Rant on

My neighbour, a guy just over 65, lives in his private house, along with his son
who works, his son's partner and their two young lads.

I noticed they were having their boiler replaced and then met him in the street.
Apparently, a Council representative knocked on the door, explaining there were
grants for CH and did he have any problems.

Well, the boiler had been playing up off and on and he explained this and that
he had spent a few hundred, attempting to get it sorted. It was then arranged
for a contractor to examine the boiler, who reported there was no point spending
any more money on it.

The Council then said they would consider him for a grant, but because it took
so long to approve, he took himself off to the Council Offices, explaining there
were two young boys in the house and they had no heating or hot water. On his
arrival back home, he had a call to say the job had been approved and it is
presently being replaced free-of-charge.

He has recently built a small brick-built office in the garden. A fully
insulated, double skinned cabin and turned his garden into a mini version of
Hampton Court, so clearly he's not short of a bob or two !

Why should other people's tax be used to subsidise such work ? I just don't
understand why this is thought to be OK. Meanwhile the infra-structure, roads,
pavements, verges, signage, looks like something from a undeveloped third world
country.

What's the point of working and paying taxes for these communal facilities, if
it's spent on individuals, who can't sort their priorities out ?

/Rant off

Andy C

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:26:29 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

-------------------8
Why should other people's tax be used to subsidise such work ? I just don't
understand why this is thought to be OK. Meanwhile the infra-structure, roads,
pavements, verges, signage, looks like something from a undeveloped third world
country.

What's the point of working and paying taxes for these communal facilities, if
it's spent on individuals, who can't sort their priorities out ?

Sounds like his priorities are just fine as they are. Your ire should be
directed at the appropriate government minister, for poorly framing
whatever legislation, etc., etc... Not his fault he is part of the eligible
group but, as he is, he would be foolish not to take advantage of it.
Funnily enough there was an item on last night's The One Show about this
scheme, and it's shot through with corruption on the supply side -
allegedly.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:38:13 +0000, Appelation Controlee wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:26:29 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

-------------------8
Why should other people's tax be used to subsidise such work ? I just don't
understand why this is thought to be OK. Meanwhile the infra-structure, roads,
pavements, verges, signage, looks like something from a undeveloped third world
country.

What's the point of working and paying taxes for these communal facilities, if
it's spent on individuals, who can't sort their priorities out ?

Sounds like his priorities are just fine as they are. Your ire should be
directed at the appropriate government minister, for poorly framing
whatever legislation, etc., etc... Not his fault he is part of the eligible
group but, as he is, he would be foolish not to take advantage of it.
Funnily enough there was an item on last night's The One Show about this
scheme, and it's shot through with corruption on the supply side -
allegedly.

It wasn't meant to be directed solely at him - I actually like the guy and we
get on well - more the principle.

"Appelation Controlee" wrote


Sounds like his priorities are just fine as they are. Your ire should be
directed at the appropriate government minister, for poorly framing
whatever legislation, etc., etc...

It all boils down to whether you feel this stuff should be means tested.
This guy could well have been a high tax payer all his life and contributed
far more than some of the "apparently" more deserving cases.
Should he be penalised for this?

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:45:23 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:38:13 +0000, Appelation Controlee wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:26:29 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

-------------------8
Why should other people's tax be used to subsidise such work ? I just don't
understand why this is thought to be OK. Meanwhile the infra-structure, roads,
pavements, verges, signage, looks like something from a undeveloped third world
country.

What's the point of working and paying taxes for these communal facilities, if
it's spent on individuals, who can't sort their priorities out ?

Sounds like his priorities are just fine as they are. Your ire should be
directed at the appropriate government minister, for poorly framing
whatever legislation, etc., etc... Not his fault he is part of the eligible
group but, as he is, he would be foolish not to take advantage of it.
Funnily enough there was an item on last night's The One Show about this
scheme, and it's shot through with corruption on the supply side -
allegedly.

