Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Mike Harrison" wrote in message

and will be widely ignored,

Then they face prison

And how many prosecutions have building control pursued as far as court
in the last 20 years then?

Of that vanishingly small number, how many have resulted in prison
sentences for the defendants?

and of those so sentenced (if any), how many committed the sole offence
of failing to submit a building notice?

Nice round figure...


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:31:43 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"A Bloke" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:55:27 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

It devalues the whole weight of the legal infrastructure
as it becomes ever more difficult for normally law abiding people to go
about the basic functions of everyday life without legally transgressing
on a regular basis - either by ignorance, or by tiring of the futility
of caring any more.

This is very much the case for me. The only two reasons I DIY are that
(1)I quite enjoy it, and (2)It is often the only way of totally ensuring
that a given job is completed correctly and to the highest possible
standards. It certainly doesn't save me any significant amounts of money
once tools, test-equipment and my time have all been factored in.

Your time is free, unless you divert from money making time to DIY.

That is certainly one way of looking at it. However, I work for myself
and I generally work 16 hours a day, excluding weekends. Whatever time I
spend on DIY-related matters (including "research", which IME usually
takes up more time than the actual piece of work itself) is typically
time during which I could be doing paid work. Therefore, whatever time I
spend on DIY usually costs me my standard hourly rate which is generally
in the same ball-park as the hourly rate of a professional tradesman.

I appreciate this may not be a common set of circumstances.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Mike Harrison" wrote in message

and will be widely ignored,

Then they face prison

And how many prosecutions have building control pursued as far as court in
the last 20 years then?

We as we forget the building regs then and sink into the Tory third world.

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Secondly. many EU directive have to be followed,

******** they do.

and most are sound too.

Ack! Excuse me, I seem to have coughed up my lungs.

See a Quack then

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:28:09 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Tim S" wrote in message
. ..
Dave wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:

Part P has done much to erode the rule of law.

What can one expect of the dunce that started this?

When I see the 'ODPM' I quake, as he is so incompetent.

If he had half a brain, if only :-)

Dave

To be fair, Fatman John is not actually
dreaming up most of this crap - it's
more often than not in response to
some directive from the EU.

I can find the directive behind Part P
if you wish for some evidence.

Firstly, Part P is sound. Its aim is sound too. Secondly. many EU
directive have to be followed, and most are sound too. Thirdly, gov
ministers don't dream anything in depth. The detail is in ministries and
they at times hire the services of outside experts and go by that/them.

It is clear most people here have no idea of how the government works.


ROTFL.

Matt you don't know how it works at all.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 03:15:50 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:



It is clear most people here have no idea of how the government works.


ROTFL.

Matt you don't know how it works at all.

When did you last visit the House of Commons?


--

..andy

Doctor Drivel wrote:

And how many prosecutions have building control pursued as far as
court in the last 20 years then?


We as we forget the building regs then and sink into the Tory third world.

Ah, so what you are saying then, is that if we forget the basic rules of
grammar we slip into NuLabour incomprehensibility...

No? So what are you prattling about then?



--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

And how many prosecutions have building control pursued as far as court
in the last 20 years then?


We as we forget the building regs then and sink into the Tory third
world.

Ah, so what you are saying then,

Is that no rules is third world anarchy and standards drop to third world
levels, what the Tories always advocate. Ask people who have bought a new
house whether they thing there should be tighter checks and certified
tradesmen. They would say a resounding yes as they look at the shoddy
surrounds. They have rules for working people and 'codes of conduct' for
their own lot in the City. All the financial scandals of the past 20 years
openly display it doesn't work. But they still scream no laws for them,
while the USA manages to legislate quite well.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Ah, so what you are saying then,


Is that no rules is third world anarchy and standards drop to third
world levels,

We have plenty of "rules" - I think you will find that is partly the
problem. They are so inane, pointless and unenforceable that it
encourages people to ignore them. By extension however it also devalues
the building regulations that do have a good purpose.

I agree that this is a poor state of affairs that will result in falling
standards overall.

I don't see how any of this strengthens your assertion that people face
jail time for non compliance with part P...


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:19:21 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

They have rules for working people and 'codes of conduct' for
their own lot in the City. All the financial scandals of the past 20 years
openly display it doesn't work. But they still scream no laws for them,
while the USA manages to legislate quite well.

