it in dividends, hence only paying income tax on it, leaving the company's actual profit figure as low as possible.

SilvaRizla wrote: you may well be right and no irregularities will come to light if the company fails. However they do have to submit accounts as a ltd company and the "investors" may be upset with the figures when they see them. Though I doubt it as Di walks on water as far as most of them are concerned

feather wrote:


Thanks Feather , I know you all laugh at me but I don't care

Tis my birthday today and guess what I got .....a hudl ........so I'll be trying to access the site on a tablet and trying to type on it. Hope you are ready to mop up the chaos this may create

diforumreject wrote: Here you go ...




_____________________________________________________________________________________

dawnbreak wrote:

dawnbreak wrote:

mild_peril wrote:
Dunno what to make of this, seems you just had that picture lying around? lol

Happy Birthday dawnbreak

feather wrote:

as others have mentioned, the share ownership could have changed since this snapshot from companies house, but the fact the company was created in this way with shareholders is telling. Almost all not for profit organisations like charities, clubs, associations etc are formed without shares or shareholders as a private company limited by guarantee. There is no real reason to form a company in this way with shareholders unless you intend to make a profit and divvy it up later.

Eeeee it's hard work over on ATS....but I'm getting there!
Many happy more birthdays Dawney!

I have seen those pics before linked somewhere.

My take - purely thoretical.

Icke and sean set up tpv ltd.

It is set up as a limited by shares company as a means to keep control. not for profits, charities and limited by guarantee require a board be elected and various other things which would take elements of control away.

They call the venture not for profit in order to make people more inclined to give donations - who after all would donate to a for profit enterprise? By not for profit they mean all monies will be plowed back into the business - this can be in wages and 'expenses'.

icke resigns as director at the same time they have to get an ofcom license. The most likely explanation for this is that the directors need to not use the channel to air their own views and icke will be using it to advertise his 'brand' and as a presenter/guest. He keeps his share and remains the person in charge but not legally.
from sonias facebook in answer to a pro icke anti questions post.

SilvaRizla wrote:
You're absolutely right. But I had to wait for the exact moment before I was able to thrust it upon the unsuspecting public.

diforumreject wrote:

happy birthday dawn

Difforumreject

Do you have a full copy of the memo of association we can view and also the certificate of incorporation?

Even if you could point me in the right direction that would be great. I don't have a membership to companies house online anymore

It will be stated in the certificate of incorporation if it genuinely is a not for profit organisation, however it is looking as if they are just saying these words rather than having created a legal entity which will be bound by this fact

TPV.
The people are not to have a 'voice' here, the people are to applaud and throw in their cash.

Let's think about 'love' in the way that DI describes it.
So why would people of 'love' raise cash and blow it on a badly planned idea about challenging media, the way I see it is that if the $300,000 plus had been spent but the media is unchallenged, then why continue to donate or even carry on.....?

This is why we have all the fake attacks by 'tptb' because they must be 'challenged' by TPV, so there is a need to continue. NOT

Problem, need cash, tptb are attacking TPV.
Reaction Oh my, it must be working,
Solution send cash.

thoreau wrote:
Quoting you out of context here, but it just instantly reminded me of articles I read about Jeff Rense, whereas the author of said articles made the poignant observation that she had never had her freedom of speech curtailed by the government and 'TPTB', but had so many times by Jeff Rense and those said to be acting on his behalf.