It wasn't meant to be directed solely at him - I actually like the guy and we
get on well - more the principle.

Yeah, I know. :-)
I don't need a bus pass, but I'm 63 so I'm eligible, and I've therefore got
one. On the half-dozen-or-so times I use it each year, I really enjoy the
journeys. The bus services in this area are pretty good - reasonable
frequency, and decent, clean vehicles.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:26:29 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

Rant on

My neighbour, a guy just over 65, lives in his private house, along with his son
who works, his son's partner and their two young lads.

I noticed they were having their boiler replaced and then met him in the street.
Apparently, a Council representative knocked on the door, explaining there were
grants for CH and did he have any problems.

Well, the boiler had been playing up off and on and he explained this and that
he had spent a few hundred, attempting to get it sorted. It was then arranged
for a contractor to examine the boiler, who reported there was no point spending
any more money on it.

The Council then said they would consider him for a grant, but because it took
so long to approve, he took himself off to the Council Offices, explaining there
were two young boys in the house and they had no heating or hot water. On his
arrival back home, he had a call to say the job had been approved and it is
presently being replaced free-of-charge.

He has recently built a small brick-built office in the garden. A fully
insulated, double skinned cabin and turned his garden into a mini version of
Hampton Court, so clearly he's not short of a bob or two !

Why should other people's tax be used to subsidise such work ? I just don't
understand why this is thought to be OK. Meanwhile the infra-structure, roads,
pavements, verges, signage, looks like something from a undeveloped third world
country.

What's the point of working and paying taxes for these communal facilities, if
it's spent on individuals, who can't sort their priorities out ?

/Rant off

Andy C

Agreed. 'work' is a 4-letter word, TAAAW (so are 'iron' and 'dust' (as
verbs)).
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

On Jan 30, 4:26*pm, Andy Cap wrote:
Rant on

My neighbour, a guy just over 65, lives in his private house, along with his son
who works, his son's partner and their two young lads.

I noticed they were having their boiler replaced and then met him in the street.
Apparently, a Council representative knocked on the door, explaining there were
grants for CH and did he have any problems.

Well, the boiler had been playing up off and on and he explained this and that
he had spent a few hundred, attempting to get it sorted. It was then arranged
for a contractor to examine the boiler, who reported there was no point spending
any more money on it.

The Council then said they would consider him for a grant, but because it took
so long to approve, he took himself off to the Council Offices, explaining there
were two young boys in the house and they had no heating or hot water. On his
arrival back home, he had a call to say the job had been approved and it is
presently being replaced free-of-charge.

He has recently built a small brick-built office in the garden. A fully
insulated, double skinned cabin and turned his garden into a mini version of
Hampton Court, so clearly he's not short of a bob or two !

Why should other people's tax be used to subsidise such work ? I just don't
understand why this is thought to be OK. Meanwhile the infra-structure, roads,
pavements, verges, signage, looks like something from a undeveloped third world
country.

What's the point of working and paying taxes for these communal facilities, if
it's spent on individuals, who can't sort their priorities out ?

/Rant off

Andy C

Don't knock it we oldies need the £250 heating allowance and £60
Christmas bonus to pay for our drinks while we sun ourselves in the
Canaries.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:49:45 -0000, "TheScullster" wrote:


It all boils down to whether you feel this stuff should be means tested.
This guy could well have been a high tax payer all his life and contributed
far more than some of the "apparently" more deserving cases.
Should he be penalised for this?


One issue could apply to me.

I'm keeping a very old boiler going and I'm approaching 65. According to all the
blurb, it should probably been replaced 10 years ago, but now, why would anyone
bother, if at 65, the Council are going to do it for free ?

Appelation Controlee wrote:

Yeah, I know. :-)
I don't need a bus pass, but I'm 63 so I'm eligible, and I've therefore got
one. On the half-dozen-or-so times I use it each year, I really enjoy the
journeys. The bus services in this area are pretty good - reasonable
frequency, and decent, clean vehicles.

