I posted a question on this ng and got an e-mail about who to contact,
regarding the ability of the meter to accurately record the water usage
over the years. I thank that poster and reading his reply address, it
may not be wise to write directly to him.

May I now pass the question to this ng again? Just to see what might be
said about this.

How long will a water meter stay in calibration over the years?
Are any checks in place, by the water supplier, to check that the meter
is still recording accurately? I would assume that any meter will go
towards the suppliers benefit though :-(

Dave

"Capitol" wrote in message
...



I don't think you need to worry about the accuracy. AIUI, Northumbrian
water have now raised the standing charge to £100/yr. So even if you
don't use any water, you'll still be paying. I guess that too many of
their customers went to meters, so it's now a poll tax version of water
rates by the back door.

It's not a poll tax unless it's charged per head of the household!

That's why the council tax was never a poll tax, that was just a cunning and
dishonest phrase put out by the Labour party.

Mary

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 21:21:47 +0000, Capitol
wrote:

I don't think you need to worry about the accuracy. AIUI, Northumbrian
water have now raised the standing charge to £100/yr.

Incorrect. Only this morning I got my "water services bill" from
Northumbrian Water, and the fixed charge is £24.00 per year. That's
for a 15mm meter.

Admittedly, the standing charge for sewerage is £57.00 per year.

Rgds -
--
Frank Erskine

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 19:58:22 +0000 (UTC), Dave
wrote:

How long will a water meter stay in calibration over the years?
Are any checks in place, by the water supplier, to check that the meter
is still recording accurately? I would assume that any meter will go
towards the suppliers benefit though :-(

When approval testing is performed they are tested for their endurance
capabilities. In industrial usage with high flow rates they last for
many years, given the top digit on the counter is around 70 times the
average 2 person households annual usage it's probably hardly worth
worrying about especially when you get 1000 litres for less than a
quid.

If you are really in need of a standards fix then you need to find a
copy of ISO 4064 which isn't free!



--

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:34:18 GMT, dave wrote:


Whatever the accuracy, it's very *green politics* isn't it, to dig up land etc
to fit millions of water meters. How much energy will that take. That's after
they have been manufactured of course, and used god knows how much material and
energy. And then there are aspect of usage, such as people using less water to
wash/bath/shower and of course flushing loo's etc. That might generate public
health issues. Never mind eh. The NHS is there to pick up *that* bill. The water
companies after all MUST make more money for their shareholders and don't give a
damn for any of this - as they hope to reap greater rewards. And, btw it masks
their gross inefficiency at controlling huge water wastage via unfixed leaks.

And it is by such means that the great British public will once again be robbed
of a system which would work just fine if it wasn't for greed. (Remember the
Marples/Beeching efficiency "improvements" of British Rail. And how wonderful a
transport system we have now as a result). Same thing really. Same ploy, same
reason, just a different service.

applauds

sponix

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:11:04 GMT, "Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)"
wrote:

dave wrote:

ps btw I don't vote - period.

No grounds to complain then really as you are helping keep the current
policy makers in power.

Or it could quite conceivably be a case of wanting to keep the other
lot out, after all this lot are a shower of **** but those with
"memory problems" conveniently forget the mismanagement and total
incompetence of the grey suited poodle that preceded him and the mad
dictatorship of Thatcher that will take a very, very long time to put
right.

Thatcher Dead - a story coming to the headlines quite soon. But don't
forget to buy your party poppers well in advance as this will be a day
to really celebrate.


--

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 00:34:18 GMT, dave wrote:

And, btw it masks their gross inefficiency at controlling huge water wastage via unfixed leaks.

But, in an area where there is less rainfall that those regularly
shown to support famine relief for Africa, fully justified.

I agree with everything else you said though!


--

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
It's not a poll tax unless it's charged per head of the household!

Which, of course, didn't include children.

That's why the council tax was never a poll tax, that was just a cunning
and dishonest phrase put out by the Labour party.

The only tax that suits everyone is one which doesn't have to be paid.

--
*Rehab is for quitters.