Worldcom, Enron .....the list goes on and on

http://www.bankruptcydata.com/Research/15_Largest.htm



--

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Ah, so what you are saying then,


Is that no rules is third world anarchy and standards drop to third world
levels,

We have plenty of "rules" - I think you will find that is partly the
problem. They are so inane, pointless and unenforceable that it encourages
people to ignore them. By extension however it also devalues the building
regulations that do have a good purpose.

I agree that this is a poor state of affairs that will result in falling
standards overall.

I don't see how any of this strengthens your assertion that people face
jail time for non compliance with part P...

The fiest test case will set the agenda on that.

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:19:21 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

They have rules for working people and 'codes of conduct' for
their own lot in the City. All the financial scandals of the past 20
years
openly display it doesn't work. But they still scream no laws for them,
while the USA manages to legislate quite well.

Worldcom, Enron .....the list goes on and on

http://www.bankruptcydata.com/Research/15_Largest.htm

Lord Hall, that proves nothing at all.

Doctor Drivel wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Ah, so what you are saying then,


Is that no rules is third world anarchy and standards drop to third
world levels,

We have plenty of "rules" - I think you will find that is partly the
problem. They are so inane, pointless and unenforceable that it
encourages people to ignore them. By extension however it also devalues
the building regulations that do have a good purpose.

I agree that this is a poor state of affairs that will result in falling
standards overall.

I don't see how any of this strengthens your assertion that people face
jail time for non compliance with part P...

The fiest test case will set the agenda on that.

There have actually been three just recently. See:

http://www.iee.org/Forums/forum/mess...VIEWTMP=Linear

Contains a direct link to the Newcastle case:

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/e...story_continue

All three were acting as professional electricians to the public.

As far as I can see all three cases involved not working to IEE Wiring Regs,
including some fundamental and dangerous bodgery and using a NICEIC logo
without being actually members.

The Newcastle case, both men got fined 8050 each plus costs for a total of
23 offences.

The Bath case, man fined 1500, work not in accordance with British
Standards.

Carlisle case: 5000 fine, 5 offences at 2 sites. Lack of bonding, exposed
live wires plus more.

=======

So, my analysis: In the cited cases, they deserved it. I'm surprised that
the Newcastle and Carlisle case didn't result in gaol time, personally.

I would also summise that the ODPM has been suggesting that LBAs find
someone to nick as these cases all came to light together, recently.

I also stand by my earlier point that LBAs aren't interested in going to
court except in extreme cases. All 3 cases seem to classify as relatively
extreme. Bear in mind, that's 3 prosecutions of tradesmen in over a year -
not a high percentage of all the "illegal" work that probably going on.

No DIY prosecutions (yet) and I don't really forsee any, unless someone does
something stupid and dangerous, in which case it might just be used as a
chargeable offence where someone gets a shock of the house burns down. In
all 3 cases, it would appear that Wiring Regs were not followed. If the
work had been to standard, but not notified, I wonder what the magistrates
would have done? Thing is, that I doubt that the LBA would bother bringing
such cases to court unless they've had a really bad day.

I agree with John's point about devaluing the Building Regs. There are
breaches such as these, which on the face of it, deserve the full force of
the law - and there are technical breaches where someone, in their own
house, knows well enough what they are doing, and just can't be bothered
with the excessive beaurocracy.

It's not just about filling out a BNA and coughing up 100+VAT. It's about
there being no real standard procedure for handling Part P. One LBA has
told me that they want a 1st fix inspection - which is often more than
inconvenient in electrical work, which like plumbing, is often done in an
incremental fashion. There's the cost - 100+VAT for 40 quids worth of parts
to do a few minor alterations. There's the waiting for the BCO or contract
agents to turn up.

None of these things are such a problem in a large project like building an
extension - the job itself is expensive and involves much time, and the BCO
often acts as a source of useful information.

I also notice that Tonbridge BC have declared a specific procedure for Part
P:

http://www.tmbc.gov.uk/cgi-bin/buildpage.pl?mysql=610

In short the fee is 105+VAT and is *in addition* to any other Building
Notices - hmm - when did each section ever attract it's own charge before?

Tim

Tim S wrote:

Contains a direct link to the Newcastle case:

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/e...story_continue

Shocking! as they say ;-)

All three were acting as professional electricians to the public.

As far as I can see all three cases involved not working to IEE Wiring Regs,
including some fundamental and dangerous bodgery and using a NICEIC logo
without being actually members.