But out of the main cities, blooming expensive fares and long tiresome
routes, crazy bus drivers and screaming school kids :-(

However in London, I think the bus/tube pass scheme is perhaps a bit too
generous. It's pretty much covers the whole of London!

If I were a council treasurer minded to fiddle with policy, bus passes
could be handed out at discount (or still free to the elegible) to _all_
people who *don't* run cars. The pass would not be free / discounted for
_anyone_ if there was a car in ownership not shared with other people,
or kept for accessibility reasons.

Now would that measure cause a rise in bus use, more transport revenue
income _or_ an increase in car use _or_ the person responsible lynched
for introducing this?

--
Anom C

PeterC wrote:
SNIP

Agreed. 'work' is a 4-letter word, TAAAW (so are 'iron' and 'dust' (as
verbs)).

Wot the kinell does TAAAW stand for. I googled last time you sued it &
found nowt.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Andy Cap wrote:
Rant on

My neighbour, a guy just over 65, lives in his private house, along with his son
who works, his son's partner and their two young lads.

I noticed they were having their boiler replaced and then met him in the street.
Apparently, a Council representative knocked on the door, explaining there were
grants for CH and did he have any problems.

Well, the boiler had been playing up off and on and he explained this and that
he had spent a few hundred, attempting to get it sorted. It was then arranged
for a contractor to examine the boiler, who reported there was no point spending
any more money on it.

The Council then said they would consider him for a grant, but because it took
so long to approve, he took himself off to the Council Offices, explaining there
were two young boys in the house and they had no heating or hot water. On his
arrival back home, he had a call to say the job had been approved and it is
presently being replaced free-of-charge.

He has recently built a small brick-built office in the garden. A fully
insulated, double skinned cabin and turned his garden into a mini version of
Hampton Court, so clearly he's not short of a bob or two !

Why should other people's tax be used to subsidise such work ? I just don't
understand why this is thought to be OK. Meanwhile the infra-structure, roads,
pavements, verges, signage, looks like something from a undeveloped third world
country.

What's the point of working and paying taxes for these communal facilities, if
it's spent on individuals, who can't sort their priorities out ?

/Rant off

Andy C

Ou local council has reeived £753,000 to turn a gyspsy site - originally
ONLY approved for ONE family with 'sepcial needs' into a drop in center
for half of east anglias diddy population.

Once its complete they will give it all back to the family.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
PeterC wrote:
SNIP
Agreed. 'work' is a 4-letter word, TAAAW (so are 'iron' and 'dust' (as
verbs)).

Wot the kinell does TAAAW stand for. I googled last time you sued it &
found nowt.


Obviously did not google deep enough

Too, Also, And As Well

"TheScullster" wrote in message
. uk...

"Appelation Controlee" wrote


Sounds like his priorities are just fine as they are. Your ire should be
directed at the appropriate government minister, for poorly framing
whatever legislation, etc., etc...

It all boils down to whether you feel this stuff should be means tested.

It is means tested.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
Rant on

My neighbour, a guy just over 65, lives in his private house, along with
his son
who works, his son's partner and their two young lads.

I noticed they were having their boiler replaced and then met him in the
street.
Apparently, a Council representative knocked on the door, explaining there
were
grants for CH and did he have any problems.

Well, the boiler had been playing up off and on and he explained this and
that
he had spent a few hundred, attempting to get it sorted. It was then
arranged
for a contractor to examine the boiler, who reported there was no point
spending
any more money on it.

The Council then said they would consider him for a grant, but because it
took
so long to approve, he took himself off to the Council Offices, explaining
there
were two young boys in the house and they had no heating or hot water. On
his
arrival back home, he had a call to say the job had been approved and it
is
presently being replaced free-of-charge.

He has recently built a small brick-built office in the garden. A fully
insulated, double skinned cabin and turned his garden into a mini version
of
Hampton Court, so clearly he's not short of a bob or two !

