Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...

Doctor Drivel wrote:



Jerry, just give up. You are being thrashed by superior minds and me.

Here is self proof that D.D. does not have a superior mind :-)

RAOTFLMAO


You will get locked up for laughing like that.

Not in private :-)

Dave

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Oh, and spending on the NHS *increased* in real terms during the "years of
Tory misrule".

I think you're right to say that spending on NHS administration increased. The
Tory government set up brand new jobs in the NHS dealing just with the
shuttling of money.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article
s.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
So says the (ex?) union official....

What makes you think that? Aren't all workers concerned about
decent wages and
doing a job that they can do well?


Decent wages yes, but back in the late '70's I'm not at all convinced
about the quality of that work (with notable exceptions, some things
are worse now than back then, mainly die to office bound accountants
running the 'shop floor').

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Capitol wrote:


:::Jerry:::: wrote:

So one man operating a CNC lathe or CAM manufacturing (and it's
predecessors) plant is not more economic than having ten people
doing
the same work? You might not like the fact that countries like
the
Japan were using such methods in the late '70's and thus
selling
their products cheaper but you can't change the fact that they
were.

The writing was on the wall in the 60's. I worked for a company
making
volume parts for the TV industry,and others. We normally put
another 30
girls on the production line if a big order came in. Our German
sister
company always built a machine, which took them about a year.
After a
year, we purchased the parts from them, their costs were lower.
One
particular product was unique to the UK, so we for once, built an
automated production line, the results were an object lesson in
product
development. After a year, we had paid for the machine and could
compete
with the Japanese in the US market. Our selling price was their
production cost. We ended up with a 90% share of the US market
for a
number of years. However, the company went on to buy up the
competitors
but stay UK production based, instead of moving offshore(where
the
customers were moving) and would not invest in further automated
production. The results were that they could not compete by 1978
and
went out of business.

Thank you for the good illustration. A failure of management that
was typical
of the UK and a need to re-invest in industry that North Sea Oil
could have
provided. All thrown away by Thatcher.

No, it was a problem with the unions not wanting any cuts in manning,
the problems were in place BEFORE Thatcher, indeed if you read the
'79 Labour manifesto you will see that these problems are mentioned
and that they will have to be dealt with. Thatcher chose to use north
sea revenue, who know what a Labour government would have used, we
will never know [1].

[1] it might well have been oil revenue, it's doubtful that they
would have borrowed any more, it's possible that an increased top
rate of tax might have funded HMG expenditure - well will never know,
it's all speculation.

I'm no fan of Thatcher but I can look at things objectively, credit
were credit is due and criticism were criticism is due, she made some
right blunders, but then so did the preceding Labour administration -
just how much did we owe to the IMF by May '79 (which would probably
have been repaid from oil revenue under any post '79 Labour
administration)?...

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:04:42 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Oh, and spending on the NHS *increased* in real terms during the "years of
Tory misrule".

I think you're right to say that spending on NHS administration increased. The
Tory government set up brand new jobs in the NHS dealing just with the
shuttling of money.

Plus ca change and all that then.

Cheers
Clive

John Cartmell wrote:

Thank you for the good illustration. A failure of management that was typical
of the UK and a need to re-invest in industry that North Sea Oil could have
provided. All thrown away by Thatcher.

Yes the failure is typical of British management and poor investment
policies.
No, Thatcher had nothing to do with it. The company failed in 78 under
a Labour government. Industry should not need taxpayers money. The
capital markets can provide adequate funding if the product/service is
sound. The US grows industrial companies at a very rapid rate, which are
not taxpayer subsidised.

Thatcher was the person who did not allow BL to go into liquidation. A
very bad mistake, as inefficiency continued until the company finally
collapsed last year.


Re Major:-

So he privatised the railways.

