http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15703230

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15703230

Can I make suggestion then?

Get the government to tell energy companies to remove the 6% or so 'green'
tariff (tax) that we all pay on our energy bills and make the FoE and all
the other so-called 'greens' pay it themselves instead - that would bring
'em down to earth a bit.

On 11/11/2011 23:00, ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15703230

Grrrr, these dozey ****wits get on my tits!

FoE policy and campaigns director Craig Bennett said:

"Slashing payments to any scheme completed after 12 December will
unfairly pull the plug on thousands of clean energy schemes across the
UK, preventing homes and communities from escaping soaring fuel bills."

How does it prevent anyone from "escaping soaring fuel bills"? If the
scheme was a viable way of doing that, then the FiT would not even be
relevant. The proposed systems will still offset the purchase of as much
electricity as they ever would have done.

"Ministers have pulled the rug from under the feet of one of the few
areas of the economy that is creating new jobs - and completely
undermined business confidence in clean energy."

Why do they think that crating more jobs per kwh is a "good thing"? What
they are in effect suggesting is that we should be looking to minimise
the efficiency of an industry so as to use as many people as possible,
to do as little as possible.

Give us cheaper energy (i.e. more efficient energy generation), and you
will get natural creation of jobs doing something worthwhile rather than
wasting all that effort producing the means to the end, rather than the
end in itself.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In message , ARWadsworth
wrote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15703230


quote
"Slashing payments to any scheme completed after 12 December will
unfairly pull the plug on thousands of clean energy schemes across the
UK, preventing homes and communities from escaping soaring fuel bills."
/quote

Surely all the energy is FREE so it doesn't need an extra subsidy to
make it financially viable?

These greenies appear to believe that there is a magic bucket of money
paying for all this free electricity. The money is part of the reason
why 99.999% of consumers are currently paying higher energy bills.

A few thousand people get the plug pulled and tens of millions people
stand a chance of getting lower fuel bills as a result.

Some people may actually believe that they are not paying full price for
the 10p light bulb or the loft insulation subsidised by the energy
companies.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 12 Nov, 03:21, John Rumm wrote:


Why do they think that creating more jobs per kwh is a "good thing"? What
they are in effect suggesting is that we should be looking to minimise
the efficiency of an industry so as to use as many people as possible,
to do as little as possible.

Cheers,

John.

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

Presumably the answer is millions of generator bicycles, which would
solve the energy crisis and provide employment at the same time.

John

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:00:39 -0000, ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15703230

"The government said it would defend the challenge at judicial
review.

"We're consulting on proposed new tariffs for a reason - to protect
consumers from footing the bill for excessive subsidies," a
spokeswoman said."

That is the real reason for the cut, if it didn't happen either the
"green" levy would have to rise, so everyones electricity bill would
rise or they would have to close the scheme to new installs. Neither
of which are particularly acceptable, they have little choice but to
reduce the "excessive subsidy".

"Friends of the Earth argues this cut-off point - two weeks before
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) consultation on
changes to the scheme ends - is unlawful."

That does seem like a cock up on the part of the goverment. Appears
to make a mockery of the consultation but of course if the
consultation shows something else it keeps the civil servants in a
job amending things...

"Earlier on Friday, the CBI said the decision to halve feed-in
tariffs earlier than planned would force companies to cancel planned
work, destroying projects and jobs."

Surely companies would only cancel planned work if their customers
cancelled it? If customers cancel because they no longer see it as a
cash cow then that shows the subsidy is excessive. The current level
is giving people a healthy profit rather than just paying for the
capital investment over 10 years.

"Slashing payments to any scheme completed after 12 December will
unfairly pull the plug on thousands of clean energy schemes across
the UK, preventing homes and communities from escaping soaring fuel
bills."

Only those homes and communities that have a lot of spare cash
slopping about that they can spend on PV. Everyone elses bill is
higher to fund the scheme, they would be even higher if they didn't
cut the tariff.

--
Cheers
Dave.

wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15703230

Can I make suggestion then?

Get the government to tell energy companies to remove the 6% or so 'green'
tariff (tax) that we all pay on our energy bills and make the FoE and all
the other so-called 'greens' pay it themselves instead - that would bring
'em down to earth a bit.

Also I saw yesterday (also mentioned above) that the CBI are whining.

If the CBI are whining, it usually means the original decision was correct.
In fact you could govern one entire aspect of this country by asking the CBI
what to do then doing the opposite.

--
Tim Watts

Tim Watts wrote:
wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15703230

Can I make suggestion then?

Get the government to tell energy companies to remove the 6% or so
'green' tariff (tax) that we all pay on our energy bills and make
the FoE and all the other so-called 'greens' pay it themselves
instead - that would bring 'em down to earth a bit.