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

In article . com,
Merryterry wrote:
Or it could quite conceivably be a case of wanting to keep the other
lot out, after all this lot are a shower of **** but those with
"memory problems" conveniently forget the mismanagement and total

Thatcher Dead - a story coming to the headlines quite soon. But don't
forget to buy your party poppers well in advance as this will be a day
to really celebrate.

What the hell has this **** got to do with the bloke who has asked the
question about water meters?

I understood it to be a reference to the sowing that preceded the whirlwind
that we are reaping.

It may be uncomfortable for you but the investments that weren't made in the
80s and 90s in our infrastructure and industry (with the profits from North
Sea Oil that were diverted to maintain artificially high unemployment), and
the doctrinaire decisions that sold that oil fast and cheap - and destroyed
the coal industry, and the sale of our essential services to profiteers, all
combine to make life far more expensive now that it ever should have been.

--
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

Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬) wrote:

dave wrote:

ps btw I don't vote - period.


No grounds to complain then really as you are helping keep the current
policy makers in power.

So, just tell us who offers the electors real representation. The first
party to do so has a chance of being in government.

Regards
Capitol

John Cartmell wrote:
In article . com,
Merryterry wrote:

Or it could quite conceivably be a case of wanting to keep the other
lot out, after all this lot are a shower of **** but those with
"memory problems" conveniently forget the mismanagement and total


Thatcher Dead - a story coming to the headlines quite soon. But don't
forget to buy your party poppers well in advance as this will be a day
to really celebrate.


What the hell has this **** got to do with the bloke who has asked the
question about water meters?


I understood it to be a reference to the sowing that preceded the whirlwind
that we are reaping.

It may be uncomfortable for you but the investments that weren't made in the
80s and 90s in our infrastructure and industry (with the profits from North
Sea Oil that were diverted to maintain artificially high unemployment), and
the doctrinaire decisions that sold that oil fast and cheap - and destroyed
the coal industry, and the sale of our essential services to profiteers, all
combine to make life far more expensive now that it ever should have been.

When you are right, you are very right :-)

Dave

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:07:50 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article . com,
Merryterry wrote:
Or it could quite conceivably be a case of wanting to keep the other
lot out, after all this lot are a shower of **** but those with
"memory problems" conveniently forget the mismanagement and total

Thatcher Dead - a story coming to the headlines quite soon. But don't
forget to buy your party poppers well in advance as this will be a day
to really celebrate.

What the hell has this **** got to do with the bloke who has asked the
question about water meters?

I understood it to be a reference to the sowing that preceded the whirlwind
that we are reaping.

It may be uncomfortable for you but the investments that weren't made in the
80s and 90s in our infrastructure and industry (with the profits from North
Sea Oil that were diverted to maintain artificially high unemployment), and
the doctrinaire decisions that sold that oil fast and cheap - and destroyed
the coal industry, and the sale of our essential services to profiteers, all
combine to make life far more expensive now that it ever should have been.



..... and raiding of pension funds. That will make all of the above
but a mere bagatelle. Now who was it who did that? Let me see.... ah
yes.... the communist living next door to Mr Teflon.




--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It may be uncomfortable for you but the investments that weren't made
in the 80s and 90s in our infrastructure and industry (with the profits
from North Sea Oil that were diverted to maintain artificially high
unemployment), and the doctrinaire decisions that sold that oil fast
and cheap - and destroyed the coal industry, and the sale of our
essential services to profiteers, all combine to make life far more
expensive now that it ever should have been.



.... and raiding of pension funds. That will make all of the above
but a mere bagatelle. Now who was it who did that? Let me see.... ah
yes.... the communist living next door to Mr Teflon.

My pension fund appears to be capable of giving my final salary based
amount despite being 'frozen' for some 15 years (after I got made
redundant) and having the 'excess' removed by the new owner of the
company. As well as any subsequent taxation. Perhaps you need to look more
closely at the management of yours?

--
*When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded *

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

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:07:50 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell

It may be uncomfortable for you but the investments that weren't made in
the
80s and 90s in our infrastructure and industry (with the profits from
North
Sea Oil that were diverted to maintain artificially high unemployment),
and
the doctrinaire decisions that sold that oil fast and cheap - and
destroyed
the coal industry,

Scargill destroyed the coal industry!