Badly. The whole operation should have been privatised and price
decontrolled as one entity IMO. There is no case for the majority of
taxpayers to subsidise the travel costs of a small minority(except
perhaps in poor rural areas). Airlines etc don't need subsidies(unless
they are American/European with poor control of wages and efficiency due
largely to union strength/greed). Given a few (5?) years for rail fare
adjustments to an economic level and provide a real return on capital,
the market will sort out the mess the politicians always produce. The
folly of increasing population density in city centres was recognised in
the 40's, and action taken, but appears to now have been forgotten,
resulting in unbelievably squalid travelling and living conditions at
the present time. The same policy mistakes are now being repeated with
London Underground under Bliar/Livingston. The general public will pick
up the tab as usual.

Regards
Capitol

"Huge" wrote in message
...
Matt writes:
(Huge) wrote:

Geoffrey writes:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:26:43 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

Thatcher's idea was that if the statistics showed that, at any one
time, 30%
of hospital beds were empty then you could close 30% of hospitals. She
didn't
appreciate that by trying to get 100% hospital beds full you had
people lying
in hospital corridors for days and endemic disease.

Personally, I believe she did appreciate it, she just didn't care.

Personally, I think you lot need to get out more. She's been gone a
*long* time.

Oh, and spending on the NHS *increased* in real terms during the "years
of
Tory misrule".

You must be on (privately prescribed) psychotic drugs to come out with
crap like that.

Sadly (for you), it's true. But don't let the truth get in the way of your
bigotted hatred of a long-gone politician.

Is the cow dead?

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Huge wrote:
Oh, and spending on the NHS *increased* in real terms during the "years
of
Tory misrule".

I think you're right to say that spending on NHS administration increased.
The
Tory government set up brand new jobs in the NHS dealing just with the
shuttling of money.

...and tiers of management to quantify each action in order to sell off.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...

Doctor Drivel wrote:



Jerry, just give up. You are being thrashed by superior minds and me.

Here is self proof that D.D. does not have a superior mind :-)

RAOTFLMAO


You will get locked up for laughing like that.

Not in private :-)

Bestie, do you do it a lot?

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article
s.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
So says the (ex?) union official....

What makes you think that? Aren't all workers concerned about
decent wages and
doing a job that they can do well?


Decent wages yes, but back in the late '70's I'm not at all convinced
about the quality of that work (with notable exceptions, some things
are worse now than back then, mainly die to office bound accountants
running the 'shop floor').

Jerry.please get professional help.

In article , Capitol
wrote:


John Cartmell wrote:

Thank you for the good illustration. A failure of management that was
typical of the UK and a need to re-invest in industry that North Sea Oil
could have provided. All thrown away by Thatcher.

Yes the failure is typical of British management and poor investment
policies. No, Thatcher had nothing to do with it.

I didn't mean to suggest that she did; just that she failed to correctly
identify the problem.

[Snip]

Industry should not need taxpayers money. The capital markets can provide
adequate funding if the product/service is sound. The US grows industrial
companies at a very rapid rate, which are not taxpayer subsidised.

Not so. Investment requires government policy - tax breaks &c - that encourage
the right investments. That policy may need to be backed up with sound
government resources (eg North sea Oil) where there is a need to catch up on
years of underinvestment. The Labour governments have a perfect excuse as they
spent every bit of 64-70 and 74-79 getting the economy back on track after
being severely de-railed by the previous government. The Tories 55-64 and
79-97 don't have that excuse.



[Snip]

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Thatcher was the person who did not allow BL to go into liquidation. A
very bad mistake, as inefficiency continued until the company finally
collapsed last year.

It would have been interesting if BMW had the funds to actually turn it
round.

--
*Before they invented drawing boards, what did they go back to?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

(Huge) wrote:

Matt writes:
(Huge) wrote:

Geoffrey writes:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:26:43 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

Thatcher's idea was that if the statistics showed that, at any one time, 30%
of hospital beds were empty then you could close 30% of hospitals. She didn't
appreciate that by trying to get 100% hospital beds full you had people lying
in hospital corridors for days and endemic disease.

Personally, I believe she did appreciate it, she just didn't care.

Personally, I think you lot need to get out more. She's been gone a *long* time.

Oh, and spending on the NHS *increased* in real terms during the "years of
Tory misrule".

You must be on (privately prescribed) psychotic drugs to come out with
crap like that.

