On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:47:23 +0100, Graham C wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:36:29 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Re

A relative buys from Richer Sounds, says good prices and good
warranties. Believe when he buys an extended one he gets money back if
he does not make a claim.

That is not how insurance works.;-)

Agreed, but this is Richer Sounds. If you can remember when the five
years is up, then you have one month to claim a full refund.

I remember a very good deal I got once. I bought several items (CD
player, tape deck and sometthing else) and paid £29.95 for the three year
warranty. Part of the deal was that you could go back any time (I went at
2 years 11 months) and get a 50% trade-in against new equipment. The
other part was that the warranty was again extended for another three
years!

They didn't repeat that offer, but it was a very good deal at the time.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:19:51 +0100, Tim Lamb wrote:

There is a photograph on mine! I suppose they don't see it until I get
to the checkout.

Isn't there a person on the door checking cards as you go in? There
is at Gateshead, mind you my photo is so worn that it's almost
impossible to tell it's supposed to be me. Seems to be more of a
trade/individual check than anything else.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:47:51 +0100, Albert Ross wrote:

Interest??? More like disinterest nowadays

You can get 2 to 3% on cash if you look not that hard. Be prepared to
tie the money up and you might get 4 or 5% but fixed. Dable in the
safe end of the markets and you could do better than that.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Peter Duncanson wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:01:08 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

in the middle of the night to be told the machine mashine has finished.

"mashine"? How did that get there?

Are you a big fan of Charlie Sheen?

In message , Steve Firth
writes
Peter Duncanson wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:01:08 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

in the middle of the night to be told the machine mashine has finished.

"mashine"? How did that get there?

Are you a big fan of Charlie Sheen?

Or his mother


--
geoff

On 31/07/2010 19:18, Andy Burns wrote:
james wrote:

I was astonished to learn following the fire that gutted their
Chichester store that Sainsbury never insured their premises.

Hogg Robinson never used to insure any of their car fleet (effectively
they self-insured).

Including 3rd party? I know companies can do that with a large enough
bond, but do any do that?

Bob Eager wrote:

Exactly. My wife drives past half a dozen times a year (in a Ford Fusion)
so she picks up some extra shorter life stuff with no real overhead. I
pretty well fill the S-Max when I go, but it's less than 10 litres of
diesel.

Is the Fusion diesel too? I'm surprised how the petrol version far out
numbers diesels.

--
Adrian

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:40:15 +0100, Adrian wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

Exactly. My wife drives past half a dozen times a year (in a Ford
Fusion) so she picks up some extra shorter life stuff with no real
overhead. I pretty well fill the S-Max when I go, but it's less than 10
litres of diesel.

Is the Fusion diesel too? I'm surprised how the petrol version far out
numbers diesels.

Yup, diesel. And there are very few petrol S-Maxes these days; the dealer
tells me he hardly ever sells one. I get a real 45mpg out of the S-Max,
with mixed usage; my wife used it for a 900 mile heavily laden holiday
trip last year and got 47mpg over the trip...



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:31:18 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:40:15 +0100, Adrian wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

Exactly. My wife drives past half a dozen times a year (in a Ford
Fusion) so she picks up some extra shorter life stuff with no real
overhead. I pretty well fill the S-Max when I go, but it's less than
10 litres of diesel.

Is the Fusion diesel too? I'm surprised how the petrol version far
out numbers diesels.

Yup, diesel. And there are very few petrol S-Maxes these days; the
dealer tells me he hardly ever sells one. I get a real 45mpg out of the
S-Max, with mixed usage; my wife used it for a 900 mile heavily laden
holiday trip last year and got 47mpg over the trip...

Long term average in a C4: 54mpg.

I didn't know what a C4 was, but that looks comparable, given that the S-
Max is quite a bit bigger and heavier (being a 7 seater).

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:11:24 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:56:29 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

Adrian C wrote:
On 31/07/2010 06:01, Michaelangelo wrote:

Costco are wholesalers. In the UK that means they cannot legally sell to
the 'riff-raff'

I'm interested - what is exactly if the legal footing these and other
trade business enjoy to select customers? At the till, it's a VAT
receipt - like any other.

I wondered too, different VAT rules might apply (e.g. retail schemes vs
cash&carry schemes) but legally preventing them selling to certain
customers? Sounds wrong to me ...

I don't know the answer.

However, is it a legal restriction or a commercial restriction?

