On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:14:33 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I simply don't subscribe to the notion that a union is a requirement
to make a difference to employment terms and conditions

Are you confident that Hannah Kirkham's life wouldn't have been better if she
had a union rep. and union organisation to support her when bullied by fellow
workers and manager?

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/me..._kfc_girl.html


This is a tragic situation indeed, and clearly nobody can condone the
alleged bullying. However, I think that it is a very long stretch to
suggest that involvement of a union would necessarily have helped, and
it is certainly not the only route as you are implying.

What would have happened if the union rep had been involved in the
bullying? Not impossible. This was not a case of the employer doing
the bullying in the article that you quote or any others that seem to
be readily accessible.

The GP said

"The stressful events could have led to her depression".

One has to ask what was going on between the June and December. Other
articles mention inpatient treatment for serious depression etc. That
is beyond the remit of a union official.


You refer to sweatshops and illicit labour. Sweat shops are proliferating
today because unions are less strong than they were.

If sweat shops are proliferating it is because there is a market for
them and people willing to work in them.


The law is too weak in
many areas - along with others around here I'd like to see KFC senior managers
in prison for manslaughter - and there are places and times where only unions
can offer the support that employees need.

That's completely ridiculous. The employer has since set up a help
line for employees to use, which seems pretty sensible.

An independent counsellor would be even better.


--

..andy

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:17:37 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Where in H&S legislation is it a requirement that unions act as
policemen on behalf of the HSE?

I know I won't change your mind. You have a fixation that needs the attention
of a doctor - not just more information.

Oh dear, that's a very silly thing to suggest. Faced with attempting
to present a flawed argument, you first resort to emotional charges
that I am not telling the truth and now you are suggesting that I need
the attention of a doctor. Is this your modus operandi with everybody
who points out alternatives to your point of view?

I've no intention of following every
moved goalpost but - to avoid the charge of not answering your question -
no-one suggested that it is (or should) be done like that or be included in
legislation.

I'm glad that we cleared that one up. In fact I have been completely
consistent in what I have said. On the other hand, you have suggested
that there are situations where union involvement is the *only* way.


--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:14:33 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
I simply don't subscribe to the notion that a union is a requirement to
make a difference to employment terms and conditions

Are you confident that Hannah Kirkham's life wouldn't have been better if
she had a union rep. and union organisation to support her when bullied by
fellow workers and manager?

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/me..._kfc_girl.html


This is a tragic situation indeed, and clearly nobody can condone the
alleged bullying. However, I think that it is a very long stretch to
suggest that involvement of a union would necessarily have helped, and it
is certainly not the only route as you are implying.

My point is that some employers are notorious for bad staff conditions, bad
working practices and being non-union shops. The attributes go together.

What would have happened if the union rep had been involved in the
bullying? Not impossible. This was not a case of the employer doing the
bullying in the article that you quote or any others that seem to be
readily accessible.

I'm not sure where the case lies legally but more details are known locally
than are included in the newspapers - and you're wrong on a number of counts.
Look at the bottom of the web page for an indication of one aspect of the
employer's responsibility to their employee.

And I think you will find that it is far more likely that employers join in
such bullying than union reps.

The GP said

"The stressful events could have led to her depression".

One has to ask what was going on between the June and December. Other
articles mention inpatient treatment for serious depression etc. That is
beyond the remit of a union official.

It certainly is not. Had she been able to get someone on her side supporting
her secure employment her condition is going to be critically different - ask
any doctor. More importantly the victimisation is likely to end quickly or
never even start. In this case a letter from the employee to regional
management wasn't even opened. If a union had been involved it could have very
quickly escalated to whichever level in management agreed to take proper
notice fast. If none took notice then they'd find themselves running a company
with no income coming in - but as a union company they would have learned to
respond at a junior manager level and, the problem here, have learned that it
paid to train managers properly.

You refer to sweatshops and illicit labour. Sweat shops are proliferating
today because unions are less strong than they were.

If sweat shops are proliferating it is because there is a market for them
and people willing to work in them.

The law is too weak in many areas - along with others around here I'd like
to see KFC senior managers in prison for manslaughter - and there are
places and times where only unions can offer the support that employees
need.

That's completely ridiculous. The employer has since set up a help line
for employees to use, which seems pretty sensible.

PR.
If they really cared they'd have done it earlier. In any case what is required
is for the whole company organisation to be put on a proper footing.

An independent counsellor would be even better.

Someone totally independent of the company would be a geat idea.

--
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 , Andy Hall
wrote:
On the other hand, you have suggested that there are situations where union
involvement is the *only* way.

There are. We've agreed on one - who do you think would employ the independent
counsellor?

--
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

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:17:37 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall aka Matt wrote:

Where in H&S legislation is it a requirement that unions act as
policemen on behalf of the HSE?

I know I won't change your mind. You
have a fixation that needs the attention
of a doctor - not just more information.

Oh dear,

Mr Cartmell has it right Matt. You need professional attention, that is
clear.

In article ,
David wrote:
In that case you're being a bit naive Dave, this was a while ago but I
have been at meetings where union enforcers move amongst the crowd
telling people when and what to vote for, if you don't believe this
practice went on then you're ignorant of actual practices that were
common place amongst militant workplaces, it took a brave man to stand
up to the bully boys. It wasn't the many being bullied by the few but
the few being bullied by the many.

So the vast majority had to bully a few? Why? The result of any vote
wouldn't change.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

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

Andy Hall wrote:

This is a tragic situation indeed, and clearly nobody can condone the
alleged bullying. However, I think that it is a very long stretch to
suggest that involvement of a union would necessarily have helped, and
it is certainly not the only route as you are implying.

It also begs the question: why did she stay there. Sounds like voting
with your feet (perhaps followed by a civil or industrial tribunal
action for contructive dismissal) would be the way to go.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:06:24 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

This is a tragic situation indeed, and clearly nobody can condone the
alleged bullying. However, I think that it is a very long stretch to
suggest that involvement of a union would necessarily have helped, and it
is certainly not the only route as you are implying.

My point is that some employers are notorious for bad staff conditions, bad
working practices and being non-union shops. The attributes go together.

No they don't. I might agree to a point that bad staff conditions
and bad working practices could go together. I don't agree that being
a non union shop makes for these conditions to occur. That's just
wishful thinking on the part of those who would wish to promote union
presence in a business.

If you consider the reality of fast food outlets, they sell cheap
crappy food to people who care little for their diet and are buy on
speed and price. They employ predominantly teenage and slightly
above age range labour and generally a manager who is little older
than that at very low labour rates. For that to change significantly,
it would require customers to demand much high quality food and be
willing to pay much higher prices. That is not the ethos of these
types of business or of their customer base.
It is a little difficult to imagine a 19 year old acting in the role
of a union official with the role of H&S policeman.




What would have happened if the union rep had been involved in the
bullying? Not impossible. This was not a case of the employer doing the
bullying in the article that you quote or any others that seem to be
readily accessible.

I'm not sure where the case lies legally but more details are known locally
than are included in the newspapers - and you're wrong on a number of counts.

I am not wrong on any counts. A fairly quick search on Google
revealed a number of articles. I didn't find a single one where
anybody suggested that the employer (or manager) took part in the
bullying).

If you look at the BBC article following the verdict of the inquest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4508022.stm

From the article:

*******
Giving his reaction to the verdict, Rochdale Coroner Simon Nelson
said: "KFC is clearly a large organisation with several thousand
employees in the UK alone.

"Many of those employees are young, impressionable, vulnerable or a
combination of those attributes, as was Hannah.

"KFC's reaction to this inquiry in my view was appropriate, sensitive
and proactive."