Sadly (for you), it's true. But don't let the truth get in the way of your
bigotted hatred of a long-gone politician.

Oh I will believe every word you say - when you post a verifiable
source. But on this issue I know you can't and I also know precisely
why you can't and that is because what you say is simply NOT correct.

Don't let the bare facts get in the way of the truth on NHS
funding......and your totally misguided support for the most hated
woman in history.




--

On 4 Nov 2005 09:55:42 -0800, wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

The great thing about the latter part of the Victorian era was that they
introduced standards. Hygiene, water, housing, building control,
engineering (screw threads etc). Because of what they saw in the early part
of the 1800s, they changed matters. This has been going on even to today.
Some, like planning went too far and is a classic case of regulation to
suppress.

A free for all creates poverty and greed. The free market has it place, but
only when inside a framework that works for all.

This man is making remarkable sense today.


NT


Must be the new medication, or he cut and pasted from somewhere.


--

..andy

Andy Hall wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 09:55:42 -0800, wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

The great thing about the latter part of the Victorian era was that they
introduced standards. Hygiene, water, housing, building control,
engineering (screw threads etc). Because of what they saw in the early part
of the 1800s, they changed matters. This has been going on even to today.
Some, like planning went too far and is a classic case of regulation to
suppress.

A free for all creates poverty and greed. The free market has it place, but
only when inside a framework that works for all.

This man is making remarkable sense today.

Must be the new medication, or he cut and pasted from somewhere.

Must be a cut and paste!

NT

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On 4 Nov 2005 09:55:42 -0800, wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

The great thing about the latter part of the Victorian era was that
they
introduced standards. Hygiene, water, housing, building control,
engineering (screw threads etc). Because of what they saw in the early
part
of the 1800s, they changed matters. This has been going on even to
today.
Some, like planning went too far and is a classic case of regulation to
suppress.

A free for all creates poverty and greed. The free market has it
place, but
only when inside a framework that works for all.

This man is making remarkable sense today.

NT

Must be the new medication, or he cut and pasted from somewhere.

Matt, how is your mussie?

WOW!

When I ask DIY questions, no one wants to know. Seems the passion for MT is still strong.

Was just reading today that TB & GB want to tax those who have scenic views from their properties more!


Enough is a f*****g enough!

When is everyone going to wake up and smell the S**T

Bring Back Maggie I say.

"andymason79" wrote in message
...

WOW!

When I ask DIY questions, no one wants to know. Seems the passion for
MT is still strong.

Was just reading today that TB & GB want to tax those who have scenic
views from their properties more!


Enough is a f*****g enough!

When is everyone going to wake up and smell the S**T

Bring Back Maggie I say.

Yes we should, and bring back the ducking stool too. That will teach her.

(Huge) wrote:

Matt writes:
(Huge) wrote:

[23 lines snipped]

Sadly (for you), it's true. But don't let the truth get in the way of your
bigotted hatred of a long-gone politician.

Oh I will believe every word you say - when you post a verifiable
source. But on this issue I know you can't and I also know precisely
why you can't and that is because what you say is simply NOT correct.

Don't let the bare facts get in the way of the truth on NHS
funding......and your totally misguided support for the most hated
woman in history.

(a) I don't support her. I just believe in people telling the truth &
(b) how do you get the spittle off your screen keyboard, etc?

Either put up, or shut up because no one, except you perhaps,
believes a word that you said, which was:

quote
Oh, and spending on the NHS *increased* in real terms during the
"years of Tory misrule"
end quote

I'll be generous, I'll give you three months to come up with
conclusive proof from a verifiable source to back up what you said.
With a bit of luck the evil twisted bitch might be on her death bed by
then and the results will be on topic for this group.

(and I don't support her lot, B liar's lot or ****head kennedy's lot)

tick tock tick tock tick tock
--

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...
(Huge) wrote:

Matt writes:
(Huge) wrote:

[23 lines snipped]

Sadly (for you), it's true. But don't let the truth get in the way of
your
bigotted hatred of a long-gone politician.

Oh I will believe every word you say - when you post a verifiable
source. But on this issue I know you can't and I also know precisely
why you can't and that is because what you say is simply NOT correct.