I had assumed that, by selling only to business, they can legally
avoid certain parts of consumer law.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:49:51 +0100, Invisible Man
wrote:

On 31/07/2010 09:20, Mike Henry wrote:
, wrote:

In , Alan White
writes
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:49:55 +0100, Invisible Man
wrote:

Whenever someone tries to sell me a warranty or insurance I say I worked
for an insurance company for 36 years and don't believe in it. Car
insurance, house and contents insurance and travel insurance I do have.

I ask them do have so little faith in the reliability of the product
that they think I need it. Some get very cross when pressed for a 'yes'
or 'no' answer.

What's the point ?

They are only sales assistants there to sell products for the store i.e.
The goods and the extended warranty. It's not their product, not their
store, they don't make the rules or choose what the store sells

Indeed, so what's the point in them getting cross? They should just give
the answer when asked, and accept that some customers don't want an
extended warranty.

I nearly walked out of somewhere without the computer I wanted because
they were so insistent. Trouble is they are desperate to meet warranty
sales targets to keep their jobs.

I did walk out of a shop without purchasing an expensive camcorder I
had intended to buy for exactly this reason. I had warned the
salesdroid in advance that I would do this if he even mentioned the
words "extended warranty".
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:40:55 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:47:51 +0100, Albert Ross wrote:

Interest??? More like disinterest nowadays

You can get 2 to 3% on cash if you look not that hard. Be prepared to
tie the money up and you might get 4 or 5% but fixed. Dable in the
safe end of the markets and you could do better than that.

Are any of these products actually any use? I generally find that
deals like these have so many strings attached they are not as good as
they look. Often you only get these rates for a short time and there
may be a withdrawal penalty.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:52:08 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:


"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...

"john hamilton" wrote in message
...
I'm just about to buy a Sony television for about £500 from ebuyer. A
friend says that LCD televisions are now very reliable. So is it really
worth paying extra for a five year guarantee?


Depends who it is and how much.

Some makers have longer guarantees - e.g. LG have three years on their
small ones (which are also monitors) - so not worth paying 10% for another
two years in three years' time.

Similarly if you buy from Richer Sounds, their extended warranty is only
10% or £9.99p, whichever is more and in some cases you can get the premium
back if you don't claim in some cases.


Why don't the government simply make all electrical retailers do the same
Aldi and Lidl, i.e. an automatic three year warranty (without affecting your
statutory rights)

There is (i.e. should be) no need. The SOGA covers you for up to six
years. If nearly all companies did not try to avoid their legal
responsibilities then this would not be an issue at all.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:18:07 +0100, "The dog from that film you saw"
wrote:



"john hamilton" wrote in message
...
I'm just about to buy a Sony television for about £500 from ebuyer. A
friend says that LCD televisions are now very reliable. So is it really
worth paying extra for a five year guarantee?

you could always see what the john lewis price is - you get 5 years as
standard with them

Not on everything you don't. On some items you just get the minimum
one year.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:40:55 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:41:02 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

the nearest to me is 35 miles away as the crow files (1h15m by car) and
56 miles by dual cariageway/motorway (59 minutes). That's a lot of fuel
to go shopping.

It's about that for us as well. Used to go once a month but now it's
when we need to, about every 2 1/2 months and combine it with the
weekly shop. I reckon we do just about save when you take into
account the membership fee and the 50 extra round trip miles to get
there and back. Bottled beer used to be about £1.50/bottle, two cases
would save enough over Tesco prices to pay the diesel... It really
does depend on what you buy, we tend to go for long life bulk stuff
and shorter life stuff that is needed at the time of the visit.

Are they actually any better on price/service than the likes of
Makro/Bookers?

Makro is further away than Costco. Bookers is better, they have a
branch in Carlisle, but have yet to convince them that I should be
allowed to "join", not that I've tried very hard. Makro have a much
bigger range of goods but prices are not quite as good as CostCo.

My ex used Makro, also a cheaper warehouse which involved crossing
London to get to it, so when you took into account the time and fuel
involved it became uncompetitive.

Tescos just failed (again!) to get into our town. Some people drive to
the Tescos in a nearby town, because they think it's cheaper. A friend
tried an experiment, buying the same stuff in the Tescos and in our
local Co-Op. The Co-Op worked out significantly cheaper even without
the travelling. That's what Tescos do when they've closed down the
opposition.

I'm old fashioned, I buy as much as I can in local shops owned by
local people, while they're still there.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:52:08 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:


"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...

"john hamilton" wrote in message
...
I'm just about to buy a Sony television for about £500 from ebuyer. A
friend says that LCD televisions are now very reliable. So is it really
worth paying extra for a five year guarantee?