Why should other people's tax be used to subsidise such work ? I just
don't
understand why this is thought to be OK. Meanwhile the infra-structure,
roads,
pavements, verges, signage, looks like something from a undeveloped third
world
country.

What's the point of working and paying taxes for these communal
facilities, if
it's spent on individuals, who can't sort their priorities out ?

/Rant off

Andy C

Surely to qualify for this sort of help he needs to be on Pension Credit, if
that is the case his income is pretty low, ie only the basic State Pension.

David - Milton Keynes

"Appelation Controlee" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:26:29 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

-------------------8
Why should other people's tax be used to subsidise such work ? I just
don't
understand why this is thought to be OK. Meanwhile the infra-structure,
roads,
pavements, verges, signage, looks like something from a undeveloped third
world
country.

What's the point of working and paying taxes for these communal
facilities, if
it's spent on individuals, who can't sort their priorities out ?

Sounds like his priorities are just fine as they are. Your ire should be
directed at the appropriate government minister, for poorly framing
whatever legislation, etc., etc... Not his fault he is part of the
eligible
group but, as he is, he would be foolish not to take advantage of it.
Funnily enough there was an item on last night's The One Show about this
scheme, and it's shot through with corruption on the supply side -
allegedly.

If you accept a gov't hand out that you don't need because you can afford it
then you forego your entitlement to complain when you hear of other
instances of
gov't waste. Simple as that.
EG If this guy stamps his foot and complains about senior council managment
junkets to wherever
then he must be told to shut up. Or if he complains about the 'old dears'
being turfed out of a
care home because the council is cutting the budget he should told to shut
his ****ing hypocritical mouth.

Arthur

dennis@home wrote:


"TheScullster" wrote in message
. uk...

"Appelation Controlee" wrote


Sounds like his priorities are just fine as they are. Your ire should be
directed at the appropriate government minister, for poorly framing
whatever legislation, etc., etc...

It all boils down to whether you feel this stuff should be means tested.

It is means tested.


Indeed - and non-dependents living there would be covered as part of the
assessment.

"Rob" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:


"TheScullster" wrote in message
. uk...

"Appelation Controlee" wrote


Sounds like his priorities are just fine as they are. Your ire should
be
directed at the appropriate government minister, for poorly framing
whatever legislation, etc., etc...

It all boils down to whether you feel this stuff should be means tested.

It is means tested.


Indeed - and non-dependents living there would be covered as part of the
assessment.

With the warmfront scheme certain benefits qualify.
Those benefits do not depend on the income of the claimant e.g. attendance
allowance.

Bob Minchin wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
PeterC wrote:
SNIP
Agreed. 'work' is a 4-letter word, TAAAW (so are 'iron' and 'dust'
(as verbs)).

Wot the kinell does TAAAW stand for. I googled last time you sued
it & found nowt.


Obviously did not google deep enough

Wasn't on the first three pages - therefore it doesn't exist :-)


Too, Also, And As Well

Ta.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Arthur2 wrote:
"Appelation Controlee" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:26:29 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

-------------------8
Why should other people's tax be used to subsidise such work ? I
just don't
understand why this is thought to be OK. Meanwhile the
infra-structure, roads,
pavements, verges, signage, looks like something from a undeveloped
third world
country.

What's the point of working and paying taxes for these communal
facilities, if
it's spent on individuals, who can't sort their priorities out ?

Sounds like his priorities are just fine as they are. Your ire
should be directed at the appropriate government minister, for
poorly framing whatever legislation, etc., etc... Not his fault he
is part of the eligible
group but, as he is, he would be foolish not to take advantage of it.
Funnily enough there was an item on last night's The One Show about
this scheme, and it's shot through with corruption on the supply
side - allegedly.

If you accept a gov't hand out that you don't need because you can
afford it then you forego your entitlement to complain when you hear
of other instances of
gov't waste. Simple as that.