He turned it into a political weapon by trying to bring the government down.
The only response possible was to diversify the power generation and hence
the death of the mines.
That is the job of government to protect the population from idiots.

Without Scargill we would probably still be burning the dirty stuff in power
stations.

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:54:06 GMT, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Scargill destroyed the coal industry!

He turned it into a political weapon by trying to bring the government down.
The only response possible was to diversify the power generation and hence
the death of the mines.
That is the job of government to protect the population from idiots.

You do talk some utter bull****.

The "response" was already decided before any dispute arose, that was
the *whole* point of the dispute.

Without Scargill we would probably still be burning the dirty stuff in power
stations.

Without Thatcher we would still have control of a diverse energy
supply located within our own national boundaries. One bitch goes on
a power trip and the whole country suffers for years / decades /
centuries.

Thatcher's legacy to the nation. Burn in hell bitch.


--

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:38:53 +0000 Andy Hall wrote :
..... and raiding of pension funds. That will make all of the
above but a mere bagatelle. Now who was it who did that?

Well initially the directors of lots of companies who took pension
fund contribution holidays and paid the money out to shareholders
instead.

"Collectively, according to Inland Revenue figures, employers saved
almost £18bn during the 1990s pension holidays - although staff were
forced to carry on making payments"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_j...257581,00.html

The article is not very kind to Gordon Brown either, though it does
point out that the removal of pension fund tax credits was partly to
fund a cut in Corporation Tax - SDA is a company and we now pay 19%
v. 23% ten years ago - the sort of tax change the Daily Mail never
mentions!

--
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]

"Matt" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:54:06 GMT, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Scargill destroyed the coal industry!

He turned it into a political weapon by trying to bring the government
down.
The only response possible was to diversify the power generation and hence
the death of the mines.
That is the job of government to protect the population from idiots.

You do talk some utter bull****.

The "response" was already decided before any dispute arose, that was
the *whole* point of the dispute.

That really is bull****.
Do you even remember the speech where Scargill called upon the TUC to bring
down the elected government as he was failing to do so?

When the first dispute took place there were major power problems and the
miners won (they may even have deserved it, it was hard work).
As a result the government did what anyone would have done and made a
stockpile of *coal* so that they couldn't cause the same disruption again.

Scargill responded with bullyboy tactics in the second strike (for yet more
pay) as he was getting nowhere due to the government plans (that should have
been there in the first dispute).
This is when miners went around picketing power stations and anywhere else
they could cause disruption.
It was also here that he changed the dispute from a pay dispute into a
political dispute to bring an end to the elected government.
He thought he would get more support from this but as history shows he was
mistaken.

It was after this second battle that the policy on power generation was
changed and more gas and oil plant was built.
The government couldn't trust the miners anymore while Scargill was there
and he wasn't going anywhere.
Its a shame he wasn't man enough to go for the good of the miners but thats
power hungry men for you.

I would have done the same as the government except I think I would have
built more AGRs rather than oil.
I suppose the timescales in building AGRs was a bit long while Scargill was
a threat so the quicker option of oil/gas looked attractive.
There you are, Scargill ruined our energy policy as well as destroying
mining.

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:54:06 GMT, "dennis@home"
wrote:



Scargill destroyed the coal industry!

Pmsl!

Now that's a troll if ever I read one.


--

I do know everything, just not all at once. It's a virtual memory problem.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
That really is bull****.

But what you outline is the Thatcher government's line. And that was a total
lie. By all means correct the Scargill line - but do correct it with something
like the truth. Start with the government secretly deciding to cut x-pits and
Scargill nearly getting laughed out of his job for later claiming the
government planned to cut x/2 pits.

Thatcher couldn't bear to suffer the same humiliation as Heath after the three
day week - and ensured that it didn't happen by an undeclared pre-emptive war
against the miners and the mining communities calling on undisclosed finance,
secret service support, &c.