Don't let the bare facts get in the way of the truth on NHS
funding......and your totally misguided support for the most hated
woman in history.

(a) I don't support her. I just believe in people telling the truth &
(b) how do you get the spittle off your screen keyboard, etc?

Either put up, or shut up because no one, except you perhaps,
believes a word that you said, which was:

quote
Oh, and spending on the NHS *increased* in real terms during the
"years of Tory misrule"
end quote

I'll be generous, I'll give you three months to come up with
conclusive proof from a verifiable source to back up what you said.
With a bit of luck the evil twisted bitch might be on her death bed by
then and the results will be on topic for this group.

(and I don't support her lot, B liar's lot or ****head kennedy's lot)

tick tock tick tock tick tock

Lord Hall, do you support the Makita party?

"andymason79" wrote in message
...

WOW!

When I ask DIY questions, no one wants to know. Seems the passion for
MT is still strong.

Was just reading today that TB & GB want to tax those who have scenic
views from their properties more!


Enough is a f*****g enough!

When is everyone going to wake up and smell the S**T

Bring Back Maggie I say.

It appears that every house will be assigned 'value codes'
which will indicate, proximity to bus routes, open spaces,
parks, library, patio, balcony, car-parking, garden size,
grass-verges, trees ..... and whatever Prescott's official
can dream up. So, it's not just the view that you're going to
be taxed for. We can look forward to paying
fifty quid for living near a bus route
hundred quid for being near the kid's swings ...
fifty quid for living near a D-I-Y shed ...
fifty quid for having a view of the sea - from the front rooms
fifty quid for having a view of the mountains - from the back rooms
fifty quid for having a view of the trees - from the side rooms

--- you couldn't make it up ... but Tone'n'crones _have_
and Gordon will implement it,

--

Brian

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:21:42 GMT, "Brian Sharrock"
wrote:



It appears that every house will be assigned 'value codes'
which will indicate, proximity to bus routes, open spaces,
parks, library, patio, balcony, car-parking, garden size,
grass-verges, trees ..... and whatever Prescott's official
can dream up. So, it's not just the view that you're going to
be taxed for. We can look forward to paying
fifty quid for living near a bus route
hundred quid for being near the kid's swings ...
fifty quid for living near a D-I-Y shed ...
fifty quid for having a view of the sea - from the front rooms
fifty quid for having a view of the mountains - from the back rooms
fifty quid for having a view of the trees - from the side rooms

--- you couldn't make it up ... but Tone'n'crones _have_
and Gordon will implement it,

I shouldn't worry. How long will it be before HMG's new computer is
working properly?

--
Frank Erskine

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:21:42 +0000, Brian Sharrock wrote:


It appears that every house will be assigned 'value codes'
which will indicate, proximity to bus routes, open spaces,
parks, library, patio, balcony, car-parking, garden size,
grass-verges, trees ..... and whatever Prescott's official
can dream up. So, it's not just the view that you're going to
be taxed for. We can look forward to paying
fifty quid for living near a bus route
hundred quid for being near the kid's swings ...
fifty quid for living near a D-I-Y shed ...
fifty quid for having a view of the sea - from the front rooms
fifty quid for having a view of the mountains - from the back rooms
fifty quid for having a view of the trees - from the side rooms

--- you couldn't make it up ... but Tone'n'crones _have_
and Gordon will implement it,

Well, it's not April 1st...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4411486.stm

So would living in Croydon qualify for a rebate?

Tim

Tim S wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:21:42 +0000, Brian Sharrock wrote:


It appears that every house will be assigned 'value codes'
which will indicate, proximity to bus routes, open spaces,
parks, library, patio, balcony, car-parking, garden size,
grass-verges, trees ..... and whatever Prescott's official
can dream up. So, it's not just the view that you're going to
be taxed for. We can look forward to paying
fifty quid for living near a bus route
hundred quid for being near the kid's swings ...
fifty quid for living near a D-I-Y shed ...
fifty quid for having a view of the sea - from the front rooms
fifty quid for having a view of the mountains - from the back rooms
fifty quid for having a view of the trees - from the side rooms

--- you couldn't make it up ... but Tone'n'crones _have_
and Gordon will implement it,

Well, it's not April 1st...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4411486.stm

So would living in Croydon qualify for a rebate?