Then again he has probably shelled out fortunes in Tax, NI & Vat during his
life & F*ing well deserves to get a bit back.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
Appelation Controlee wrote:

Yeah, I know. :-)
I don't need a bus pass, but I'm 63 so I'm eligible, and I've therefore
got
one. On the half-dozen-or-so times I use it each year, I really enjoy the
journeys. The bus services in this area are pretty good - reasonable
frequency, and decent, clean vehicles.

But out of the main cities, blooming expensive fares and long tiresome
routes, crazy bus drivers and screaming school kids :-(

However in London, I think the bus/tube pass scheme is perhaps a bit too
generous. It's pretty much covers the whole of London!

If I were a council treasurer minded to fiddle with policy, bus passes
could be handed out at discount (or still free to the elegible) to _all_
people who *don't* run cars. The pass would not be free / discounted for
_anyone_ if there was a car in ownership not shared with other people, or
kept for accessibility reasons.

Now would that measure cause a rise in bus use, more transport revenue
income _or_ an increase in car use _or_ the person responsible lynched for
introducing this?

It (or a variant) worked in Sheffield when Blunkett was in charge; any fare
on a bus was 5p, and lots of people found they could get by without a car,
which suited a city made of narrow streets of terraced houses.

Of course the 80's Tory government decided that the answer was 'deregulation
of the bus services' so that council subsidies were (largely) banned &
operators brought in, who found they could cut services and increase fares;
resulting in families realising that they now needed 2 cars so Mum & Dad
could get to work; so now paying 2x depreciation, insurance, tax and fuel
and no bloody space to park on the street outside.

Don't forget that Tory governments are not so much /your/ friend, as the
friends of the buggers with the expense accounts who run things /on behalf/
of pension fund shareholders.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:13:49 -0000, "David Klyne"
wrote:


Surely to qualify for this sort of help he needs to be on Pension Credit, if
that is the case his income is pretty low, ie only the basic State Pension.

David - Milton Keynes


It's difficult, because I can't ask him such questions, but he has certainly had
the capital to do the other work. It *appears* that if you are prepared to live
on the State all your life, then this assistance is available. However if you
pay your taxes and save, then you can pay your own way *and* pay for others.
I guess it was ever such. Just seems *so* unfair.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:39:55 +0000, Adrian C wrote:

If I were a council treasurer minded to fiddle with policy, bus passes
could be handed out at discount (or still free to the elegible) to _all_
people who *don't* run cars. The pass would not be free / discounted for
_anyone_ if there was a car in ownership not shared with other people,
or kept for accessibility reasons.

So, if you were a council treasurer, you would act without reference to the
elected representatives who are there to determine the policies you should
be following? ;-)
In practice, there are several areas where councils are mandated by central
government to fund and provide services. Concessionary travel - on terms
over which councils have no control - is just one of those (and it's
apparently causing financial issues in many areas).

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:20:59 -0000, Arthur2 wrote:

-------------------8
If you accept a gov't hand out that you don't need because you can afford it
then you forego your entitlement to complain when you hear of other
instances of
gov't waste. Simple as that.
EG If this guy stamps his foot and complains about senior council managment
junkets to wherever
then he must be told to shut up. Or if he complains about the 'old dears'
being turfed out of a
care home because the council is cutting the budget he should told to shut
his ****ing hypocritical mouth.

The government decides eligibilty so, if you find yourself in a group
entitled to a particular benefit, it's because the government wants you to
have it.
If you should choose to forego it, that's up to you, but don't equate that
with virtue.

Oops, nearly forgot - ****, ****, ****, etc., ...

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:11:11 -0800 (PST), chudford wrote:

-------------------8
Don't knock it we oldies need the £250 heating allowance and £60
Christmas bonus to pay for our drinks while we sun ourselves in the
Canaries.

Too bloody right - my bottle of Grant's was over £17 in Tesco today.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:11:17 +0000, Appelation Controlee wrote:

So, if you were a council treasurer, you would act without reference to the
elected representatives who are there to determine the policies you should
be following? ;-)
In practice, there are several areas where councils are mandated by central
government to fund and provide services. Concessionary travel - on terms
over which councils have no control - is just one of those (and it's
apparently causing financial issues in many areas).