He added he hoped anti-bullying policies made by the firm would
prevent "similar tragic incidents".
*******

In another article,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4504014.stm

the GP observes

"The stressful events could have led to her depression,"

and the police confirm that an investigation did not produce enough
evidence to bring charges.

Further in

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4507374.stm

the employer states that those involved in the bullying had left the
company.

In other words, none of the professionals involved was able, on the
medical and other evidence, to say that there was a direct causal link
between the bullying and the severe depression. Note that the
psychiatrist is not mentioned (presumably not called as a witness).
This alone would weaken or rule out criminal proceedings against the
perpetrators of the bullying let alone the employer. Your suggestion
that the employer be charged with manslaughter is an emotive
extrapolation beyond reasonable consideration.


Look at the bottom of the web page for an indication of one aspect of the
employer's responsibility to their employee.

Obviously an employer has a duty of care to their employees, and this
employer has instituted measures considered appropriate by the coroner
to do so.


And I think you will find that it is far more likely that employers join in
such bullying than union reps.

Really? So in this case we would have a 22 year old? manager and a
bunch of 16-20 year olds, one of whom would be a union rep.?

More likely it is a bunch of 16-20 year olds doing what 16-20 year
olds sometimes do (in any social setting) and perhaps an inexperienced
manager who didn't know what to do.


Of course, union reps are never involved in bullying of people on how
to vote, whether or not to withdraw their labour, even if they think
that it is the wrong thing to do, never use violence or other
intimidation......



The GP said

"The stressful events could have led to her depression".

One has to ask what was going on between the June and December. Other
articles mention inpatient treatment for serious depression etc. That is
beyond the remit of a union official.

It certainly is not. Had she been able to get someone on her side supporting
her secure employment her condition is going to be critically different - ask
any doctor.

I have.

Is a union official medically qualified as a psychiatrist? No.
Are they trained counsellors belonging to one of the professional
bodies? No.

Somebody with severe depressive illness requires at least one or
probably both skillsets. This goes way beyond a "shoulder to cry
on".


More importantly the victimisation is likely to end quickly or
never even start. In this case a letter from the employee to regional
management wasn't even opened.

The company gave a perfectly reasonable explanation of that and the
coroner found the company's actions completely acceptable.

If a union had been involved it could have very
quickly escalated to whichever level in management agreed to take proper
notice fast. If none took notice then they'd find themselves running a company
with no income coming in - but as a union company they would have learned to
respond at a junior manager level and, the problem here, have learned that it
paid to train managers properly.

A union company wouldn't be in business in that market, so none of the
problems would have arisen.

There are a number of unanswered questions in this case:

- Why did the girl take 6 months to write a letter to the employer?
- Why did she return to the same place of employment after a break of
6 months even though she had been bullied?
- Did the parents know about the letter to the employer?
- Did they help follow it up?
- Why wasn't the psychiatrist involved in the inquest?
- What else was going on in the girl's life?

None of this is to suggest that this isn't a tragic case or that the
depressive illness was not contributed to by the bullying. However,
there are a lot of pieces that have not been made public and the
employer has not been held responsible. Moreover, the employer has
instituted what the coroner believes to be a satisfactory system to
handle bullying and harassment.

Either way it does not suggest that union involvement would have been
practical, helpful or ultimately would have made a difference.




The law is too weak in many areas - along with others around here I'd like
to see KFC senior managers in prison for manslaughter - and there are
places and times where only unions can offer the support that employees
need.

That's completely ridiculous. The employer has since set up a help line
for employees to use, which seems pretty sensible.

PR.
If they really cared they'd have done it earlier. In any case what is required
is for the whole company organisation to be put on a proper footing.

It is, and the coroner has accepted that.



An independent counsellor would be even better.

Someone totally independent of the company would be a geat idea.

Somebody totally independent altogether such as a trained counsellor
would be the great idea.


--

..andy

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:07:58 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On the other hand, you have suggested that there are situations where union
involvement is the *only* way.

There are. We've agreed on one - who do you think would employ the independent
counsellor?

I would suggest a combination of government funding, the employer and
the employee. That way, all parties have a stake in doing this and it
can be done impartially and apolitically as it should be.


--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
I don't agree that being a non union shop makes for these conditions to
occur.

I didn't ask you to agree that. Your English and Logic let you down. I said
they go together. I made no claim for one causing the other. Yet again you
have decided what you will believe and you are arguing that I am wrong even if
you have to misstate my claims in order to do so.

--
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 , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
David wrote:
In that case you're being a bit naive Dave, this was a while ago but I
have been at meetings where union enforcers move amongst the crowd
telling people when and what to vote for, if you don't believe this
practice went on then you're ignorant of actual practices that were
common place amongst militant workplaces, it took a brave man to stand
up to the bully boys. It wasn't the many being bullied by the few but
the few being bullied by the many.

So the vast majority had to bully a few? Why? The result of any vote
wouldn't change.

Voices of dissent were quietened in case it caught on, you weren't
allowed to criticise what was meant to be unanimous support.
--
David

John Cartmell wrote:

It was. But some people - certainly Andy, possibly yourself - fail to
appreciate how normal human beings work.

Yeah right...

When isolated and attacked by
authority figures humans can behave in ways that observers would regard as
perverse. If you haven't been in that position yourself then think yourself
lucky - but don't criticise.

It was not a criticism, just a question.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:25:47 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



He is very confused. For e.g., he
defends the current planning laws, which
are clearly Stalinist and have clearly
not served the people in 60 years. I
advocate tearing them down to something
sensible allowing feedom, sort out
the land ownership problem as 0.66%
of the population own about 70% of the
land, which is a big problem in itself,
and allow market forces dictate
housing demand. In sort - freedom. If
I want to build a fine house in a
corner of a pretty field then I should
be allowed to. Then he calls me a
commie.

On the one hand, you are advocating
the removal or substantial
liberalisation of planning legislation,
on the argument of creating a
free market.

Matt, that is clear.

In fact, I don't have particularly
strong views on planning legislation

You do.

other than its somewhat
arbitrary nature.

More lunacy. Arbitrary? To get house built you need a letter from God.

However, on the other hand you
are suggesting that there should be
what amounts to a forced redistribution
of legally held land assets by
imposition of a draconian taxation.

What would this Draconian taxation be?

Either this is a muddle,

You are in a muddle.

or you are being inconsistent.

I am solid all the way down.

In a free market, one can own,
buy and sell assets and is not forced to do so
for some ideology.

Land is NOT an asset. Land is NOT a commodity. It is finite. Because of
this simple fact it is clear that it should not be in the hands of a few.
Other countries realise this and make it is not. We can make as a many
washing machines as we want, but that is not the case with land. The UK is
the only developed country that still has its land in the hands of a few
thousand families. Land Value Tax will sort it all out and tax the "value"
of land. Land can't be taken off-shore. The people will gain more in
revenue. A man's labour will not be punished by income tax, in which the
more you work the more you pay - ludicrous. Or Council tax, in which you
improve your home and you pay more tax - ludicrous.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1656658,00.html

Matt, you still clearly a confused sycophant.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:50:15 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
I don't agree that being a non union shop makes for these conditions to
occur.

I didn't ask you to agree that. Your English and Logic let you down.

No they don't.

I said that I don't agree that being a non union shop makes for these
conditions to occur. That was my own comment - i.e. the notion of a
causal relationship.

I said
they go together. I made no claim for one causing the other.

Obviously not. That would be hard even for you.

Yet again you
have decided what you will believe and you are arguing that I am wrong even if
you have to misstate my claims in order to do so.

I haven't misstated anything. Since you are saying that you weren't
claiming that one causes the other and I am saying that I don't agree
that notion, the whole thing becomes a non issue.