This also represents an element of fraud as well... he was selling
something he was not legally in possession of i.e. NICIEC membership and
the ability to personally provide certified work.

So, my analysis: In the cited cases, they deserved it. I'm surprised that
the Newcastle and Carlisle case didn't result in gaol time, personally.

Difficult I guess since nothing bad happened - even though the potential
was there (also without seeing the instalation yourself it is hard to
judge just how bad it was e.g. things like was the cable sizing correct,
could the required disconnect times be met etc).

I also stand by my earlier point that LBAs aren't interested in going to
court except in extreme cases. All 3 cases seem to classify as relatively
extreme. Bear in mind, that's 3 prosecutions of tradesmen in over a year -
not a high percentage of all the "illegal" work that probably going on.

probably not...

No DIY prosecutions (yet) and I don't really forsee any, unless someone does
something stupid and dangerous, in which case it might just be used as a
chargeable offence where someone gets a shock of the house burns down. In
all 3 cases, it would appear that Wiring Regs were not followed. If the
work had been to standard, but not notified, I wonder what the magistrates
would have done? Thing is, that I doubt that the LBA would bother bringing
such cases to court unless they've had a really bad day.

It does not seem to be the LBA "way" - I get the impression they only
follow the legal route when they are unable to curtail/amend incorrect
work via advice and negotiation. If the only fault had been the failure
to submit a BNA and the work was otherwise correct and done to standard
it seems unlikely they would have spent the time and effort.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Richard Conway" wrote in message
...
Ian_m wrote:
"Nigel Molesworth" wrote in message
...
snip
No you didn't - you needed that bit to raise the sockets, which you did at
the same time as the other work
Actually some other info, in talking to council and/others:-

My water softner fitted under the sink with a 30cm spur off dishwasher
socket (so didn't have to remove dishwasher to unplug water softener)
should have had a Part P certificate, "but it was fitted before Jan 2005
wasn't it Sir ?", nod nod, wink, wink, according to council.

A large kitchen supplier in the South has been fitting kitchens and not been
issuing Part P's as management thought it was responsibility of their
electrician and electrician thought it was managements responsibility, the
electrician just signed the companies installation certificate (after
testing) and thought management would inform council. Not a safety issue but
failure of paperwork issue.....

My reel of 2.5mm red/black is not long enough for anythong interesting, yet
alone secondary kitchen ring, so oh well blue/brown for me.

Ian_m wrote:
"Richard Conway" wrote in message
...
Ian_m wrote:
"Nigel Molesworth" wrote in message
...
snip
No you didn't - you needed that bit to raise the sockets, which you did at
the same time as the other work
Actually some other info, in talking to council and/others:-

My water softner fitted under the sink with a 30cm spur off dishwasher
socket (so didn't have to remove dishwasher to unplug water softener)
should have had a Part P certificate, "but it was fitted before Jan 2005
wasn't it Sir ?", nod nod, wink, wink, according to council.

A large kitchen supplier in the South has been fitting kitchens and not been
issuing Part P's as management thought it was responsibility of their
electrician and electrician thought it was managements responsibility, the
electrician just signed the companies installation certificate (after
testing) and thought management would inform council. Not a safety issue but
failure of paperwork issue.....

My reel of 2.5mm red/black is not long enough for anythong interesting, yet
alone secondary kitchen ring, so oh well blue/brown for me.

Yes, but don't forget to tell the BCO that all the blue/brown cable was
installed by said kitchen fitter!

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
It has been abundantly obvious to me and others (on a Part-P course
this week) that Part Prescot has nothing to do with safety but
everything to do with shutting down small businesses (making the
environment uneconomic for them to operate in).

Certainly yes. It must also have been helped by large commercial
organisations that had other agendas to further by encouraging the
legislators to think in that direction. It probably plays straight into
the closed shop sentimentalities of the DPM himself no doubt.

More to do with curtailing the 'cash in hand' types that cost us all more
in tax?

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

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

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:41:31 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
It does not seem to be the LBA "way" - I get the impression they only
follow the legal route when they are unable to curtail/amend incorrect
work via advice and negotiation.

In my eight years as a BCO two people were prosecuted. One was a DIYer
who cut open a drain to build a manhole then lost interest. His
neighbours were not best pleased. Despite numerous letters, warnings and
pleadings from us he did nothing and we were left with no alternative but
to prosecute. The other was a 'professional' builder who removed a
chimney breast in a loft and supported the chimney over with a bit of
4x2. Again he was given the option to rectify it but didn't.