With better leadership, and an earlier realisation of just how illegal &
immoral the government were prepared to go, the miners might not have lost.
Whether the country would have been in a better position or not (Thatcher was
prepared to escalate further but some of the press were beginning to find the
slush money) I don't know. I do know that the country's massive loss was
almost entirely down to deliberate decisions made by one woman for the sake of
her ego.

--
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 Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:29:27 +0000 (GMT) John Cartmell wrote :
With better leadership, and an earlier realisation of just how
illegal & immoral the government were prepared to go, the miners
might not have lost.

This may be a north/south thing but the violence (reported by a not
unbiased press of course) left a lot of people not caring whether the
miners were hung out to dry or not. And this being so Mrs T had every
reason to keep it going and Arthur Scargill played straight into her
hands. But why should he have worried - doesn't he still get a hefty
salary from the almost memberless NUM?

--
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]

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:29:27 +0000 (GMT) John Cartmell wrote :
With better leadership, and an earlier realisation of just how
illegal & immoral the government were prepared to go, the miners
might not have lost.

This may be a north/south thing but the violence (reported by a not
unbiased press of course) left a lot of people not caring whether the
miners were hung out to dry or not.

Is this the violence by imported police on very substantial bonuses, illegally
hiding their police numbers and taunting the unpaid striking miners with
commnets about those bonuses?

I like the story re-told on Friday about the miners on a picket line who built
a big, fat snowman only to have it deliberately flattened by police driving a
Rangerover.

Mean, nasty, spiteful, petty.


Not to be downhearted the pickets re-built their snowman even bigger than
before.

Only to have those nasty police flatten it again...





























...only this time they'd built it over a bollard.

--
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 Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:26:28 GMT, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip fascist nonsense

It was after this second battle that the policy on power generation was
changed and more gas and oil plant was built.

I would have done the same as the government except I think I would have
built more AGRs rather than oil.

Besides getting everything else wrong the last oil fired power station
to be built in the UK was at Grain. Construction commenced well
before Thatcher even walked though the doors at number 10 that fateful
day in May 1979. In addition during the period 1989 to 1997 the
generated output from oil fired power stations in the UK declined from
6% to zero. (OFFER [now OFGEM] Review of Energy Sources Report April
1998)

During Thatcher's tenure, while a number of nuclear stations
authorised by the previous labour government were completed, together
with the 2nd half of Drax, not one single power station project was
authorised with the sole exception of Sizewell B.

Thatcher was busy raking it in on the conference circuit when the
first combined cycle gas fired generation at Roosecote was declared
available in mid 1991. The rest of the gas gobblers rapidly following
until the share of gas in the electricity market had grown from 0% in
1989 to 31% in 1997 (OFFER report referred to above) While this
happened after Thatcher had left office the dash for gas was as a
direct result of legislation forced through by her dictatorship.

In the light of the current and ongoing gas crisis, even the most
brain dead, head up their arse, bung in a plain envelope, fcuk you I'm
alright jack, tory would accept that this was a VERY bad idea.

And all because of one evil bitch, with no foresight and a serious
attitude problem.


--

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
My pension fund appears to be capable of giving my final salary based
amount despite being 'frozen' for some 15 years (after I got made
redundant) and having the 'excess' removed by the new owner of the
company. As well as any subsequent taxation. Perhaps you need to look
more closely at the management of yours?



I wasn't speaking on a personal level.

Right.

There are two points though.

1) Final salary schemes are a rapidly vanishing phenomenon

They are indeed.

2) Brown is taking £5Bn a year out of pension schemes through
taxation.

All saving schemes are taxed in one way or another.

It's the bit about you blaming taxation for the failure of some when that
just isn't so - without at least mentioning poor investment management and
excessive administration charges, etc.

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

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

In article ,
Matt wrote:
In the light of the current and ongoing gas crisis, even the most
brain dead, head up their arse, bung in a plain envelope, fcuk you I'm
alright jack, tory would accept that this was a VERY bad idea.

And all because of one evil bitch, with no foresight and a serious
attitude problem.

Yes. We have coal stocks which could last for a long time when used for
electricity generation. Our gas stock - ideal for domestic heating - has
now near run out.