If you say that you think that they go together, then I also disagree.
Obviously there can be correlation, but all other combinations are
possible as well.

Clearly one can have work environments that are good without union
involvement and one can have bad ones where there is. Equally, one
can have good environments with union involvement and bad ones
without.

Consider the implications of that.

70-75% of the workforce is not in a union, and the proportion has
increased dramatically over the last generation. Health and Safety
and working conditions have improved as well. If a significant
proportion of those people felt that a union would contribute to their
wellbeing they would join. They are not - the trend is the other way.

A proportion of that number (we don't know the true figures, but it is
not a large proportion of the economy) work in sweatshop environments.
These are unlikely to be accessible to unions anyway because
employment is probably not legitimate for one reason or another. It
is believable that the accident rate in these is higher than with
"legitimate" employers as well, so to that extent, one could make your
point that the absence of a union goes together with bad work
conditions. However, it is an academic point, since a union is
unlikely to happen there anyway. A more likely scenario is something
bad happening and the owner of the business being prosecuted.





--

..andy

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:58:45 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:07:58 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On the other hand, you have suggested that there are situations where
union involvement is the *only* way.

There are. We've agreed on one - who do you think would employ the
independent counsellor?

I would suggest a combination of government funding, the employer and the
employee. That way, all parties have a stake in doing this and it can be
done impartially and apolitically as it should be.

It's going to get complex, expensive, difficult (and unpopular) to achieve ...

There's no reason why. Employers and employees pay taxes and NI
contributions already. Employers pay for all manner of professional
services. Employees pay union fees - this would simply be an
alternative solution.
Another approach would be employer and government funding and nothing
by the employee. However, that would raise the question of the
possibility of partiality, in the same way as a union is, by
definition, not a neutral party.


--

..andy

In article , John Rumm
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:

It was. But some people - certainly Andy, possibly yourself - fail to
appreciate how normal human beings work.

Yeah right...

Right!

When isolated and attacked by authority figures humans can behave in ways
that observers would regard as perverse. If you haven't been in that
position yourself then think yourself lucky - but don't criticise.

It was not a criticism, just a question.

Fair enough. You asked the question. The answer was that she was a human being
and, being human, reacted badly under pressure.

--
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 article , John Rumm
wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:


It was. But some people - certainly Andy, possibly yourself - fail to
appreciate how normal human beings work.


Yeah right...


Right!

And you accuse Andy of having preconceptions...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
David wrote:
So the vast majority had to bully a few? Why? The result of any vote
wouldn't change.

Voices of dissent were quietened in case it caught on, you weren't
allowed to criticise what was meant to be unanimous support.

I don't believe you. In any case the law was changed many years ago to
require secret ballots - the Tories thinking this would stop all or most
disputes - since like you they believed it was the militant minoritity
leading and bullying the cowed majority who were perfectly happy with
their lot. But this proved *not* to be the case.
Tories just hate the idea of the bosses not being able to do *exactly* as
they wish.

--
*You can't teach an old mouse new clicks *

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

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:58:45 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:07:58 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On the other hand, you have suggested that there are situations where
union involvement is the *only* way.

There are. We've agreed on one - who do you think would employ the
independent counsellor?

I would suggest a combination of government funding, the employer and the
employee. That way, all parties have a stake in doing this and it can be
done impartially and apolitically as it should be.

It's going to get complex, expensive, difficult (and unpopular) to achieve ...

There's no reason why. Employers and employees pay taxes and NI
contributions already. Employers pay for all manner of professional
services. Employees pay union fees - this would simply be an
alternative solution.
Another approach would be employer and government funding and nothing
by the employee. However, that would raise the question of the
possibility of partiality, in the same way as a union is, by
definition, not a neutral party.

The problem for any non-union involvement is partiality. The employee needs to
know the support is for them and is not beholden to - or reporting to - the
employer in any way. If the employees cannot be so persuaded then the support
effectively doesn't exist.

--
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 , John Rumm
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:

In article , John
Rumm wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

It was. But some people - certainly Andy, possibly yourself - fail to
appreciate how normal human beings work.

Yeah right...

Right!

And you accuse Andy of having preconceptions...

But I've been told not to call him a liar; it does reduce the options ...

--
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

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:13:44 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

On the one hand, you are advocating
the removal or substantial
liberalisation of planning legislation,
on the argument of creating a
free market.

Matt, that is clear.

In fact, I don't have particularly
strong views on planning legislation

You do.

I think that I have a better idea on what my views are than you have
somehow....


other than its somewhat
arbitrary nature.

More lunacy. Arbitrary? To get house built you need a letter from God.

Really? At least the address for applications is clear..


However, on the other hand you
are suggesting that there should be
what amounts to a forced redistribution
of legally held land assets by
imposition of a draconian taxation.

What would this Draconian taxation be?

Land Value Tax.


or you are being inconsistent.

I am solid all the way down.

I suspected that. Don't you mean all the way up though?


In a free market, one can own,
buy and sell assets and is not forced to do so
for some ideology.

Land is NOT an asset.

An asset is a valuable item that is owned and may be bought and sold.
Land certainly falls into that category.

If you are saying that it shouldn't be an asset, then that is
something else.

Land is NOT a commodity. It is finite. Because of
this simple fact it is clear that it should not be in the hands of a few.

The argument of being finite could apply to anything on the planet. It
does not, of itself, relate to the breadth of ownership.


Other countries realise this and make it is not. We can make as a many
washing machines as we want, but that is not the case with land.

Ultimately, the materials and energy that go into making washing
machines are finite.

The UK is
the only developed country that still has its land in the hands of a few
thousand families.

A few million, since home owners would be included.

Land Value Tax will sort it all out and tax the "value"
of land.

That makes two assumptions. "Will" rather than "would", and that it
would have the effect that you imagine.

Land can't be taken off-shore.

It can be owned by offshore organisations.


The people will gain more in
revenue. A man's labour will not be punished by income tax, in which the
more you work the more you pay - ludicrous. Or Council tax, in which you
improve your home and you pay more tax - ludicrous.

Both are ludicrous in terms of their degree. A more appropriate
approach would be less government taking and spending.



--

..andy

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:16:20 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , John Rumm
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:

In article , John
Rumm wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

It was. But some people - certainly Andy, possibly yourself - fail to
appreciate how normal human beings work.

Yeah right...

Right!

And you accuse Andy of having preconceptions...

But I've been told not to call him a liar; it does reduce the options ...

Hardly. I've been taking the broader view and not restricting myself
to the trappings of collectivism.


--

..andy

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:12:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:58:45 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:07:58 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On the other hand, you have suggested that there are situations where
union involvement is the *only* way.

There are. We've agreed on one - who do you think would employ the
independent counsellor?

I would suggest a combination of government funding, the employer and the
employee. That way, all parties have a stake in doing this and it can be
done impartially and apolitically as it should be.

It's going to get complex, expensive, difficult (and unpopular) to achieve ...

There's no reason why. Employers and employees pay taxes and NI
contributions already. Employers pay for all manner of professional
services. Employees pay union fees - this would simply be an
alternative solution.
Another approach would be employer and government funding and nothing
by the employee. However, that would raise the question of the
possibility of partiality, in the same way as a union is, by
definition, not a neutral party.

The problem for any non-union involvement is partiality.

Partiality from whose perspective? You are making the assumption that
a union is the only way to achieve impartiality from the employee's
perspective. Clearly that is nonsense.

The employee needs to
know the support is for them and is not beholden to - or reporting to - the
employer in any way.

This depends on the area under discussion. If it is an H&S issue,
then it is a matter of fact and the important thing is that the
support is from experts in the field. These should be completely
impartial without either the employee or the employer being able to
influence the outcome. If the employer is paying, then the employees
may feel that they are being short changed; while if it is an employee
or a union purporting to represent employees, the employer may feel
that there are other agendas.