If the only fault had been the failure
to submit a BNA and the work was otherwise correct and done to standard
it seems unlikely they would have spent the time and effort.

Apart from anything else my understanding is that magistrates are less
than excited when presented with purely technical offences. If you
prosecute someone for failing to give notice and when asked have to admit
that the work appeared to be satisfactory you would probably get a
derisory amount in costs.

--
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 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Ah, so what you are saying then,


Is that no rules is third world anarchy and standards drop to third
world levels,

We have plenty of "rules" - I think you will find that is partly the
problem. They are so inane, pointless and unenforceable that it
encourages people to ignore them. By extension however it also devalues
the building regulations that do have a good purpose.

I agree that this is a poor state of affairs that will result in falling
standards overall.

I don't see how any of this strengthens your assertion that people face
jail time for non compliance with part P...

The fiest test case will set the agenda on that.

There have actually been three just recently. See:

http://www.iee.org/Forums/forum/mess...VIEWTMP=Linear

Contains a direct link to the Newcastle case:
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/e...story_continue

All three were acting as professional electricians to the public.

It must work then

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
It has been abundantly obvious to me and others (on a Part-P course
this week) that Part Prescot has nothing to do with safety but
everything to do with shutting down small businesses (making the
environment uneconomic for them to operate in).

Certainly yes. It must also have been helped by large commercial
organisations that had other agendas to further by encouraging the
legislators to think in that direction. It probably plays straight into
the closed shop sentimentalities of the DPM himself no doubt.

More to do with curtailing the 'cash in hand' types that cost us all more
in tax?

How about closing down the Royal family, as they only pay a 'voluntary' 10%
in tax, cost us the maintenance of 9 palaces and planes, trains and other
assorted unnecessary millions.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:21:04 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 03:15:50 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


It is clear most people here have no idea of how the government works.

ROTFL.

Matt you don't know how it works at all.

When did you last visit the House of Commons?

I never visited the FA but know the football rules.


Don't you mean that you know FA about the rules?


--

..andy

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Doctor Drivel wrote:

And how many prosecutions have building control pursued as far as court
in the last 20 years then?



We as we forget the building regs then and sink into the Tory third
world.


Ah, so what you are saying then,


Is that no rules is third world anarchy and standards drop to third
world levels, what the Tories always advocate. Ask people who have
bought a new house whether they thing there should be tighter checks and
certified tradesmen. They would say a resounding yes as they look at
the shoddy surrounds. They have rules for working people and 'codes of
conduct' for their own lot in the City. All the financial scandals of
the past 20 years openly display it doesn't work. But they still scream
no laws for them, while the USA manages to legislate quite well.

Good heavens, I have a seven year old granddaughter who can write better
than drivel :-)

Is it me, or is it that only John can read what he means?

Dave

"Richard Conway" wrote in message
...
Ian_m wrote:
"Richard Conway" wrote in message
...
Ian_m wrote:
"Nigel Molesworth" wrote in message
...
snip
No you didn't - you needed that bit to raise the sockets, which you did
at the same time as the other work
Actually some other info, in talking to council and/others:-

My water softner fitted under the sink with a 30cm spur off dishwasher
socket (so didn't have to remove dishwasher to unplug water softener)
should have had a Part P certificate, "but it was fitted before Jan 2005
wasn't it Sir ?", nod nod, wink, wink, according to council.

A large kitchen supplier in the South has been fitting kitchens and not
been issuing Part P's as management thought it was responsibility of
their electrician and electrician thought it was managements
responsibility, the electrician just signed the companies installation
certificate (after testing) and thought management would inform council.
Not a safety issue but failure of paperwork issue.....

My reel of 2.5mm red/black is not long enough for anythong interesting,
yet alone secondary kitchen ring, so oh well blue/brown for me.

Yes, but don't forget to tell the BCO that all the blue/brown cable was
installed by said kitchen fitter!


So now we install connector blocks under the floor use the recovered red /
black T&E up to the new sockets and use the new blue / brown cable where it
won't be seen - certainly pass any house buyer/BCO inspection!!

But it does seem silly that I can still install my own gas equipment as long
as I'm competant, i.e. do it correctly - but a simple ring main...

Peter

Doctor Drivel wrote:

How about closing down the Royal family, as they only pay a 'voluntary'
10% in tax, cost us the maintenance of 9 palaces and planes, trains and
other assorted unnecessary millions.