They've just withdrawn the local Park & Ride, because they can no longer afford
the subsidy. The bottom line is, that there are simply too many people, happy to
live supported by other tax payer's money and the bill grows inexorably.

Which kind of brings us full circle. The more you assist people, the greater the
demand and as we are rapidly discovering, there is not a bottomless pit of
available money. Without the restraint of having the responsiblity to find the
money, demand is unlimited. A fine example of which, is Gordon's insane policy
of paying ever more to ' lift children out of poverty ', which in practice,
exacerbates the problem, not solves it.

Andy Cap wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:11:17 +0000, Appelation Controlee wrote:

So, if you were a council treasurer, you would act without reference to the
elected representatives who are there to determine the policies you should
be following? ;-)
In practice, there are several areas where councils are mandated by central
government to fund and provide services. Concessionary travel - on terms
over which councils have no control - is just one of those (and it's
apparently causing financial issues in many areas).

They've just withdrawn the local Park & Ride, because they can no longer afford
the subsidy. The bottom line is, that there are simply too many people, happy to
live supported by other tax payer's money and the bill grows inexorably.

Which kind of brings us full circle. The more you assist people, the greater the
demand and as we are rapidly discovering, there is not a bottomless pit of
available money. Without the restraint of having the responsiblity to find the
money, demand is unlimited. A fine example of which, is Gordon's insane policy
of paying ever more to ' lift children out of poverty ', which in practice,
exacerbates the problem, not solves it.

Darwinian selection ensures that we are creating a generation that is
fit to only claim the dole.

Andy Cap wrote:


They've just withdrawn the local Park & Ride, because they can no longer afford
the subsidy. The bottom line is, that there are simply too many people, happy to
live supported by other tax payer's money and the bill grows inexorably.



It is almost worth my while driving around 2 miles from home to the
local Park & Ride car park, and paying the bus fare - rather than just
getting a bus from home into town. With two in the car, it *is* worth
it. But it is even less costly to drive into town myself. So much for
sensible transport plans. (The critical element that tips the balance is
the cost of parking - I am usually going to a supermarket that provides
free parking. But with two of us, no contest even if we have to pay for
parking.)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

dennis@home wrote:


"Rob" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:


"TheScullster" wrote in message
. uk...

"Appelation Controlee" wrote


Sounds like his priorities are just fine as they are. Your ire
should be
directed at the appropriate government minister, for poorly framing
whatever legislation, etc., etc...

It all boils down to whether you feel this stuff should be means
tested.

It is means tested.


Indeed - and non-dependents living there would be covered as part of
the assessment.

With the warmfront scheme certain benefits qualify.
Those benefits do not depend on the income of the claimant e.g.
attendance allowance.

It actually appears rather *more* restrictive than when I last looked -
basically over 60/household with children under 16 and in receipt of
benefits. Probably always that way, and my hobbled memory at fault. On
which:

But I can't see any mention of non-dependents, so that would explain to
me how the OP's neighbour could have managed it legitimately.

Rob

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:24:17 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

-------------------8
They've just withdrawn the local Park & Ride, because they can no longer afford
the subsidy. The bottom line is, that there are simply too many people, happy to
live supported by other tax payer's money and the bill grows inexorably.

I love Park & Ride (Preston, 15 miles away), but I didn't make the rules
under which it operates. If, instead of making the parking free in return
for a paid bus ride (which means "scroungers" [1] such as me getting off
scot-free with our bus passes), they charged for the parking and made the
bus free for all, I wouldn't object, because it would still be worth it for
the convenience.

Which kind of brings us full circle. The more you assist people, the greater the
demand and as we are rapidly discovering, there is not a bottomless pit of
available money. Without the restraint of having the responsiblity to find the
money, demand is unlimited. A fine example of which, is Gordon's insane policy
of paying ever more to ' lift children out of poverty ', which in practice,
exacerbates the problem, not solves it.