If the employees cannot be so persuaded then the support
effectively doesn't exist.

Employees should satisfy themselves of that. It doesn't require a
union to do their thinking for them.


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:13:44 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..

On the one hand, you are advocating
the removal or substantial
liberalisation of planning legislation,
on the argument of creating a
free market.

Matt, that is clear.

In fact, I don't have particularly
strong views on planning legislation

You do.

I think that I have a better idea on
what my views are than you have
somehow....

You are confused and sway with the wind.

other than its somewhat
arbitrary nature.

More lunacy. Arbitrary? To get house
built you need a letter from God.

Really? At least the address for applications is clear..

Yep.

However, on the other hand you
are suggesting that there should be
what amounts to a forced redistribution
of legally held land assets by
imposition of a draconian taxation.

What would this Draconian taxation be?

Land Value Tax.

Once again you show gross ignorance of Land Value Tax. It is the fairest
system known. Large landowners hate it and put out propaganda slagging it.
Surprise, surprise.

In a free market, one can own,
buy and sell assets and is not forced to do so
for some ideology.

Land is NOT an asset.

An asset is a valuable item that is
owned and may be bought and sold.
Land certainly falls into that category.

Land is not a commodity. It is NOT a washing machine. Your sycophantic
mind has great difficulty is understanding this. Land is God given. Do you
want people to own the air as well? They we could pay rent to private air
owners too.

If you are saying that it shouldn't
be an asset, then that is
something else.

Land is NOT a commodity. It is finite.
Because of this simple fact it is clear
that it should not be in the hands of a few.

The argument of being finite could
apply to anything on the planet.

Nonsense. We can't freely make more land. We can make as many cars
(commodity) as we want.

Other countries realise this and make
this not so. We can make as a many
washing machines as we want, but
that is not the case with land.

Ultimately, the materials and energy
that go into making washing
machines are finite.

Not as finite as land.

The UK is the only developed country
that still has its land in the hands of a few
thousand families.

A few million, since home owners would be included.

70% of the land is owned by 0.66% of the population.

Land Value Tax will sort it all
out and tax the "value" of land.

That makes two assumptions.
"Will" rather than "would", and that it
would have the effect that you imagine.

LVT has been implenmeted by many cities throughout the world. Denmark an
element of LVT too.

Land can't be taken off-shore.

It can be owned by offshore organisations.

But it can't be taken offshore, so it is taxable on its value. If they don't
pay the tax the land is taken into public ownership, sold off and the tax
and admin costs is taken from any profit. We, the people, don't lose.

The people will gain more in
revenue. A man's labour will not
be punished by income tax, in which the
more you work the more you pay - ludicrous.
Or Council tax, in which you improve your
home and you pay more tax - ludicrous.

Both are ludicrous in terms of their
degree. A more appropriate
approach would be less government
taking and spending.

Wrong again. LVT is the most appropriate way.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:10:07 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



More lunacy. Arbitrary? To get house
built you need a letter from God.

Really? At least the address for applications is clear..

Yep.

However, on the other hand you
are suggesting that there should be
what amounts to a forced redistribution
of legally held land assets by
imposition of a draconian taxation.

What would this Draconian taxation be?

Land Value Tax.

Once again you show gross ignorance of Land Value Tax. It is the fairest
system known.

Based on what premise?

Large landowners hate it and put out propaganda slagging it.
Surprise, surprise.

Of course it's not surprising. I can't imagine that the typical
homeowner who is also using it in part as an investment would be too
thrilled either.



In a free market, one can own,
buy and sell assets and is not forced to do so
for some ideology.

Land is NOT an asset.

An asset is a valuable item that is
owned and may be bought and sold.
Land certainly falls into that category.

Land is not a commodity. It is NOT a washing machine. Your sycophantic
mind has great difficulty is understanding this. Land is God given. Do you
want people to own the air as well? They we could pay rent to private air
owners too.

I know that Christmas is coming. Have you suddenly got religion or
something, or is it the sherry?



If you are saying that it shouldn't
be an asset, then that is
something else.

Land is NOT a commodity. It is finite.
Because of this simple fact it is clear
that it should not be in the hands of a few.

The argument of being finite could
apply to anything on the planet.

Nonsense. We can't freely make more land.

The Dutch managed it, although admittedly most smells of pig ****.

We can make as many cars
(commodity) as we want.

Ultimately that isn't true. The resources are all finite. It's a
matter of degree.





Other countries realise this and make
this not so. We can make as a many
washing machines as we want, but
that is not the case with land.

Ultimately, the materials and energy
that go into making washing
machines are finite.

Not as finite as land.

Either something is finite or it isn't, just the same as something
being unique (or not).


The UK is the only developed country
that still has its land in the hands of a few
thousand families.

A few million, since home owners would be included.

70% of the land is owned by 0.66% of the population.

So what.... This does not mean that the other 99.34% should be able
to take it from them.

Would you apply this principle to any resource owned by a small number
of people?


Land Value Tax will sort it all
out and tax the "value" of land.

That makes two assumptions.
"Will" rather than "would", and that it
would have the effect that you imagine.

LVT has been implenmeted by many cities throughout the world. Denmark an
element of LVT too.

That does not alter "would" to "will".



Land can't be taken off-shore.

It can be owned by offshore organisations.

But it can't be taken offshore, so it is taxable on its value. If they don't
pay the tax the land is taken into public ownership, sold off and the tax
and admin costs is taken from any profit. We, the people, don't lose.

Who is this "we the people"?

Out of one side of your mouth you are talking about liberalisation of
planning and people being able to do what they want; while from the
other you are talking about public ownership and enforced
redistribution of wealth
..
It's not even January yet.



The people will gain more in
revenue. A man's labour will not
be punished by income tax, in which the
more you work the more you pay - ludicrous.
Or Council tax, in which you improve your
home and you pay more tax - ludicrous.

Both are ludicrous in terms of their
degree. A more appropriate
approach would be less government
taking and spending.

Wrong again. LVT is the most appropriate way.

Yerrrssssss......


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:10:07 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



More lunacy. Arbitrary? To get house
built you need a letter from God.

Really? At least the address for
applications is clear..

Yep.

However, on the other hand you
are suggesting that there should be
what amounts to a forced redistribution
of legally held land assets by
imposition of a draconian taxation.

What would this Draconian taxation be?

Land Value Tax.

Once again you show gross ignorance
of Land Value Tax. It is the fairest
system known.

Based on what premise?

Boy you are slow.

Large landowners hate it and
put out propaganda slagging it.
Surprise, surprise.

Of course it's not surprising. I
can't imagine that the typical
homeowner

A typical homeowner is not a large landowner. Your confused mind is getting
the best of you.

In a free market, one can own,
buy and sell assets and is not forced to do so
for some ideology.

Land is NOT an asset.

An asset is a valuable item that is
owned and may be bought and sold.
Land certainly falls into that category.

Land is not a commodity. It is NOT
a washing machine. Your sycophantic
mind has great difficulty is understanding
this. Land is God given. Do you
want people to own the air as well?
They we could pay rent to private air
owners too.

I know that Christmas is coming.
Have you suddenly got religion or
something, or is it the sherry?

So you do want private air owners we pay rent to.

If you are saying that it shouldn't
be an asset, then that is
something else.

Land is NOT a commodity. It is finite.
Because of this simple fact it is clear
that it should not be in the hands of a few.

The argument of being finite could
apply to anything on the planet.

Nonsense. We can't freely make more land.

The Dutch managed it, although admittedly
most smells of pig ****.

You really are thick..as thick as that Ditch pig ****.

We can make as many cars
(commodity) as we want.