Stuff that. How about closing down the Commons - they waste far more money
on crap noone wants (EU harmonisation ********, eg every silly and
unnecessary new building reg), ID cards, stupid and unjust wars etc.

Despite the various scandals, the Royal Family conduct themselves with far
more dignity than the Grinning Madman and his fat sidekick. And they
certainly do the nation less damage IMO.

Besides, the royals surrendered a great deal of land in exchange for the
civil list, so it's not like they are total spongers.

In article ,
Tim S wrote:
Besides, the royals surrendered a great deal of land in exchange for the
civil list, so it's not like they are total spongers.

Where did they get the land from in the first place?

--
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 Rumm wrote:
Tim S wrote:

Besides, the royals surrendered a great deal of land in exchange for the
civil list, so it's not like they are total spongers.

What was the estimated cost published recently? 64p/year per person
IIRC. Sounds like very good value to me!

Is that figure derived simply by dividing the cost of their upkeep by
the number of people? Don't forget that there are a great many people
in this country who don't pay tax - and not only are us taxpayers paying
for their upkeep we are also paying the 64p for the upkeep of the royal
family too.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:46:32 +0000, Richard Conway
wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
Tim S wrote:

Besides, the royals surrendered a great deal of land in exchange for the
civil list, so it's not like they are total spongers.

What was the estimated cost published recently? 64p/year per person
IIRC. Sounds like very good value to me!

Is that figure derived simply by dividing the cost of their upkeep by
the number of people? Don't forget that there are a great many people
in this country who don't pay tax - and not only are us taxpayers paying
for their upkeep we are also paying the 64p for the upkeep of the royal
family too.


There are also people who pay a great deal of tax - even more now that
the sleazebag in No. 11 has progressively ripped off the public
through stealth taxes to fund his extravagances.

I would rather fund the Windsors any time - even Phil the Greek.


--

..andy

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:46:32 +0000, Richard Conway
wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
Tim S wrote:

Besides, the royals surrendered a great deal of land in exchange for the
civil list, so it's not like they are total spongers.
What was the estimated cost published recently? 64p/year per person
IIRC. Sounds like very good value to me!
Is that figure derived simply by dividing the cost of their upkeep by
the number of people? Don't forget that there are a great many people
in this country who don't pay tax - and not only are us taxpayers paying
for their upkeep we are also paying the 64p for the upkeep of the royal
family too.


There are also people who pay a great deal of tax - even more now that
the sleazebag in No. 11 has progressively ripped off the public
through stealth taxes to fund his extravagances.

I would rather fund the Windsors any time - even Phil the Greek.

I wasn't really being anti-royal, I was just making a point TBH.

Richard Conway wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

Tim S wrote:

Besides, the royals surrendered a great deal of land in exchange for the
civil list, so it's not like they are total spongers.


What was the estimated cost published recently? 64p/year per person
IIRC. Sounds like very good value to me!


Is that figure derived simply by dividing the cost of their upkeep by
the number of people?

Can't remember if that was per adult or per adult tax payer... note
however it was an annual figure, so we probably spend more money reading
uk.d-i-y than we do keeping the royals!

in this country who don't pay tax - and not only are us taxpayers paying
for their upkeep we are also paying the 64p for the upkeep of the royal
family too.

The costs however ignore the money they generate from tourism, plus the
savings we get from having them (rather than tony and his cronies) act
as overseas goodwill ambassadores etc.

(IIRC Tony and family use the royal flight far more frequently than the
queen )


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Of course if they didn't waste time on things that have no business
having the amount of time spent on them such as fox hunting, and
didn't seek to introduce so much new regulation in the first place it
would help.

But surely it was Her Majesty's opposition - and the House of Lords - that
wasted so much time on 'fox hunting'? Both in parliament and outside...

--
*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.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
There are also people who pay a great deal of tax - even more now that
the sleazebag in No. 11 has progressively ripped off the public
through stealth taxes to fund his extravagances.

The so called stealth taxes etc are there because the great unwashed don't
want honest direct taxation. But won't accept any cuts in services.

--
*It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:

Of course if they didn't waste time on things that have no business
having the amount of time spent on them such as fox hunting, and
didn't seek to introduce so much new regulation in the first place it
would help.


But surely it was Her Majesty's opposition - and the House of Lords - that
wasted so much time on 'fox hunting'? Both in parliament and outside...