Thatcher didn't give a stuff about the country as such - merely her city
pals. So similar to Scargill and his members - but at least he was honest.

--
*A hangover is the wrath of grapes.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
It's the bit about you blaming taxation for the failure of some when that
just isn't so - without at least mentioning poor investment management and
excessive administration charges, etc.

AIUI, there have also been Labour government specified changes to the
assets held by pension funds. The result is that less of the fund is
equity invested. This has produced a real problem in the last two years,
in that the stock market has shown returns of, say 20%, against bond
returns of less than 5%. This has further reduced the viability of
company pension schemes. The idea of zero risk from bonds sounds fine,
but in the real actuarial world, the stock market has always long term
returned 10% I believe. As sound companies have to meet these new
shortfalls in their pension scheme from profits, they are obviously
going to close these schemes as fast as possible. I was informed that
the pension scheme contribution holidays in the 90's arose partly
because the IR rules do not allow a pension fund to have an actuarial
surplus. Hence the company benefited from a contributions holiday and
the IR gained an increase in tax revenue. Perhaps someone can clarify this?

Regards
Capitol

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:12:54 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


Right.

There are two points though.

1) Final salary schemes are a rapidly vanishing phenomenon

They are indeed.

2) Brown is taking £5Bn a year out of pension schemes through

It's £7Bn now by the way.


taxation.

All saving schemes are taxed in one way or another.

But when I signed up for my irrevocable 35 year helter skelter ride,
pensions weren't, and they weren't when I put in several lots of 10k
lump sums, which were sequestered out of my access or control for the
next 18 years.

I dare say if you can arrange to have your salary paid in the Cayman
Islands or some similar wheeze, you can minimise it. Harodl Wislon had
a bit to say about this. Nothing much has been done about it though.

However a small company pension scheme like mine is a 35-40 year
contract. Mine was set up on a tax free basis, tax was to be paid when
you realised the investment, which IMO is the correct way to do it. If
the funds go down in subsequent years do you imagine GB will
re-imburse the pension funds? Eventual pensioners will pay income tax
on their pensions at the going rate, but under GB the pension funds
themselves will already have been taxed on the fruits of their
investments, before the pensioners get their pensions and pay PAYE on
them. This means that pensions will attract tax treatment which is
less favourable than earnings paid under PAYE.

Wherein lies the incentive for workers to make legitimate provision
for their retirement?? Or are we all supposed to be content with going
on the parish?

Effectively that is the case already, if a married couple don't retire
with a pension fund exceeding £180k they might just as well have paid
the tax on it and ****ed it away on 1 decent cruise per year and 3
short breaks in Benidorm, for 40 years. They would be no worse off.

This is , of course how Labour get their votes, from Mr/Mrs
Braindead-Scum

The fact is in my particular circs. GB moved the goalposts at the year
28 mark. There are substantial penalties for transferring out or even
switching funds within the same provider. I have no alternatives to
exercise.

GB could at least have the good grace to admit he imposed the tax when
equities (and equity based pension funds) were at the peak of a
bubble, annd now he can't manage without the revenue, so stories about
dishonoured pledges, 35-40 year contracts don't cut it, he *has* to
have the money.

Within a year or so the bubble had burst and it has gone downhill from
then on with 7-11, and then Enron USW, USW, USW. And the simple fact
is he cannot now do without the revenue because he has a socking great
big hole in his tax revenues which arisies from the fact that the
statistics about employment and the economy have been completelyl
bezzled .

It's the bit about you blaming taxation for the failure of some when that
just isn't so - without at least mentioning poor investment management and
excessive administration charges, etc.

Oh, we know about those, 2.5% / Year over forty years costs a
pensioner what??

If growth is 28%/annum (& it was at one time) it's not so significant.
But if growth is -8% , and the provider still takes his charges
nevertheless, and then GB raids the fund, we end up in the same
position my fund is in now. Essentially no growth in cash terms since
1988, but something like 1,000% inflation :-(

It's just at the outset we were told "The scheme is strictly
controlled by the inland revenue". Can't do this, can't do that, can't
do t'other" "After all we are responsible people".