Ultimately that isn't true.
The resources are all finite. It's a
matter of degree.

We could all have 10 each. We can't all have Surrey each, can we?

Other countries realise this and make
this not so. We can make as a many
washing machines as we want, but
that is not the case with land.

Ultimately, the materials and energy
that go into making washing
machines are finite.

Not as finite as land.

Either something is finite or
it isn't,

Land is and we can't live without it.

The UK is the only developed country
that still has its land in the hands of a few
thousand families.

A few million, since home owners would be included.

70% of the land is owned by 0.66% of the population.

So what....

That mean most is on the hands of a few. Get it?

This does not mean that the
other 99.34% should be able
to take it from them.

As they (their ancestors) took it from the 99.34% anyway it can be taken
back. George Orwell described them as tapeworms.

Would you apply this principle to
any resource owned by a small number
of people?

Land is NOT a commodity resource.

Land Value Tax will sort it all
out and tax the "value" of land.

That makes two assumptions.
"Will" rather than "would", and that it
would have the effect that you imagine.

LVT has been implemented by many
cities throughout the world. Denmark an
element of LVT too.

That does not alter "would" to "will".

It does! No ifs about it.

Land can't be taken off-shore.

It can be owned by offshore organisations.

But it can't be taken offshore, so
it is taxable on its value. If they don't
pay the tax the land is taken into
public ownership, sold off and the tax
and admin costs is taken from any
profit. We, the people, don't lose.

Who is this "we the people"?

Us, all the people, you, me and everyone. Can't you figure this out?

Out of one side of your mouth you
are talking about liberalisation of
planning and people being able
to do what they want; while from the
other you are talking about public
ownership and enforced
redistribution of wealth

Yiu are a sycophantic thicko, that is clear. LVT, does not own the land. It
can remain in the hands of the current owners, but they pay tax on it. So,
the Duke of Argyle, who has about 1/4 of Scotland would have to pay tax on
"all" his land, which currently he does not. Currently he receives public
money to leave it alone. So, if he can't afford the tax because the land is
not productive, he sells. Natural land distribution. No compulsory
purchase.

It's not even January yet.

The people will gain more in
revenue. A man's labour will not
be punished by income tax, in which the
more you work the more you pay - ludicrous.
Or Council tax, in which you improve your
home and you pay more tax - ludicrous.

Both are ludicrous in terms of their
degree. A more appropriate
approach would be less government
taking and spending.

Wrong again. LVT is the most appropriate way.

Yerrrssssss......

That is encouraging.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:59:53 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



Once again you show gross ignorance
of Land Value Tax. It is the fairest
system known.

Based on what premise?

Boy you are slow.

OK, so you don't know.


Large landowners hate it and
put out propaganda slagging it.
Surprise, surprise.

Of course it's not surprising. I
can't imagine that the typical
homeowner

A typical homeowner is not a large landowner. Your confused mind is getting
the best of you.

So please explain how your tax would not penalise typical home owners
and only the large landowners.


Land is not a commodity. It is NOT
a washing machine. Your sycophantic
mind has great difficulty is understanding
this. Land is God given. Do you
want people to own the air as well?
They we could pay rent to private air
owners too.

I know that Christmas is coming.
Have you suddenly got religion or
something, or is it the sherry?

So you do want private air owners we pay rent to.

The sherry.



We can make as many cars
(commodity) as we want.

Ultimately that isn't true.
The resources are all finite. It's a
matter of degree.

We could all have 10 each. We can't all have Surrey each, can we?

Exactly. It's a matter of degree.



The UK is the only developed country
that still has its land in the hands of a few
thousand families.

A few million, since home owners would be included.

70% of the land is owned by 0.66% of the population.

So what....

That mean most is on the hands of a few. Get it?

I repeat. So what....



This does not mean that the
other 99.34% should be able
to take it from them.

As they (their ancestors) took it from the 99.34% anyway it can be taken
back.

This would assume that the 99.34% owned it at some stage in the past
and that the 0.36% are in breach of current legislation.





Would you apply this principle to
any resource owned by a small number
of people?

Land is NOT a commodity resource.

Two definitions for commodity:

"something useful or valued"

"something that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a
market"

Both would appear to apply to land. You may not *like* that thought,
but that is the way it is.



Land Value Tax will sort it all
out and tax the "value" of land.

That makes two assumptions.
"Will" rather than "would", and that it
would have the effect that you imagine.

LVT has been implemented by many
cities throughout the world. Denmark an
element of LVT too.

That does not alter "would" to "will".

It does! No ifs about it.

Ah, that's all right then. God will be in his Heaven (when not
giving out planning consents) and all will be well with the world.



Land can't be taken off-shore.

It can be owned by offshore organisations.

But it can't be taken offshore, so
it is taxable on its value. If they don't
pay the tax the land is taken into
public ownership, sold off and the tax
and admin costs is taken from any
profit. We, the people, don't lose.

Who is this "we the people"?

Us, all the people, you, me and everyone. Can't you figure this out?

So power to the people?



Out of one side of your mouth you
are talking about liberalisation of
planning and people being able
to do what they want; while from the
other you are talking about public
ownership and enforced
redistribution of wealth

Yiu are a sycophantic thicko, that is clear. LVT, does not own the land. It
can remain in the hands of the current owners, but they pay tax on it.

Why?

So,
the Duke of Argyle, who has about 1/4 of Scotland would have to pay tax on
"all" his land, which currently he does not.

Why? He pays tax on his income and capital gains.

Currently he receives public
money to leave it alone.

Presumably due to the CAP? Perhaps you ought to have a word with
your friend Tony and ask him why he gave away a piece of Britain's
rebate with little to show for it other than the possibility of a few
more months in his miserable position.


So, if he can't afford the tax because the land is
not productive, he sells.

Why? It is not reasonable to tax ownership of an asset, only a profit
made from it. The current systems do that.


Natural land distribution. No compulsory
purchase.

If you believe that, you would believe anything.



--

..andy

Doctor Drivel wrote:


revenue. A man's labour will not be punished by income tax, in which the
more you work the more you pay - ludicrous.

You're not seriously suggesting that you think slavery can be
*permanently* abolished, are you? It will only spring up again
in another form if income tax were to be dropped.

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


revenue. A man's labour will not be punished by income tax, in which the
more you work the more you pay - ludicrous.

You're not seriously suggesting that you think slavery can be
*permanently* abolished, are you?

Yes.

It will only spring up again
in another form if income tax were to be dropped.


LVT. One and only tax. A tax on the value of land. Google "Henry George"
or "Georgism". The UK nearly implemented a watered down version, pre WW1,
but the war got in the way.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:59:53 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



Once again you show gross ignorance
of Land Value Tax. It is the fairest
system known.

Based on what premise?

Boy you are slow.

OK, so you don't know.

No. You are very slow.

Large landowners hate it and
put out propaganda slagging it.
Surprise, surprise.

Of course it's not surprising. I
can't imagine that the typical
homeowner

A typical homeowner is not a large
landowner. Your confused mind is getting
the best of you.

So please explain how your tax would
not penalise typical home owners
and only the large landowners.

It doesn't tax their small income, and doesn't penalise their homes when
they make a small extension.

Land is not a commodity. It is NOT
a washing machine. Your sycophantic
mind has great difficulty is understanding
this. Land is God given. Do you
want people to own the air as well?
They we could pay rent to private air
owners too.

I know that Christmas is coming.
Have you suddenly got religion or
something, or is it the sherry?

So you do want private air owners we pay rent to.

The sherry.

Yes, if you say so.

We can make as many cars
(commodity) as we want.

Ultimately that isn't true.
The resources are all finite. It's a
matter of degree.