You logic being that if you don't bother to contest the creation of bad
law it will all work out so much quicker and cheaper?





--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
But surely it was Her Majesty's opposition - and the House of Lords -
that wasted so much time on 'fox hunting'? Both in parliament and
outside...

You logic being that if you don't bother to contest the creation of bad
law it will all work out so much quicker and cheaper?

I don't like the ritual killing of animals for fun anymore than that of
humans.

--
*They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.

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

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:10:52 +0000 (GMT) Dave Plowman (News) wrote :
The so called stealth taxes etc are there because the great
unwashed don't want honest direct taxation.

In the Express last week there was a phone 'poll' (premium rate number
of course) asking you to phone in if you thought inheritance tax
should be scrapped. No doubt they made a bit of money that way. If
they were honest enough to ask the question that should have been
asked such as "would you be in favour of scrapping inheritance tax and
doubling car tax|putting 2p on income tax|scrapping pensioner winter
fuel allowances [or whatever]" then the answer might be very
different. And of course saying that you would pay for it by scrapping
waste is all very well but that should generate the question "if we
can save £x bn then would you prefer (a) scrap inheritance tax;
(b)...; (c) ...".

If you read the Mail or the Express then you see this dumbing down of
political argument week on week. Yet ISTM that this probably acts to
the detriment of the Conservatives in that people who have had their
brains rotted are likely to vote for whoever spins the best yarn on
the day whether it stands up to critical scrutiny or not.

--
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 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:08:25 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Of course if they didn't waste time on things that have no business
having the amount of time spent on them such as fox hunting, and
didn't seek to introduce so much new regulation in the first place it
would help.

But surely it was Her Majesty's opposition - and the House of Lords - that
wasted so much time on 'fox hunting'? Both in parliament and outside...


Not sure about that. It struck me as being petty spite, especially
once the Parliament Act was brought into play.


--

..andy

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:04:05 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
But surely it was Her Majesty's opposition - and the House of Lords -
that wasted so much time on 'fox hunting'? Both in parliament and
outside...

You logic being that if you don't bother to contest the creation of bad
law it will all work out so much quicker and cheaper?

I don't like the ritual killing of animals for fun anymore than that of
humans.


I'm not enthusiastic about it either in that I wouldn't particularly
want to go and do it. However, I don't think that it's appropriate
to legislate against it either when there are far more important
issues.


--

..andy

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:10:52 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
There are also people who pay a great deal of tax - even more now that
the sleazebag in No. 11 has progressively ripped off the public
through stealth taxes to fund his extravagances.

The so called stealth taxes etc are there because the great unwashed don't
want honest direct taxation. But won't accept any cuts in services.


One wouldn't mind if the services were any good. Trouble is that they
aren't.


--

..andy

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:24:55 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:10:52 +0000 (GMT) Dave Plowman (News) wrote :
The so called stealth taxes etc are there because the great
unwashed don't want honest direct taxation.

In the Express last week there was a phone 'poll' (premium rate number
of course) asking you to phone in if you thought inheritance tax
should be scrapped. No doubt they made a bit of money that way. If
they were honest enough to ask the question that should have been
asked such as "would you be in favour of scrapping inheritance tax and
doubling car tax|putting 2p on income tax|scrapping pensioner winter
fuel allowances [or whatever]" then the answer might be very
different. And of course saying that you would pay for it by scrapping
waste is all very well but that should generate the question "if we
can save £x bn then would you prefer (a) scrap inheritance tax;
(b)...; (c) ...".

If you read the Mail or the Express then you see this dumbing down of
political argument week on week. Yet ISTM that this probably acts to
the detriment of the Conservatives in that people who have had their
brains rotted are likely to vote for whoever spins the best yarn on
the day whether it stands up to critical scrutiny or not.



That's always true.

I'd go back to a more basic point though. Does so much tax revenue
need to be raised in the first place?


--

..andy

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I don't like the ritual killing of animals for fun anymore than that of
humans.

I go back to my point of bad law though.... after all the time spent on
it, all we have is an entry on the statue books. It is a ban that is
poorly drafted and unenforcable (and for that matter unenforced). The
critters are still going to be killed on way or anyother anyway, so what
was the point?

--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
The critters are still going to be killed on way or anyother anyway, so
what was the point?

If you had to die, would you choose being ripping apart by a pack of dogs?

--
*Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco *

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