Living near Dribble would ;-)



--

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:


"Matt" who is not Lord Hall wrote in message
.. .

(and I don't support her lot, B liar's lot or ****head kennedy's lot)

tick tock tick tock tick tock

Lord Hall, do you support the Makita party?

I'm not Lord Hall, but for the record, no.


--

In article , Andymason79 wrote:
Was just reading today that TB & GB want to tax those who have scenic
views from their properties more!

The Mail and Express have helped the Conservatives lose three elections
with their rubbishy stories and seem to want to do the same next time
round.

If you are going to levy a tax based on the value of a property then it
seems pretty obvious that the owner of one with a view (which
presumably makes it more valuable) will pay more than an identical one
that looks over an abattoir. You'd get the same result taxing on site
value. If you are going to scrap Council Tax/Rates type taxes you need
to raise £x bn some other way. So is it back to the Poll Tax or some
form of tax on income which will mean that the better off pay a lot
more and the less well off, less?

And why should an estate agent get more for selling the property with a
view when it's probably easier to sell? It's outrageous!

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 20:34:27 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Andymason79 wrote:
Was just reading today that TB & GB want to tax those who have scenic
views from their properties more!

The Mail and Express have helped the Conservatives lose three elections
with their rubbishy stories and seem to want to do the same next time
round.

If you are going to levy a tax based on the value of a property then it
seems pretty obvious that the owner of one with a view (which
presumably makes it more valuable) will pay more than an identical one
that looks over an abattoir.

Possible, although this doesn't address a loss of amenity if an
abattoir is built in the plot next door after the owner acquired the
property.

You'd get the same result taxing on site
value. If you are going to scrap Council Tax/Rates type taxes you need
to raise £x bn some other way. So is it back to the Poll Tax or some
form of tax on income which will mean that the better off pay a lot
more and the less well off, less?

Or a combination of the two.

In terms of fairness, perhaps a system as operated in the U.S. would
be better.

- a level of local (or state) income tax

- property tax with re-evaluation when properties are sold. To some
extent, this protects the long term home owner such as the elderly who
may be asset rich but cash poor.

- less involvement by the government in general to reduce the need to
raise said funds.




And why should an estate agent get more for selling the property with a
view when it's probably easier to sell? It's outrageous!

Because people are willing to pay.


--

..andy

John Cartmell wrote:

Clearly you're not old enough to remember rateable value. It's a generally
reasonable - though approximate - estimation of the notional rentable value of
the house. That's what they're talking about. It's not new, it's not
revolutionary, it's not unreasonable - and it doesn't do anything like what
you claim despite what you may have read in the Sunday Telegraph or wherever.

And that was abandoned because it became an excessive and unfair tax.
Council tax was a reasonable compromise, but as Tone & cronies have
spent far more money than current taxation can provide, the race is on
to increase taxes again, in any way possible. The Scots and Welsh have
already suffered AIUI, so now it's down to taxing the English, who
provide the bulk of government income anyway.

Unfortunately the electorate have no party with a reasonable program to
vote for, so, I guess it's pay up or leave for the next ten years.

Regards
Capitol

Tony Bryer wrote:

The Mail and Express have helped the Conservatives lose three elections
with their rubbishy stories and seem to want to do the same next time
round.


Sounds like a whinge from Ken Clark to me. Newspapers don't lose
elections, divided parties without adequate leaders and policies do. The
Conservatives are still trying to face both ways at the same time and
until they decide that they are Conservatives and not Socialists, they
will never be elected on a first past the post system. They only have a
presence in Scotland because of PR. The present young Tory leadership
contender is IMO a classic image over substance candidate and will, if
elected, lose the next election. ( Even with a recession, I don't see
how Labour can lose.) His opponent does not seem to be a great deal
better in leadership terms. There also appears to be a classic,
arrogant, Master/Slave relationship between the Conservative MPs and the
grasssroots party/general public, leading to fewer and fewer active
supporters of Conservative values.