Depends who it is and how much.

Some makers have longer guarantees - e.g. LG have three years on their
small ones (which are also monitors) - so not worth paying 10% for
another
two years in three years' time.

Similarly if you buy from Richer Sounds, their extended warranty is only
10% or £9.99p, whichever is more and in some cases you can get the
premium
back if you don't claim in some cases.


Why don't the government simply make all electrical retailers do the same
Aldi and Lidl, i.e. an automatic three year warranty (without affecting
your
statutory rights)

There is (i.e. should be) no need. The SOGA covers you for up to six
years. If nearly all companies did not try to avoid their legal
responsibilities then this would not be an issue at all.




So you're perfectly happy then with a system which obviously isn't working
for 90% of consumers, the majority of whom don't even realise they have any
comeback after 12 months and even the diehards who do and are prepared to
stand up to the majority of disinterested and downright arrogant retailers,
are very often forced to take their case to the point of litigation before
they'll back down.
Wouldn't it be far better for customers to be informed at the time of
purchase that they have a straightforward, no nonsense, three or five year
(fair wear and tear) warranty?
That's why I always attempt to purchase stuff from firms that 'do' offer
free extended warranties, I just can't be arsed with the very predictable
hassle that I 'know' I'm going to get when I return something that's just
out of its 12 month warranty and start quoting my statutory rights.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:29:59 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:40:55 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:47:51 +0100, Albert Ross wrote:

Interest??? More like disinterest nowadays

You can get 2 to 3% on cash if you look not that hard. Be prepared to
tie the money up and you might get 4 or 5% but fixed. Dable in the
safe end of the markets and you could do better than that.

Are any of these products actually any use? I generally find that
deals like these have so many strings attached they are not as good as
they look. Often you only get these rates for a short time and there
may be a withdrawal penalty.

Yes, read ALL the small print!

When I invested mother's money from selling her house it was paying
out 4+% interest and the fund was growing around 5% as well.

Due to the recession the fund collapsed and strangely it worked out
that it had reduced by the amount of interest they paid out, so
basically they were metering her capital back to her for several
years.

Some of the other funds were paying out or retaining good rates until
they were reduced to less than 1% without anyone bothering to notify
us. At least the capital was still there.

I put some money into another fund at the bottom of the market, that's
growing well so far and may replace *some* of the lost capital but
retains the interest (compound) rather than paying an income and it's
hard to extract any capital without penalties.

Read the rest of the small print too . . .

On 31/07/10 19:25, Invisible Man wrote:

Sainsbury have a lot of stores so if they lose the odd one it may not cost as
much as paying premium for all of them.
I understand that at one time Woolworths did not have sprinklers in their
stores because it was cheaper to have the occasional one burn down.

Which is fine until the local fire authority lose a member of staff while
trying to fight a fire at your premises where you neglected to fit
sprinklers. Then a whole can of legal worms can open up.

On 01/08/10 00:54, Clive George wrote:
On 31/07/2010 19:18, Andy Burns wrote:
james wrote:

I was astonished to learn following the fire that gutted their
Chichester store that Sainsbury never insured their premises.

Hogg Robinson never used to insure any of their car fleet (effectively
they self-insured).

Including 3rd party? I know companies can do that with a large enough bond,
but do any do that?


Yes, many.

On Aug 2, 12:10*pm, Mark
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:11:24 +0100, Peter Duncanson



wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:56:29 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

Adrian C wrote:
On 31/07/2010 06:01, Michaelangelo wrote:

Costco are wholesalers. In the UK that means they cannot legally sell to
the 'riff-raff'

I'm interested - what is exactly if the legal footing these and other
trade business enjoy to select customers? At the till, it's a VAT
receipt - like any other.

I wondered too, different VAT rules might apply (e.g. retail schemes vs
cash&carry schemes) but legally preventing them selling to certain
customers? Sounds wrong to me ...

I don't know the answer.

However, is it a legal restriction or a commercial restriction?

I had assumed that, by selling only to business, they can legally
avoid certain parts of consumer law.

The guy in the till at PC World often asks if I'm buying for business.
The sale of goods act doesn't apply in the same way for business
purchases.

MBQ

On Jul 31, 6:01*am, Michaelangelo
wrote:
Adrian C burst on the scene, and said:



Thing that I don't like about Costco, is their an 'anti-riff-raff'
policy on selecting only trade or professional status UK customers. I
don't see evidence of that in their American stores.