We could all have 10 each. We can't
all have Surrey each, can we?

Exactly. It's a matter of degree.

Your retarded mind hasn't figured that one out.

The UK is the only developed country
that still has its land in the hands of a few
thousand families.

A few million, since home owners would be included.

70% of the land is owned by 0.66% of the population.

So what....

That mean most is on the hands of a few. Get it?

I repeat. So what....

So you still don't get it.

This does not mean that the
other 99.34% should be able
to take it from them.

As they (their ancestors) took it
from the 99.34% anyway it can be taken
back.

This would assume that the 99.34%
owned it at some stage in the past
and that the 0.36% are in breach of
current legislation.

They 99.34% did own it. The thieves made their own legislation. Stealing is
stealing.

Would you apply this principle to
any resource owned by a small number
of people?

Land is NOT a commodity resource.

Two definitions for commodity:

"something useful or valued"

"something that is subject to ready
exchange or exploitation within a
market"

Both would appear to apply to land.

Nope! Land is essential to life. Washing machines are not.

Land Value Tax will sort it all
out and tax the "value" of land.

That makes two assumptions.
"Will" rather than "would", and that it
would have the effect that you imagine.

LVT has been implemented by many
cities throughout the world. Denmark an
element of LVT too.

That does not alter "would" to "will".

It does! No ifs about it.

Ah, that's all right then.

OK.

Land can't be taken off-shore.

It can be owned by offshore organisations.

But it can't be taken offshore, so
it is taxable on its value. If they don't
pay the tax the land is taken into
public ownership, sold off and the tax
and admin costs is taken from any
profit. We, the people, don't lose.

Who is this "we the people"?

Us, all the people, you, me and everyone. Can't you figure this out?

So power to the people?

Yes, what Thatcher used to shout. But gave none whatsoever to any people,
reinforcing a Stalinist planning system.

Out of one side of your mouth you
are talking about liberalisation of
planning and people being able
to do what they want; while from the
other you are talking about public
ownership and enforced
redistribution of wealth

You are a sycophantic thicko,
that is clear. LVT, does not
own the land. It can remain
in the hands of the current
owners, but they pay tax on it.

Why?

This confirms your thickoness.

So, the Duke of Argyle, who has
about 1/4 of Scotland would have
to pay tax on "all" his land, which
currently he does not.

Why? He pays tax on his income
and capital gains.

And sweet FA tax on all that land and received public money for doing sweet
FA.

Currently he receives public
money to leave it alone.

Presumably due to the CAP?

He receives public money to leave it alone.

So, if he can't afford the tax because the land is
not productive, he sells.

Why?

Because ghe can't pay the tax. Boy are you slow.

Natural land distribution. No compulsory
purchase.

If you believe that, you would
believe anything.

Boy you are sycophantic slow.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:41:41 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:59:53 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



Once again you show gross ignorance
of Land Value Tax. It is the fairest
system known.

Based on what premise?

Boy you are slow.

OK, so you don't know.

No. You are very slow.

OK, so normal diversion....


Large landowners hate it and
put out propaganda slagging it.
Surprise, surprise.

Of course it's not surprising. I
can't imagine that the typical
homeowner

A typical homeowner is not a large
landowner. Your confused mind is getting
the best of you.

So please explain how your tax would
not penalise typical home owners
and only the large landowners.

It doesn't tax their small income, and doesn't penalise their homes when
they make a small extension.

Waffle. Explain how it differentiates.




The UK is the only developed country
that still has its land in the hands of a few
thousand families.

A few million, since home owners would be included.

70% of the land is owned by 0.66% of the population.

So what....

That mean most is on the hands of a few. Get it?

I repeat. So what....

So you still don't get it.

I get that you are advocating a redistribution of wealth of untold
proportions.



This does not mean that the
other 99.34% should be able
to take it from them.

As they (their ancestors) took it
from the 99.34% anyway it can be taken
back.

This would assume that the 99.34%
owned it at some stage in the past
and that the 0.36% are in breach of
current legislation.

They 99.34% did own it. The thieves made their own legislation. Stealing is
stealing.


The government does it all the time.

However, coming to the point, why single out land for this treatment?
Surely it should apply to every asset where a few have a lot if one
follows your position.


Would you apply this principle to
any resource owned by a small number
of people?

Land is NOT a commodity resource.

Two definitions for commodity:

"something useful or valued"

"something that is subject to ready
exchange or exploitation within a
market"

Both would appear to apply to land.

Nope! Land is essential to life.

Direct ownership is not unless one has to live directly from
agriculture on it.


Land Value Tax will sort it all
out and tax the "value" of land.

That makes two assumptions.
"Will" rather than "would", and that it
would have the effect that you imagine.

LVT has been implemented by many
cities throughout the world. Denmark an
element of LVT too.

That does not alter "would" to "will".

It does! No ifs about it.

Ah, that's all right then.

OK.

Land can't be taken off-shore.

It can be owned by offshore organisations.

But it can't be taken offshore, so
it is taxable on its value. If they don't
pay the tax the land is taken into
public ownership, sold off and the tax
and admin costs is taken from any
profit. We, the people, don't lose.

Who is this "we the people"?

Us, all the people, you, me and everyone. Can't you figure this out?

So power to the people?

Yes, what Thatcher used to shout. But gave none whatsoever to any people,
reinforcing a Stalinist planning system.

It's difficult to see how you can lay that one at the good Baroness's
door. By your own statements, the system as we know it today has
been in place for decades before 1979 and continues to this day.
Numerous governments, apart that of the exalted Lady Thatcher, have
had the opportunity to alter it but have chosen not to do so.



Out of one side of your mouth you
are talking about liberalisation of
planning and people being able
to do what they want; while from the
other you are talking about public
ownership and enforced
redistribution of wealth

You are a sycophantic thicko,
that is clear. LVT, does not
own the land. It can remain
in the hands of the current
owners, but they pay tax on it.

Why?

This confirms your thickoness.

So, the Duke of Argyle, who has
about 1/4 of Scotland would have
to pay tax on "all" his land, which
currently he does not.

Why? He pays tax on his income
and capital gains.

And sweet FA tax on all that land and received public money for doing sweet
FA.

Why should he pay tax on mere ownership of an asset? In regard to
receipt of public money, the real question to be asked is why that
happens.




Currently he receives public
money to leave it alone.

Presumably due to the CAP?

He receives public money to leave it alone.

Pray tell why that is if it is not because of the CAP.


So, if he can't afford the tax because the land is
not productive, he sells.

Why?

Because ghe can't pay the tax. Boy are you slow.

This is not a reason for having the tax in the first place unless one
has the objective of redistributing wealth. If that is really your
agenda, why not just be honest and say so.



--

..andy

Doctor Drivel wrote:


A man's labour will not be punished by income tax, in which the
more you work the more you pay - ludicrous. Or Council tax, in which you
improve your home and you pay more tax - ludicrous.

Just a couple of points:-

1) Is IMM becoming a capitalist(Tory)
2) If IMM does the plumbing, does this count as not improving your home
and do you get a discount?

LOL

Regards
Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Doctor Drivel wrote:

A man's labour will not be punished by income tax, in which the
more you work the more you pay - ludicrous. Or Council tax, in which you
improve your home and you pay more tax - ludicrous.

Just a couple of points:-

1) Is IMM becoming a capitalist(Tory)

This comment displays total and utter Little Middle England ignorance.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:41:41 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:59:53 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Once again you show gross ignorance
of Land Value Tax. It is the fairest
system known.

Based on what premise?

Boy you are slow.

OK, so you don't know.

No. You are very slow.

OK, so normal diversion....

Large landowners hate it and
put out propaganda slagging it.
Surprise, surprise.