Regards
Capitol

In article , Capitol
wrote:


John Cartmell wrote:

Clearly you're not old enough to remember rateable value. It's a
generally reasonable - though approximate - estimation of the notional
rentable value of the house. That's what they're talking about. It's not
new, it's not revolutionary, it's not unreasonable - and it doesn't do
anything like what you claim despite what you may have read in the Sunday
Telegraph or wherever.

And that was abandoned because it became an excessive and unfair tax.

It became an unfair tax because revaluation was delayed. Owners of new
property could be payng twice the rates paid by owners of old property of
similar value. A more appropriate - and fairer - tax would be one that used a
mix of property values (as currently discussed) + a poll tax + income tax in
some agreed balance. Are you willing to agree to that? If not the fairest is
the property tax that you appear to be rejecting.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell wrote:

Clearly you're not old enough to remember rateable value. It's a generally
reasonable - though approximate - estimation of the notional rentable value of
the house. That's what they're talking about. It's not new, it's not
revolutionary, it's not unreasonable - and it doesn't do anything like what
you claim despite what you may have read in the Sunday Telegraph or wherever.

Rateable value was reasonable when most property was rented. The owner
occupier was rare and the rate in that case could reasonably be inferred
from the actual rents paid for similar neighbouring properties. It
became unfair when the absence of a private rental market meant there
was no market value but only a notional value. The result was a system
that was not transparent to the ratepayer.
Although the private landlord has made a comeback, owner occupation is
still the norm. As always the criteria for an efficient tax is that it
should be cheap to collect, difficult to avoid, and not have side effects.


--
David Clark

$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Brian Sharrock
wrote:

snip


--- you couldn't make it up ... but Tone'n'crones _have_ and Gordon will
implement it,

Clearly you're not old enough to remember rateable value.

Clearly(?) .... sadly it's been many a year (actually decades ...)
since any check-out operator has queried by eligibilty to
purchase alchohol ....
You _must_ share with us your uncanny ability to intuite
whatever facts are going to support your argument while
gratuitously insulting whoever doesn't agree with your point-of-view.
Is it as a result of your quirky and risky platform .... (quercus, risc
....geddit)

I remember and have paid both Rates; Poll tax - so named by lefties
who weren't paying Rates; and whatever 'they' are calling it this week.


It's a generally
reasonable - though approximate - estimation of the notional rentable
value of
the house. That's what they're talking about. It's not new, it's not
revolutionary, it's not unreasonable - and it doesn't do anything like
what
you claim despite what you may have read in the Sunday Telegraph or
wherever.


One is so glad to see the few remaining true-believers
remain 'on-message'!

How much will Tone be paying for Gloucester Square ....?
The view is lousy; it's just off Edgware Road; traffic noise is
appalling and its environs are full of Arabic-speaking people -
Oh! I forget - he's going to have them banged up for
ninety days (at a time). Next he'll start on all those
Nuns at Tyburn Convent (just down they road from
his new pad)- they actually pray for 'martyr's
many of whom had committed the crime of not agreeing
with the powers of the English Government. Sounds like
'glorifying terrorism' - now all Tone has to do is empanel
a jury - Oh! Hang On! Tone's-Crones don't envisage a
jury anymore!


--

Brian

In article , Brian Sharrock
wrote:
I remember and have paid both Rates;
So what is wrong with them?

Poll tax - so named by lefties who weren't paying Rates;
My poll tax was much less than my rates - because the rate revaluation had
been put off and put off and put off. ;-(

and whatever 'they' are calling it this week.
Goodness knows. ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Brian Sharrock
wrote:
I remember and have paid both Rates;
So what is wrong with them?

Poll tax - so named by lefties who weren't paying Rates;
My poll tax was much less than my rates - because the rate revaluation had
been put off and put off and put off. ;-(

and whatever 'they' are calling it this week.
Goodness knows. ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing


Hmmm, you seem to have elided many of the points I made
..... could you not _clearly_ see all of my post?
Is this failure an artefact/defect of your browser/news-reader/OS (Risc
4.2(?))?