Costco are wholesalers. In the UK that means they cannot legally sell
to the 'riff-raff'

Care to post a link to some evidence of the veracity of your claim?

MBQ

On Jul 31, 5:02*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*Invisible Man wrote:



On 31/07/2010 13:16, dennis@home wrote:

"Invisible Man" wrote in message
...

There is one overriding reason why people should buy lots of insurance
- to make sure the company can continue paying my pension.

You have the wrong company if it needs to stay profitable to continue
paying your pension.

It is a final salary pension from the insurance company I worked for for
36 years. Fortunately the hole in this scheme is not too big at present
and presumably in the unlikely event that the company went bust the govt
organised compensation scheme would pay out.

Well of course final salary pensions are a bogus concept as is the
notion of a company having its own pension scheme. After all, pensions
is hardly the core business of, say, Ford, or British Airways, now, is
it. Hmm well I guess these days with the tail wagging the dog perhaps it
is.

People should organise their own pensions via a pensions company - and

No, they should form a group of fellow employers, or whatever, and
benefit from far lower charges for managing a large fund.

I have a "personal pension" but it is organised by my employer for all
employess and has very low managemnt charges as result of their buying
power.

MBQ

On Aug 2, 4:18*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*Albert Ross wrote:

Tescos just failed (again!) to get into our town. Some people drive to
the Tescos in a nearby town, because they think it's cheaper. A friend
tried an experiment, buying the same stuff in the Tescos and in our
local Co-Op. The Co-Op worked out significantly cheaper even without
the travelling.

And, when these folk drive to the next town, do they factor in the TCO
amount they're spending to do that? It's not just the cost of fuel.

Half the TCO is fixed costs and will be spent anyway. petrol is well
over half of the remainder (source: AA running costs).

MBQ

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:42:27 +0100, Mike Henry
wrote:

In , Mark
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:49:51 +0100, Invisible Man
wrote:
I nearly walked out of somewhere without the computer I wanted because
they were so insistent. Trouble is they are desperate to meet warranty
sales targets to keep their jobs.

I did walk out of a shop without purchasing an expensive camcorder I
had intended to buy for exactly this reason. I had warned the
salesdroid in advance that I would do this if he even mentioned the
words "extended warranty".

Good. Out of interest, what was their reaction? Did they quickly back
down, apologise and beg you to reconsider - or did they arrogantly act as
if you were in the wrong?

Actually I don't recall his reaction well apart from the fact it was
not an apology. I don't think he said anything. They're probably not
programmed to handle this situation ;-)

Just like their not programmed to know about the Sale of Goods Act.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:31:30 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article
,
"Man at B&Q" wrote:

On Jul 31, 5:020m, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
nvisible Man wrote:



On 31/07/2010 13:16, dennis@home wrote:

"Invisible Man" wrote in message
...

There is one overriding reason why people should buy lots of insurance
- to make sure the company can continue paying my pension.

You have the wrong company if it needs to stay profitable to continue
paying your pension.

It is a final salary pension from the insurance company I worked for for
36 years. Fortunately the hole in this scheme is not too big at present
and presumably in the unlikely event that the company went bust the govt
organised compensation scheme would pay out.

Well of course final salary pensions are a bogus concept as is the
notion of a company having its own pension scheme. After all, pensions
is hardly the core business of, say, Ford, or British Airways, now, is
it. Hmm well I guess these days with the tail wagging the dog perhaps it
is.

People should organise their own pensions via a pensions company - and

No, they should form a group of fellow employers, or whatever, and
benefit from far lower charges for managing a large fund.

I have a "personal pension" but it is organised by my employer for all
employess and has very low managemnt charges as result of their buying
power.

So I take it you mean it is, nonetheless, with a pension company? That
is even better. I'm talking about companies that appear to be their own
pension company, about whom we hear that their pension scheme "is in
deficit, they took payment holidays in the good times, they now have to
pay large amounts in" and so on.

Remember that a lot of them /had/ to take payment holidays because of
government legislation.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Aug 2, 5:31*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
*"Man at B&Q" wrote:



On Jul 31, 5:02*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*Invisible Man wrote:

On 31/07/2010 13:16, dennis@home wrote:

"Invisible Man" wrote in message
...

There is one overriding reason why people should buy lots of insurance
- to make sure the company can continue paying my pension.

You have the wrong company if it needs to stay profitable to continue
paying your pension.

It is a final salary pension from the insurance company I worked for for
36 years. Fortunately the hole in this scheme is not too big at present
and presumably in the unlikely event that the company went bust the govt
organised compensation scheme would pay out.