Full circle, from Parl & Ride through to social engineering? Bloody 'ell,
there should be a Godwin's law for that one. ;-)

[1] FWIW, I pay enough tax to be completely unaffected by guilt.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Cap wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:11:17 +0000, Appelation Controlee
wrote:

So, if you were a council treasurer, you would act without reference to
the
elected representatives who are there to determine the policies you
should
be following? ;-)
In practice, there are several areas where councils are mandated by
central
government to fund and provide services. Concessionary travel - on terms
over which councils have no control - is just one of those (and it's
apparently causing financial issues in many areas).

They've just withdrawn the local Park & Ride, because they can no longer
afford
the subsidy. The bottom line is, that there are simply too many people,
happy to
live supported by other tax payer's money and the bill grows inexorably.
Which kind of brings us full circle. The more you assist people, the
greater the
demand and as we are rapidly discovering, there is not a bottomless pit
of
available money. Without the restraint of having the responsiblity to
find the
money, demand is unlimited. A fine example of which, is Gordon's insane
policy
of paying ever more to ' lift children out of poverty ', which in
practice,
exacerbates the problem, not solves it.

Darwinian selection ensures that we are creating a generation that is fit
to only claim the dole.


I think we are already on the 3rd generation of the species.

Adam

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:38:13 +0000, Appelation Controlee
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:26:29 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

-------------------8
Why should other people's tax be used to subsidise such work ? I just
don't
understand why this is thought to be OK. Meanwhile the infra-structure,
roads,
pavements, verges, signage, looks like something from a undeveloped
third world
country.

What's the point of working and paying taxes for these communal
facilities, if
it's spent on individuals, who can't sort their priorities out ?

Sounds like his priorities are just fine as they are. Your ire should be
directed at the appropriate government minister, for poorly framing
whatever legislation, etc., etc... Not his fault he is part of the
eligible
group but, as he is, he would be foolish not to take advantage of it.
Funnily enough there was an item on last night's The One Show about this
scheme, and it's shot through with corruption on the supply side -
allegedly.

It wasn't meant to be directed solely at him - I actually like the guy and
we
get on well - more the principle.

If you accept a gov't hand out that you don't need because you can afford it
then you forego your entitlement to complain when you hear of other
instances of
gov't waste. Simple as that.
EG If this guy stamps his foot and complains about senior council managment
junkets to wherever
then he must be told to shut up. Or if he complains about the 'old dears'
being turfed out of a
care home because the council is cutting the budget he should told to shut
his hypocritical mouth.

Arthur

"Arthur2" wrote in message
...

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:38:13 +0000, Appelation Controlee
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:26:29 +0000, Andy Cap wrote:

-------------------8
Why should other people's tax be used to subsidise such work ? I just
don't
understand why this is thought to be OK. Meanwhile the infra-structure,
roads,
pavements, verges, signage, looks like something from a undeveloped
third world
country.

What's the point of working and paying taxes for these communal
facilities, if
it's spent on individuals, who can't sort their priorities out ?

Sounds like his priorities are just fine as they are. Your ire should be
directed at the appropriate government minister, for poorly framing
whatever legislation, etc., etc... Not his fault he is part of the
eligible
group but, as he is, he would be foolish not to take advantage of it.
Funnily enough there was an item on last night's The One Show about this
scheme, and it's shot through with corruption on the supply side -
allegedly.

It wasn't meant to be directed solely at him - I actually like the guy
and we
get on well - more the principle.

snip

hypocritical mouth.

Arthur ---- Sorry. I thought my previous attempt at posting this had
been censored.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:19:12 -0000, Arthur2 wrote:

-------------------8
---- Sorry. I thought my previous attempt at posting this had
been censored.

How?