--

Brian

In article ,
Brian Sharrock wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Brian Sharrock
wrote:
I remember and have paid both Rates;
So what is wrong with them?

Poll tax - so named by lefties who weren't paying Rates;
My poll tax was much less than my rates - because the rate revaluation had
been put off and put off and put off. ;-(

and whatever 'they' are calling it this week.
Goodness knows. ;-)

Hmmm, you seem to have elided many of the points I made
.... could you not _clearly_ see all of my post?

I removed the stream of consciousness and spelling errors that you had left
[didn't appreciate that a SNIP would be required for that] - along with my
sig. that your software failed to deal with correctly. If you must use
Microsoft products you do really need to add those extra bits to bring them up
to basic competency.

Is this failure an artefact/defect of your browser/news-reader/OS (Risc
4.2(?))?

My mail & news reader software (Pluto 3.04c) does meet the GNKSA standards
(unlike Microsoft OE) and the decision not to take you to task for misspelling
Qercus and everything was entirely mine and nothing to do with RISC OS 4.02.
;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Sharrock wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Brian Sharrock
wrote:
I remember and have paid both Rates;
So what is wrong with them?

Poll tax - so named by lefties who weren't paying Rates;
My poll tax was much less than my rates - because the rate revaluation
had
been put off and put off and put off. ;-(

and whatever 'they' are calling it this week.
Goodness knows. ;-)

Hmmm, you seem to have elided many of the points I made
.... could you not _clearly_ see all of my post?

I removed the stream of consciousness and spelling errors that you had
left
[didn't appreciate that a SNIP would be required for that] - along with my
sig. that your software failed to deal with correctly. If you must use
Microsoft products you do really need to add those extra bits to bring
them up
to basic competency.

Is this failure an artefact/defect of your browser/news-reader/OS (Risc
4.2(?))?

My mail & news reader software (Pluto 3.04c) does meet the GNKSA standards
(unlike Microsoft OE) and the decision not to take you to task for
misspelling
Qercus and everything was entirely mine and nothing to do with RISC OS
4.02.
;-)


Erm, _quercus_ is an oak/acorn reference. Quercus is not a
misspelling of a botanical name. Granted it's not the particular
misspelling that you've apparently adopted adopted for
commercial purposes..
I routinely snip blatant commercial touting 'signature'.

Now can you address how you _clearly_ knew that I'd
never paid Rates?

--

Brian

In article ,
John Cartmell wrote:
Poll tax - so named by lefties who weren't paying Rates;

My poll tax was much less than my rates - because the rate revaluation
had been put off and put off and put off. ;-(

My mother - who was the typical widow living on her own in the family
house that it was said to help - ended up paying more with the poll tax
than rates. The rating system being an old and refined tax had more
sophisticated rebates for those of low income. Even as a lifelong Tory she
wasn't impressed.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

John Cartmell wrote:
My poll tax was much less than my rates - because the rate revaluation had
been put off and put off and put off. ;-(

Your poll tax was much lower than your rates, because you were paying
only for the services which you utilised. Central government was finding
the rest of the money by controlling public expenditure. At the present
time, Central government is pushing government expenditure onto the
local authorities, hence causing the massive (66% IIRC) increases in
council tax. The proposed revaluation exercise now mooted is purely
another way of increasing tax revenue(20% AIUI) without raising income
tax. However, with the slow down in high street spending( Down again in
today's report) and real unemployment now rising as a result of high oil
prices, the chickens are coming home to roost. Tax revenue may actually
be still rising in the retail sector as say 60% of petrol costs are tax
compared to 17.5% on the high street. However when people have no job,
they, to a first approximation, don't buy petrol!

Regards
Capitol

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember andymason79
saying something like:

Bring Back Maggie I say.

That dangerous old hag? No thanks.
--

Dave

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
eenews.net...

snip

please get professional help.


Stop talking about yourself, cretin.
--
Regards, Jerry.
Location - United Kingdom.
In the first instance please reply to group,
The quoted email address is a trash can for Spam only.