Well of course final salary pensions are a bogus concept as is the
notion of a company having its own pension scheme. After all, pensions
is hardly the core business of, say, Ford, or British Airways, now, is
it. Hmm well I guess these days with the tail wagging the dog perhaps it
is.

People should organise their own pensions via a pensions company - and

No, they should form a group of fellow employers, or whatever, and
benefit from far lower charges for managing a large fund.

I have a "personal pension" but it is organised by my employer for all
employess and has very low managemnt charges as result of their buying
power.

So I take it you mean it is, nonetheless, with a pension company? That

Yes.

is even better. I'm talking about companies that appear to be their own
pension company,

OK, but the advice that "People should organise their own ensions via
a pensions company" is potentially disastrous if done on an
*individual* basis due to the far higher charges that will usually be
levied on an individual policy.

MBQ

In message
, Man
at B&Q writes

OK, but the advice that "People should organise their own ensions via
a pensions company" is potentially disastrous if done on an
*individual* basis due to the far higher charges that will usually be
levied on an individual policy.

I transferred my pension fund to a SIPP about ten years ago and never
regretted it. I suggested to a colleague that he did the same, but all
advice from the appalling Follett is rightfully mistrusted and ignored.
I'm pleased to say that my colleague left his pot in the capable hands
of EL. Such a fine company.

My fund is administered by an old established stockbroker on a
non-discretionary basis. Their charges are transparent at about GPB1000
pa. The ticket yield of their holdings is a healthy eight per cent per
year. Dealing charges are minimal because I hardly do any buying and
selling. Apart from some PIBS most of the original stock buys were
sound.

But don't for god's sake pay a sighted scrap of notice to Follett's
advice. What does the ******* know? I urge everyone to ignore him and
put their money in company funds over which they have no control.
They're bound to outstrip any alternative ideas that the Follett
scoundrel has. The chap is a real bounder. The only reason he never sold
his mother into white slavery is because he didn't want to make any move
that might affect the market value of his grandmother.

JF. Never knowingly unkillfiled.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:41:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:31:30 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

So I take it you mean it is, nonetheless, with a pension company? That
is even better. I'm talking about companies that appear to be their own
pension company, about whom we hear that their pension scheme "is in
deficit, they took payment holidays in the good times, they now have to
pay large amounts in" and so on.

Remember that a lot of them /had/ to take payment holidays because of
government legislation.

You see the lunacy under which we labour?

That rule was introduced under a tory government.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:31:30 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

So I take it you mean it is, nonetheless, with a pension company?
That is even better. I'm talking about companies that appear to be
their own pension company, about whom we hear that their pension
scheme "is in deficit, they took payment holidays in the good times,
they now have to pay large amounts in" and so on.

Remember that a lot of them /had/ to take payment holidays because of
government legislation.

You see the lunacy under which we labour?

I thought it was Maggie?

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

On Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010 at 10:53:55h +0100, James Follett declared:

Never knowingly unkillfiled.

But are we ever going to hear "The New Adventures of Angel One and Angel Two?"

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:47:48 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:41:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:31:30 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

So I take it you mean it is, nonetheless, with a pension company? That
is even better. I'm talking about companies that appear to be their own
pension company, about whom we hear that their pension scheme "is in
deficit, they took payment holidays in the good times, they now have to
pay large amounts in" and so on.

Remember that a lot of them /had/ to take payment holidays because of
government legislation.

You see the lunacy under which we labour?

I understand that to mean "You see the lunacy under which we work" or
"You see the lunacy under which we operate".

That rule was introduced under a tory government.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Man at B&Q burst on the scene, and said:


Care to post a link to some evidence of the veracity of your claim?

Think VAT.

--
Michaelangelo
www.flickr.com/photos/mikenagel

Self-catering, holiday accommodation in the Scottish Highlands - for
disabled people:
www.woodhead-cottage.co.uk

Michaelangelo wrote:

Man at B&Q burst on the scene, and said:

Care to post a link to some evidence of the veracity of your claim?

Think VAT.

Yes, but that would just require them to differentiate between trade and
retail customers, not make it illegal to sell to retail customers, surely?

In message
, Man
at B&Q writes
On Aug 2, 5:31*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
*"Man at B&Q" wrote:



On Jul 31, 5:02*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*Invisible Man wrote:

On 31/07/2010 13:16, dennis@home wrote:

"Invisible Man" wrote in message
...