The "Financial advisor" who told me that has gone bankrupt.

"It's all controlled by the government"

Like my arse.

DG

"Derek ^" wrote in message
...

However a small company pension scheme like mine is a 35-40 year
contract. Mine was set up on a tax free basis, tax was to be paid when
you realised the investment, which IMO is the correct way to do it. If
the funds go down in subsequent years do you imagine GB will
re-imburse the pension funds? Eventual pensioners will pay income tax
on their pensions at the going rate, but under GB the pension funds
themselves will already have been taxed on the fruits of their
investments, before the pensioners get their pensions and pay PAYE on
them. This means that pensions will attract tax treatment which is
less favourable than earnings paid under PAYE.

Wherein lies the incentive for workers to make legitimate provision
for their retirement?? Or are we all supposed to be content with going
on the parish?

No such thing these days.

We have the state pension, amounting to more than £150p/w - it doesn't sound
much but we don't spend it all.

When you don't have a mortgage and children and grow some of your own
vegetables, have a couple of hens for eggs, make your own food mostly (we've
done that for ever) and otherwise buy excellent food direct from the
supplier and make and install everything else (this IS a d-i-y group) you
don't actually need all that much to live on. I mean live - not exist.

We do have a large car and a scooter, we have a bottle of decent wine every
evening to accompany our superb meal, we want for nothing. We certainly
don't want to visit Benidorm.


Effectively that is the case already, if a married couple don't retire
with a pension fund exceeding £180k they might just as well have paid
the tax on it and ****ed it away on 1 decent cruise per year and 3
short breaks in Benidorm, for 40 years. They would be no worse off.

Rubbish.

This is , of course how Labour get their votes, from Mr/Mrs
Braindead-Scum

We've never voted New Labour - but we think for ourselves and are not
influenced by television, newspapers or even newsgroups!

And we don't moan.

Mary

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:12:54 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
My pension fund appears to be capable of giving my final salary based
amount despite being 'frozen' for some 15 years (after I got made
redundant) and having the 'excess' removed by the new owner of the
company. As well as any subsequent taxation. Perhaps you need to look
more closely at the management of yours?



I wasn't speaking on a personal level.

Right.

There are two points though.

1) Final salary schemes are a rapidly vanishing phenomenon

They are indeed.

2) Brown is taking £5Bn a year out of pension schemes through
taxation.

All saving schemes are taxed in one way or another.

It's the bit about you blaming taxation for the failure of some when that
just isn't so - without at least mentioning poor investment management and
excessive administration charges, etc.

I agree. Pension schemes, endowments and other types of investment
have all suffered from poor management.

Historically, people made most of their retirement provision through
company pension schemes on a "contribute and assume it will all be OK
at the end" basis. The rest was perhaps through investment in the
home and trading down.

However, retirement provision is mainly a long term investment, so it
is not reasonable for the government to explicitly target that
particular vehicle. Short term investments might be more reasonable
in that at least alternatives can be found.


--

..andy

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:32:10 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:


I agree. Pension schemes, endowments and other types of investment
have all suffered from poor management.

Historically, people made most of their retirement provision through
company pension schemes on a "contribute and assume it will all be OK
at the end" basis. The rest was perhaps through investment in the
home and trading down.

We find that our home (a 4 bed detached house with parking for 9
cars) is worth little more than a "2 bed 2 bath Turkey Twizzler"
apartment with a view over, or even near the canal.

So trading down is not immediately attractive. :-((

However, retirement provision is mainly a long term investment, so it
is not reasonable for the government to explicitly target that
particular vehicle.

Please expand.

I hope you are not saying that the people who made contributions for
20 ++ years on the basis that their fund was being operated in a tax
free environment, (On the understanding that when they realised their
pensions they would then pay tax at the same rate as everybody else)
should simply aquiesce wehen their pension funds are raided by the
chancelleor, even in the most adverse circumstances. Think biggest
losses imaginable.

Short term investments might be more reasonable
in that at least alternatives can be found.

DG

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:59:22 +0000, Derek ^
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:32:10 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:


I agree. Pension schemes, endowments and other types of investment
have all suffered from poor management.

