Or perhaps it's a businessman who prefers to play with the facts a little to support what he wants to claim.

You mean being dishonest?

Can't be. All businessmen are as honest as the day is long. Oh yes.

You are correct.
From memory of Nick Robinson's programme last night ... of the 549bn tax take, only 43bn comes from corporation tax.
The biggest lump by far is from income tax.

I'm pretty certain he does know what he's talking about but he's presenting not-quite-relevant facts to (try to) make Barclays sound as though they are not totally amoral.
Which, of course, they are, otherwise they wouldn't still be in business.

The bankers are none too bright, either. For example that shameless multi-millionaire Hester, who despite trousering £5m or whatever it was from effectively the British taxpayers (who practically own 'his' bank) thanked them by very publicly telling the Select Committee:
"I would be interested to see the investor who wants to put more capital towards UK banks at the moment. They are thinking it is a dumb place to put more capital."
... and instantly knocking around 6% off the value of RBS, not to mention the value of other UK banks.

And he's still in a job, and will no doubt trouser a few more million of our money next year. Just think ourselves fortunate we can get a guy of that calibre to run things, I say.

But don't forget, we have to pay the top wages to get the top people in the world to run our big companies. Otherwise we may end up in the... oh.

If we don't pay millions in bonuses for our top executives then we'll have people not qualified to run them instead. And that will lead to... ah.

If we sack poorly performing executives instead of allowing them to leave with a full pension and millions in a golden handshake then we'll never recruit the best executives. And that will cause...

Oh I'll just stop now.
Booooooooooo to people earning well below the average wage for daring to go on strike! Irresponsible the lot of em! If they carry on doing that it'll cause the economy to not grow, interest rates to plummet, unemployment to rise and inflation to skyrocket...

Oh dear.

Why has nobody yet had a pop at those two parasites who managed to throw very nearly the whole nation out of work for a day on 29 April this year? Apart from the greater numbers not working, it also cost us a damn sight more because the vast majority of people still got paid for getting pissed

I understand we're going to have another day of inaction on June 5 2012 too, again no moaning about that one

Of course not. But it has been mentioned in the last couple of days by various people - don't worry.

But people go and spend money on those days, in pubs, shops and restaurants, so it's great. Like yesterday in fact, when, for example, there was 33% increase in shoppers at the White Rose centre near Leeds. So just like Royal occasions, the strike may not actually have been so bad for the economy.