There is one overriding reason why people should buy lots of

- to make sure the company can continue paying my pension.

You have the wrong company if it needs to stay profitable to continue
paying your pension.

It is a final salary pension from the insurance company I
worked for for
36 years. Fortunately the hole in this scheme is not too big at present
and presumably in the unlikely event that the company went bust
the govt
organised compensation scheme would pay out.

Well of course final salary pensions are a bogus concept as is the
notion of a company having its own pension scheme. After all, pensions
is hardly the core business of, say, Ford, or British Airways, now, is
it. Hmm well I guess these days with the tail wagging the dog perhaps it
is.

People should organise their own pensions via a pensions company - and

No, they should form a group of fellow employers, or whatever, and
benefit from far lower charges for managing a large fund.

I have a "personal pension" but it is organised by my employer for all
employess and has very low managemnt charges as result of their buying
power.

So I take it you mean it is, nonetheless, with a pension company? That

Yes.

is even better. I'm talking about companies that appear to be their own
pension company,

OK, but the advice that "People should organise their own ensions

Looks like its already been eroded



--
geoff

In message , J G Miller
writes
On Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010 at 10:53:55h +0100, James Follett declared:

Never knowingly unkillfiled.

But are we ever going to hear "The New Adventures of Angel One and Angel Two?"

Good question. I've got the bibles written for a third series but I'm
not sure if I own the rights. I have a vague recollection of being paid
an obscene amount of money for some rights but I can't recall what they
were for. My dear wife keeps jealous tabs on the appalling rubbish I
used to write in the 1980, but she's asleep. Jim F

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:42:14 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:41:49 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:31:30 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

So I take it you mean it is, nonetheless, with a pension company? That
is even better. I'm talking about companies that appear to be their own
pension company, about whom we hear that their pension scheme "is in
deficit, they took payment holidays in the good times, they now have to
pay large amounts in" and so on.

Remember that a lot of them /had/ to take payment holidays because of
government legislation.

You see the lunacy under which we labour?

That rule was introduced under a tory government.

I don't recall suggesting it wasn't. Just confirms the dopeyness of a
company running its own pension scheme, as opposed to none or
contracting with a pensions co. to provide a service to their employees.

You did use the word "labour" in your post. I know it had a small "l"
but I did think it may be illuding to the party that introduced it.

AFAIK it matters little who runs the scheme -- the same laws were
applicable.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Aug 3, 5:06*pm, Michaelangelo
wrote:
Man at B&Q burst on the scene, and said:



Care to post a link to some evidence of the veracity of your claim?

Think VAT.

What about VAT?

There is no law that prevents a "wholesaler" from selling direct to
the public.

Try again.

MBQ

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 01:44:48 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

On Aug 3, 5:06*pm, Michaelangelo
wrote:
Man at B&Q burst on the scene, and said:



Care to post a link to some evidence of the veracity of your claim?

Think VAT.

What about VAT?

My understanding is that retailers /must/ show a VAT inclusive
price but there is no such requirement for wholesalers. BICBW.
--
Roger

On Aug 4, 11:24*am, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 01:44:48 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"

wrote:
On Aug 3, 5:06*pm, Michaelangelo
wrote:
Man at B&Q burst on the scene, and said:

Care to post a link to some evidence of the veracity of your claim?

Think VAT.

What about VAT?

My understanding is that retailers /must/ show a VAT inclusive
price but there is no such requirement for wholesalers. BICBW.

What has that got to do with the (so far unsubstantiated) claim that a
wholesaler in the UK is not allowed to sell to the general public?

MBQ

On Aug 4, 11:37*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,



*Roger wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 01:44:48 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

On Aug 3, 5:06*pm, Michaelangelo
wrote:
Man at B&Q burst on the scene, and said:

Care to post a link to some evidence of the veracity of your claim?

Think VAT.

What about VAT?

My understanding is that retailers /must/ show a VAT inclusive
price but there is no such requirement for wholesalers. BICBW.

But if a wholesaler (or anyone else, AFAIK), quotes a price and
*doesn't* say that it's ex-VAT, then it's deemed to include VAT. Which
is why all comics from places like ScrewFix carefully point out that
their prices are ex-VAT.

Prices displayed to consumers *must* include VAT inclusive prices with
equal prominence to ex-VAT prices (price marking order 2004).

There's probably some loophole that allows some traders to get away
with not doing so, like requiring you to be members of their club, or
giving you an account number and deeming you to be a business
customer.

Still nothing that prevents wholesalers selling to the public.

MBQ