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:21:13 +0000, Appelation Controlee
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:11:11 -0800 (PST), chudford wrote:

-------------------8
Don't knock it we oldies need the £250 heating allowance and £60
Christmas bonus to pay for our drinks while we sun ourselves in the
Canaries.

Too bloody right - my bottle of Grant's was over £17 in Tesco today.

I applied for heating allowance last year. Got a letter saying it was
refused because I didn't live in the UK. Delivered to my door here in
county Durham. I rang their help line and was told it was because I
didn't tick a box saying I lived in the UK. The woman on the other end
of the line said she could fix it on her screen so I left it at that.
Today got my bank statement and no sign of any heating allowance.

*******s!

clumsy ******* wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote:

of paying ever more to ' lift children out of poverty ', which in
practice,
exacerbates the problem, not solves it.

Darwinian selection ensures that we are creating a generation that is fit
to only claim the dole.

I think we are already on the 3rd generation of the species.

you get much fitter people under African conditions

thats cos 30% die in the first year..

"Appelation Controlee" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:19:12 -0000, Arthur2 wrote:

-------------------8
---- Sorry. I thought my previous attempt at posting this had
been censored.

How?


Perhaps a moderator was havig a bad day and disliked my gratuitous use of
the word ****.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:30:29 UTC, "Arthur2"
wrote:


"Appelation Controlee" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:19:12 -0000, Arthur2 wrote:

-------------------8
---- Sorry. I thought my previous attempt at posting this had
been censored.

How?


Perhaps a moderator was havig a bad day and disliked my gratuitous use of
the word ****.

And where is this mythical moderator, little boy?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

dennis@home wrote:

It is means tested.


Which means that the people who have been sensible and saved for an
emergency don't get it, whereas those who blew the lot on beer, fags,
foreign holidays and plasma TVs get it.

(and yes, I realise that not everyone fits into those two extreme groups
- but many do)

Andy

"clumsy *******" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

you get much fitter people under African conditions

thats cos 30% die in the first year..

exactly.
--
all thumbs

http://www.channel4.com/catchup-player/player.htm?brandId=wife-swap&contractId=44472&episodeId=8

Not sure if the link works but Lee was in my class at school. Enough said.

Adam

Andy Cap wrote:
Rant on

My neighbour, a guy just over 65, lives in his private house, along
with his son who works, his son's partner and their two young lads.

I noticed they were having their boiler replaced and then met him in
the street. Apparently, a Council representative knocked on the door,
explaining there were grants for CH and did he have any problems.

Well, the boiler had been playing up off and on and he explained this
and that he had spent a few hundred, attempting to get it sorted. It
was then arranged for a contractor to examine the boiler, who
reported there was no point spending any more money on it.

The Council then said they would consider him for a grant, but
because it took so long to approve, he took himself off to the
Council Offices, explaining there were two young boys in the house
and they had no heating or hot water. On his arrival back home, he
had a call to say the job had been approved and it is presently being
replaced free-of-charge.

He has recently built a small brick-built office in the garden. A
fully insulated, double skinned cabin and turned his garden into a
mini version of Hampton Court, so clearly he's not short of a bob or
two !

Why should other people's tax be used to subsidise such work ? I just
don't understand why this is thought to be OK. Meanwhile the
infra-structure, roads, pavements, verges, signage, looks like
something from a undeveloped third world country.

What's the point of working and paying taxes for these communal
facilities, if it's spent on individuals, who can't sort their
priorities out ?

/Rant off

Andy C

You appear to think that the council is paying foir this work to be done -
they aren't - it's almost certainly the warmfront scheme, which covers the
100% grants for insulation too, and has done from the beginning, about 12
years ago, although when it first started it offered only draughtproofing,
then loft insulation, and now CWI and replacement boilers.

The money that funds this lot was creamed off the energy suppliers as a
'windfall tax', who creamed it off us in the first place, so you see, he has
already effectively paid for this boiler, through all the gas and leccy
bills he has paid over the decades.

--
Phil L
RSRL Tipster Of The Year 2008