Of course it's not surprising. I
can't imagine that the typical
homeowner

A typical homeowner is not a large
landowner. Your confused mind is getting
the best of you.

So please explain how your tax would
not penalise typical home owners
and only the large landowners.

It doesn't tax their small income,
and doesn't penalise their homes when
they make a small extension.

Waffle. Explain how it differentiates.

The UK is the only developed country
that still has its land in the hands of a few
thousand families.

A few million, since home owners would be included.

70% of the land is owned by 0.66% of the population.

So what....

That mean most is on the hands of a few. Get it?

I repeat. So what....

So you still don't get it.

I get that you are advocating a
redistribution of wealth of untold
proportions.

It distributes the means of a society's production more evenly. Read the
basic of Land Value Tax, and American idea, with fans such as the Bushes,
Einstein, etc.

This does not mean that the
other 99.34% should be able
to take it from them.

As they (their ancestors) took it
from the 99.34% anyway it can be taken
back.

This would assume that the 99.34%
owned it at some stage in the past
and that the 0.36% are in breach of
current legislation.

They 99.34% did own it. The thieves
made their own legislation. Stealing is
stealing.

The government does it all the time.

More Little Middle England silliness.

However, coming to the point,
why single out land for this treatment?

Treatment of what? Taxing only the value of land distributes a society's
wealth more evenly. Your sycophantic nature may want you to give more of
your wealth to stinking rich people. That is fine if you do it
individually. Society should not penalise the poor and make the rich
richer.

Surely it should apply to every asset
where a few have a lot if one
follows your position.

Land is not an asset as such. Not a commodity. You have difficulty with
this.

Geolibertarians have a profound respect for the principle that one has
private property in the fruits of one's labor. This includes the fruits of
mental labor and the results of reinvestment of legitimate private property
(capital) in future production. They remain consistent in that respect by
recognising, as did the classic liberals, that land and raw natural
resources are not the fruits of labor, but a common heritage to be accessed
on terms that are equal under the law for everyone. The statist system of
land tenure empowers non-producing landlords to extract the fruits of
tenants' labour.

Geolibertarians also consider themselves "green" in respect for the earth as
our common heritage. However, they clearly distinguish between land as
common property and land as state property. Unlike left-wing or "watermelon"
greens, they advocate governance of land in harmony with free market
principles, and deny the right of statist bureaucracies to meddle in the
affairs of individual land holders. They see themselves as embracing the
best attributes of the Green and Libertarian parties.

Geolibertarians also believe in free trade, with no state support for
monopoly privileges of any kind. They therefore oppose money monopolies,
information monopolies, a host of lesser monopolies, and most of all,
monopoly of the power to govern, as embodied by statist political systems.
They are not nihilistic anarchists. They believe that monopoly privileges
can be gently and methodically displaced without disrupting to society, even
when statists resort to violence to prevent it.

Famous people with geolibertarian ideas:

Classic liberals: Jefferson, Locke, Mill, Paine, Adam Smith, etc.
Modern libertarians: Choderov, Nock, Hess, Nolan, etc
Other famous people: Churchill, Einstein, Tolstoy, etc

Nope! Land is essential to life.

Direct ownership is not
unless one has to live directly from
agriculture on it.

We can't live without land. Should we apply rent to air as well. So the
Airlord will come each week with a rent book.

So power to the people?

Yes, what Thatcher used to shout.
But gave none whatsoever to any people,
reinforcing a Stalinist planning system.

It's difficult to see how you can lay that
one at the good Baroness's
door. By your own statements,
the system as we know it today has
been in place for decades before
1979 and continues to this day.
Numerous governments, apart that
of the exalted Lady Thatcher, have
had the opportunity to alter it but have
chosen not to do so.

Thatcher made the planning system even more Stalinist, to pander to her Tory
voting NIMBYs.

"But the public always prefers development to be somewhere else, not near
them: NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. Public participation in the process, the
ability to put pressure on local and central government, meant that
Conservative homeowners in Conservative shires could block or divert
development which might otherwise occur near them.
Thus the planning system was not something that the party's core voters
wanted to be dismantled in favour of market forces. Indeed, a former speech
writer for a Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment told one of
the authors that he wrote speeches, with gritted teeth, in praise of
planning, and that the Secretary of State, with teeth gritted, delivered
them."

"Even then, planning continued untrammelled. Indeed, in 1990, with a move to
'plan led' development, the British system became even more like a
Soviet-style central planning system than it had been before. It is a
paradox to be savoured that a year after the Berlin Wall came down, whilst
the Soviet economy and its satellites were collapsing, a conservative
government should have enforced a system of Soviet-style central planning
for the provision of housing in Britain."

So, the Duke of Argyle, who has
about 1/4 of Scotland would have
to pay tax on "all" his land, which
currently he does not.

Why? He pays tax on his income
and capital gains.

And sweet FA tax on all that land
and received public money for doing
sweet FA.

Why should he pay tax on mere
ownership of an asset?

Read above.

Currently he receives public
money to leave it alone.

Presumably due to the CAP?

He receives public money to leave it alone.

Pray tell why that is if it is not because of the CAP.

He receives public money to leave it alone.

So, if he can't afford the tax because the land is
not productive, he sells.

Why?

Because he can't pay the tax. Boy are you are slow.

This is not a reason for having
the tax in the first place unless one
has the objective of redistributing wealth.
If that is really your agenda, why not
just be honest and say so.

Redistributing is taking what is in the bank and dishing it out. Fair
distribution of the products of a society is different. You have difficulty
with this.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:17:42 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I get that you are advocating a
redistribution of wealth of untold
proportions.

It distributes the means of a society's production more evenly. Read the
basic of Land Value Tax, and American idea, with fans such as the Bushes,
Einstein, etc.

You're impressed by something of which the Bushes are fans?



However, coming to the point,
why single out land for this treatment?

Treatment of what? Taxing only the value of land distributes a society's
wealth more evenly.

Society is a nebulous thing if it exists at all. It is certainly not
the case by any means of measurement that land represents all or even
most of an economy's income.

Your sycophantic nature may want you to give more of
your wealth to stinking rich people.

I just want to give more of my wealth to me, thanks, and less to the
government.


That is fine if you do it
individually.

So no problem, then.


Society should not penalise the poor and make the rich
richer.

It doesn't.


Surely it should apply to every asset
where a few have a lot if one
follows your position.

Land is not an asset as such. Not a commodity. You have difficulty with
this.

I have no difficulty at all. It is both an asset and a commodity.




Geolibertarians have a profound respect for the principle that one has
private property in the fruits of one's labor.

Good for them.

This includes the fruits of
mental labor and the results of reinvestment of legitimate private property
(capital) in future production. They remain consistent in that respect by
recognising, as did the classic liberals, that land and raw natural
resources are not the fruits of labor, but a common heritage to be accessed
on terms that are equal under the law for everyone.

That's cloud cuckoo land or just a semi-respectable way of saying that
it is OK to take from the haves and give to the have nots. Why not
just say it explicitly rather than than wrapping it up in sentimental
crap.


The statist system of
land tenure empowers non-producing landlords to extract the fruits of
tenants' labour.

Good.




Geolibertarians also consider themselves "green" in respect for the earth as
our common heritage. However, they clearly distinguish between land as
common property and land as state property. Unlike left-wing or "watermelon"
greens, they advocate governance of land in harmony with free market
principles, and deny the right of statist bureaucracies to meddle in the
affairs of individual land holders. They see themselves as embracing the
best attributes of the Green and Libertarian parties.

What a lot of old waffle.