Historically, people made most of their retirement provision through
company pension schemes on a "contribute and assume it will all be OK
at the end" basis. The rest was perhaps through investment in the
home and trading down.

We find that our home (a 4 bed detached house with parking for 9
cars) is worth little more than a "2 bed 2 bath Turkey Twizzler"
apartment with a view over, or even near the canal.

So trading down is not immediately attractive. :-((

However, retirement provision is mainly a long term investment, so it
is not reasonable for the government to explicitly target that
particular vehicle.

Please expand.

I hope you are not saying that the people who made contributions for
20 ++ years on the basis that their fund was being operated in a tax
free environment, (On the understanding that when they realised their
pensions they would then pay tax at the same rate as everybody else)
should simply aquiesce wehen their pension funds are raided by the
chancelleor, even in the most adverse circumstances. Think biggest
losses imaginable.


You have expanded on the point that I was making.

a) It's a long term deal - or was supposed to be

b) It's provisioning for being able to live in the future.

Short term investments might be more reasonable
in that at least alternatives can be found.

DG

--

..andy

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

This may be a north/south thing but the violence (reported by a not
unbiased press of course) left a lot of people not caring whether the
miners were hung out to dry or not.

Is this the violence by imported police on very substantial bonuses,
illegally
hiding their police numbers and taunting the unpaid striking miners with
commnets about those bonuses?

What a convenient memory you have.

The thuggery of the flying pickets was a disgrace to trade unionism as
was Scargills decision to call his members out without a ballot. And
what about the Welsh miner who got off with manslaughter because the man
he murdered was a taxi driver rather than the scab he was aiming at.

--
Roger Chapman

In article , Roger
wrote:
Is this the violence by imported police on very substantial bonuses,
illegally hiding their police numbers and taunting the unpaid striking
miners with commnets about those bonuses?

What a convenient memory you have.

I certainly don't remember ever supporting Scargill or the tactics used by
some miners - but then I wasn't employing them. What my government was doing,
with my money, against my wishes, was both illegal and highly damaging to my
country. I don't need to support Scargill in order to damn Thatcher to hell.

--
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

"Roger" wrote in message
k...


What a convenient memory you have.

The thuggery of the flying pickets was a disgrace to trade unionism as
was Scargills decision to call his members out without a ballot. And
what about the Welsh miner who got off with manslaughter because the man
he murdered was a taxi driver rather than the scab he was aiming at.

Yes.

We witnessed some of the pickets' violence.

Mary

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

Is this the violence by imported police on very substantial bonuses,
illegally hiding their police numbers and taunting the unpaid striking
miners with commnets about those bonuses?

What a convenient memory you have.

I certainly don't remember ever supporting Scargill or the tactics used by
some miners - but then I wasn't employing them. What my government was
doing,
with my money, against my wishes, was both illegal and highly damaging to my
country. I don't need to support Scargill in order to damn Thatcher to hell.

It was implicit in your comment above that the bulk if not the totality
of the violence was from the police. Whatever the wrongs on the police
side they were very small beer compared with those of the striking
miners.

I think you will need to accept eventually that it was not *your*
government acting illegally with *your* money but our (for better or for
worse) lawfully elected government using our taxes to pursue its
mistaken (but lawful) policies.

And as for damning Thatcher to hell. You'll be lucky. She, like the rest
of us, is heading only for death.

--
Roger Chapman

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:03:14 GMT, Roger
wrote:

as Dribble would say, snip Rogerness

You are Mark Thatcher and I claim my 5 pounds (lets face it no one
else on earth would be so terminally stupid)


--

In article , Roger
wrote:
The message from John Cartmell
contains these words:

Is this the violence by imported police on very substantial bonuses,
illegally hiding their police numbers and taunting the unpaid
striking miners with commnets about those bonuses?

What a convenient memory you have.

I certainly don't remember ever supporting Scargill or the tactics used
by some miners - but then I wasn't employing them. What my government was
doing, with my money, against my wishes, was both illegal and highly
damaging to my country. I don't need to support Scargill in order to damn
Thatcher to hell.

It was implicit in your comment above that the bulk if not the totality of
the violence was from the police.

It wasn't

Whatever the wrongs on the police side they were very small beer compared
with those of the striking miners.

They weren't.

I think you will need to accept eventually that it was not *your*
government acting illegally with *your* money but our (for better or for
worse) lawfully elected government using our taxes to pursue its mistaken
(but lawful) policies.

I'll accept "our". I normally try to avoid "my" with reference to the Thatcher
government - but accept joint guilt.
And whilst the policies may have been legal the actions certainly were not -
even though some of the illegal actions were 'made legal' after the event.
The illegal actions of the Thatcher government are fabulous sources for anyone
interested in a PhD and are scattered across numerous government departments -
including the one in which I worked at the time.

And as for damning Thatcher to hell. You'll be lucky. She, like the rest of
us, is heading only for death.

If she isn't heading for perpetual hell-fire then maybe someone would find a
rack for her before it's too late.

--
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

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

It was implicit in your comment above that the bulk if not the totality of
the violence was from the police.

It wasn't

Whatever the wrongs on the police side they were very small beer compared
with those of the striking miners.

They weren't.

You can huff and puff all you like but it won't alter the facts.
Scagills army of flying pickets were nothing more than a gang of thugs
trying to impose by brute force what they could not by reasoned
argument. His actions led directly to the splitting of the NUM and
undoubtedly brought forward the pit closure program.

What is required for justice is for Scagill and Thatcher to be locked in
the same small room for the rest of their natural lives. They both
deserve each other a good deal more than the rest of us deserve either
of them.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger wrote:
His actions led directly to the splitting of the NUM and
undoubtedly brought forward the pit closure program.

That really is the big lie. The pit closures far more draconian that Scargill
ever dared claim were prepared *in advance*. The whole was designed and
orchestrated by Thatcher.

--
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

"Matt" aka Lord Hall wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:11:04 GMT, "Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)"
wrote:

dave wrote:

ps btw I don't vote - period.

No grounds to complain then really
as you are helping keep the current
policy makers in power.

Or it could quite conceivably be a case
of wanting to keep the other
lot out, after all this lot are a shower
of ****

Lord Hall at it again. The longest sustained economic growth in history
under the present government. Fabulous..

but those with
"memory problems" conveniently
forget the mismanagement and total
incompetence of the grey suited
poodle that preceded him and the mad
dictatorship of Thatcher that will take
a very, very long time to put right.

They should have given her the ducking stool.

Thatcher Dead - a story coming to the headlines quite soon. But don't
forget to buy your party poppers well in advance as this will be a day
to really celebrate.

The fireworks will fly.

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

His actions led directly to the splitting of the NUM and
undoubtedly brought forward the pit closure program.

That really is the big lie. The pit closures far more draconian that
Scargill
ever dared claim were prepared *in advance*. The whole was designed and
orchestrated by Thatcher.


You really are a piece of **** Cartmell. There is no lie to it, let
alone a big lie. You are the practitioner of the big lie, sprinkling
your propaganda with bull**** to back up the lack of facts.

I seriously doubt your basic claim - that the Thatcher government had
plans to close twice as many pits as Scagill claimed prior to Scagill
promoting the idea - if only because the outcome would likely have been
a negative number of pits left working. But there is a vast gap between
planning and successful outcome as the current government has found out.
Scagill picked a fight with the Thatcher government thinking he would
win and based on Heaths and Callaghans election defeats he probably had
a point. But it didn't matter to him that a majority of his members
would not have supported a strike vote at that time. He called them out
anyway relying on loyalty to the union and the subsequent strike was as
much a fight among the miners as it was a battle between union and
state. Once the striking miners had been driven back to work (or out of
the industry altogether) it became much easier to close pits at will.
The battle had already been fought and lost. A better general would have
played a waiting game rather than attacking the enemy prematurely and
taking on the silent majority of his own side at the same time.

Why don't you use the Freedom of Information Act to try and dig up some
supporting evidence. I am sure the present government would be only too
happy to release all available information that showed up Thatcher in a
bad light.

--
Roger Chapman