Geolibertarians also believe in free trade, with no state support for
monopoly privileges of any kind. They therefore oppose money monopolies,
information monopolies, a host of lesser monopolies, and most of all,
monopoly of the power to govern, as embodied by statist political systems.
They are not nihilistic anarchists. They believe that monopoly privileges
can be gently and methodically displaced without disrupting to society, even
when statists resort to violence to prevent it.

Famous people with geolibertarian ideas:

Classic liberals: Jefferson, Locke, Mill, Paine, Adam Smith, etc.
Modern libertarians: Choderov, Nock, Hess, Nolan, etc
Other famous people: Churchill, Einstein, Tolstoy, etc

So....?



Nope! Land is essential to life.

Direct ownership is not
unless one has to live directly from
agriculture on it.

We can't live without land.

That depends on how, where and what you measure.






So power to the people?

Yes, what Thatcher used to shout.
But gave none whatsoever to any people,
reinforcing a Stalinist planning system.

It's difficult to see how you can lay that
one at the good Baroness's
door. By your own statements,
the system as we know it today has
been in place for decades before
1979 and continues to this day.
Numerous governments, apart that
of the exalted Lady Thatcher, have
had the opportunity to alter it but have
chosen not to do so.

Thatcher made the planning system even more Stalinist, to pander to her Tory
voting NIMBYs.

Really? Which changes specifically? Please quote the appropriate
Statutory Instruments and regulations.




So, the Duke of Argyle, who has
about 1/4 of Scotland would have
to pay tax on "all" his land, which
currently he does not.

Why? He pays tax on his income
and capital gains.

And sweet FA tax on all that land
and received public money for doing
sweet FA.

Why should he pay tax on mere
ownership of an asset?

Read above.

Answer the question.



Currently he receives public
money to leave it alone.

Presumably due to the CAP?

He receives public money to leave it alone.

Pray tell why that is if it is not because of the CAP.

He receives public money to leave it alone.

Does he get money to which the law doesn't entitle him? No.



So, if he can't afford the tax because the land is
not productive, he sells.

Why?

Because he can't pay the tax. Boy are you are slow.

This is not a reason for having
the tax in the first place unless one
has the objective of redistributing wealth.
If that is really your agenda, why not
just be honest and say so.

Redistributing is taking what is in the bank and dishing it out.

Which bank?


Fair
distribution of the products of a society is different. You have difficulty
with this.


I have no difficulty at all. You are attempting to package up (or
more accurately are taken in by those who would seek to package up) a
massive redistribution of wealth from those who have title to it under
the present legal system to those who do not and without protection of
current and future value.

It's either this, or you have some means to fund compensation for
current and projected future value of land assets for those who
currently own them. Where would this money come from? Don't say
LVT because that would be the cause of a massive drop in land prices
and loss of current asset value. Using that to compensate landowners
would mean that there would have been no point in implementing the
silly tax in the first place because it would be taking wiht the left
hand and giving back with the right.


--

..andy

In article ,
David wrote:
Dave it doesn't matter if you believe me or not and I don't believe
*I know*, having been there. I have been at the meetings and I have seen
what goes on, if you have been at the same meetings and not witnessed it
then you were either supporting or had your eyes closed, if you haven't
been to any of the meetings then you don't really know do you, and don't
forget we are talking about a while ago, it was the term 'track record'
that initiated this current thread, I was burnt by the unions in the
early/mid seventies, never again.

First it was a few bullying the majority, then it became the majority
bullying the few. And you as a union member got burned?

Did you stand for office to sort out the union you belonged to but didn't
like the way it operated? Attended *all* union meetings - not just the
summoned ones?

--
*If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

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

John Cartmell wrote:

And you accuse Andy of having preconceptions...


But I've been told not to call him a liar; it does reduce the options ...

To *actually* be a liar you would need to be knowingly saying things you
know to be true. However I expect that both you and Andy believe you are
being fully truthful. Just because you believe something does not
actually *make* it true however. The reality is that there are obviously
shades of grey here - much depends on your beliefs, and how you spin the
"facts".

The irony in all this is I don't actually see that much difference in
your viewpoints. However you are both viewing it from completely
different levels. Quite possibly partly a result of attitude differences
between people accustomed to being employees, and those accustomed to
marketing themselves as businesses.

There seems to be general agreement that some unions are good and some
are bad. It is hard to deny that historically there were huge
excesses/abuses of power and political motivations of *some* of the
unions - some of these still exist but many do not. However the stigma
of this has tarnished the view of all of them in many minds. Legislation
has curbed many of these excesses, but not all.

The functions unions carry out can be archived in other ways (you may
argue not as well/cheaply, Andy may take the alternative view). There
are cases where group representation and support of the individual will
have significant worthwhile advantages for the individual - you insist
the best collective is a union, others would say sometimes that may be
true, but other options always exist which in many cases would be as
good or better. The fact that most of the workforce seems to exist
without being in a union seems to support this alternate view is at
least viable.

For the individual with the necessary get up and go, encouragement, and
support, they will always be able to archive more than simply allowing
themselves to be represented as a homogenised group. This is not to
suggest that is true directly in every circumstance - however part of
the required mindset is to learn to recognise these cases and find ways
to circumvent them. i.e. If under the circumstances life does not seem
fair, change the circumstances.

If you look at the big big picture, then most would have to acknowledge
that using a union as a collective bargaining "battering ram" is
something that can only work for a limited time span. Once you cost the
employers out of business, there is no "cake" to divide up and everyone
loses. Working with all stakeholders in a business to make the business
more successful has a better long term prognosis than arguing over who
gets what share of an ever diminishing business.

The very nature of "work" is evolving, and hence any collective
organisation must also evolve if it is not to become viewed as archaic /
irrelevant. It would seem that a good proportion of the working
population currently view many of the traditional unions in this light.
However it is also certainly possible that other groups (trade
associations etc) can and do end up duplicating many of the less
desirable attributes that historically disenfranchised people from
unions (restrictive practices, closed shops, high barriers to entry into
sections of the labour market and so on).



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
John Cartmell wrote:

And you accuse Andy of having preconceptions...


But I've been told not to call him a liar; it does reduce the options ...

To *actually* be a liar you would need to be knowingly saying things you
know to be true.

John hasn't said any lies at all, while Matt/Lord Hall has.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
David wrote:
Dave it doesn't matter if you believe me or not and I don't believe
*I know*, having been there. I have been at the meetings and I have seen
what goes on, if you have been at the same meetings and not witnessed it
then you were either supporting or had your eyes closed, if you haven't
been to any of the meetings then you don't really know do you, and don't
forget we are talking about a while ago, it was the term 'track record'
that initiated this current thread, I was burnt by the unions in the
early/mid seventies, never again.

First it was a few bullying the majority, then it became the majority
bullying the few. And you as a union member got burned?

The majority were manipulated, this is not an unusual concept, the few
that refused to be manipulated were bullied by the union agitators.

Did you stand for office to sort out the union you belonged to but didn't
like the way it operated? Attended *all* union meetings - not just the
summoned ones?

No, I didn't stand for office but have been active outside of unions all
my working life, I refuse to be part of a block vote (if you discount
political elections) I never attended the smaller meetings because I
didn't want to be part of something I didn't like the look of so it was
the mass meetings I had direct experience of.

Do you have trouble believing that there was militant union activity in
the car industry? do you not believe that union "stewards" are capable
of bullying, cajoling, intimidating members who don't offer their full
support (the recent removal of the elderly chap at the Labour Conference
is a mild throwback to the old days)

It sounds like you have had a good recent experience of union
involvement, good for you, not all unions are as good and it wasn't
always like that.


--
David

In article , John Rumm
wrote:
The fact that most of the workforce seems to exist without being in a
union seems to support this alternate view is at least viable.

I'd argue that such workforces depend on unions elsewhere pushing for
legislation that supports all. They are taking a free ride.

--
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