Also I saw yesterday (also mentioned above) that the CBI are whining.

If the CBI are whining, it usually means the original decision was
correct. In fact you could govern one entire aspect of this country
by asking the CBI what to do then doing the opposite.

Makes you wonder if dennis worked for the CBI.

--
Adam

On Nov 12, 9:53 am, Tim Watts wrote:


If the CBI are whining, it usually means the original decision was correct.
In fact you could govern one entire aspect of this country by asking the CBI
what to do then doing the opposite.

;)))

Jim K

CBI want Welfare For Business, USA has been running it for years -
until it runs out of money or rather someone else's.

Friends Of The Earth are to take the govt to court over FiT cuts.
Utterly ridiculous. If they wanted to really get PV uptake they would
call for the subsidy of panels and get B&Q selling kits... so who is
using Friends Of The Earth Charitable Trust as a front for their
commercial interests??

Environment has become the new religion...

js.b1 wrote:

CBI want Welfare For Business, USA has been running it for years -
until it runs out of money or rather someone else's.

Friends Of The Earth are to take the govt to court over FiT cuts.
Utterly ridiculous. If they wanted to really get PV uptake they would
call for the subsidy of panels and get B&Q selling kits... so who is
using Friends Of The Earth Charitable Trust as a front for their
commercial interests??

Environment has become the new religion...

And anyone who says otherwise is a heretic - yes, I've noticed that.

Latest tree shagging lefty moronicity from some "leader in educashun" was in
the paper yesterday, headlined (paraphrased) "Don't make schoolkids clean
their plate before getting pudding".

I don't who these nobbers are, but I really really want to do a Pte Pyle on
some of them.

--
Tim Watts

"js.b1" writes:

CBI want Welfare For Business, USA has been running it for years -
until it runs out of money or rather someone else's.

About 30 years ago someone in the U.S. or more likely Canada coined the
phrase 'Corporate Welfare Bums'.
It stuck in my mind.

Friends Of The Earth are to take the govt to court over FiT cuts.
Utterly ridiculous. If they wanted to really get PV uptake they would
call for the subsidy of panels and get B&Q selling kits... so who is
using Friends Of The Earth Charitable Trust as a front for their
commercial interests??

Environment has become the new religion...

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

ARWadsworth wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15703230

Just discovered there is a con. doc one can respond to online, so if
anyone else feels like lobbying for at least the changes proposed see
https://econsultation.decc.gov.uk/of...-review-part-1

though if the judiciary do their usual liberal thing I expect they'll
decide the proposals would breach suppliers and/or customers legitimate
expectations to get massive subsidies until the next blue moon.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

Tim Watts wrote:
Latest tree shagging lefty moronicity from some "leader in educashun" was in
the paper yesterday, headlined (paraphrased) "Don't make schoolkids clean
their plate before getting pudding".

Pudding? Wots that?

Realisitcally, how/why are schools preventing children from
learning to adjust future actions based on past experiences?
"I had too much food on my plate yesterday, so today I'll
put less food on my plate."

JGH

jgharston wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
Latest tree shagging lefty moronicity from some "leader in educashun" was
in the paper yesterday, headlined (paraphrased) "Don't make schoolkids
clean their plate before getting pudding".

Pudding? Wots that?

Realisitcally, how/why are schools preventing children from
learning to adjust future actions based on past experiences?
"I had too much food on my plate yesterday, so today I'll
put less food on my plate."


At primary, they don't get a choice - they get a standard serving of one of
typically 2 options.

I've eaten with both of mine at school (allergy issues, testing some menu
options) and I have a few observations:

1) Modern state school meals (at least at our primary school) are bloody
fanstastic. No dodgey liver(+tubes) + bacon, no battery-acid-sour rhubarb
tart - everything was really decent.

2) They don't "require" kids clean their plate, though they give stickers to
those who do. However, my kids cleaned their plates because I told them that
was expected by me, even if the school did not expect it.

3) My kids tell me of a few other kids who discard half (or more) of their
main meal and still get pudding.

2 disappoints me - these are age 5-12 year olds. As a parent, I trust the
school to ensure they eat properly at lunchtime, as that is the reason I pay
for school dinners, because, particularly in winter, nothing is a good as a
hot meal. But I fully support the choice to provide a packed lunch for those
that want to.

3 disappoints me more - kids that young don't have the nous to make good
choices all the time and I don;t support rewarding bad eating habits with
puddings.


The school does try to encourage healthy eating though, with free fruits for
reception kids and a "no sweets" policy. I won't make a fuss because big sis
will report on little bro if he fails to eat everything, but the last thing
I want to see is some high level twonk encouraging poor behaviour at the top
when they should be doing exactly the opposite.

It smacks of the same lefty wooly thinking ******** that ruined education in
the 70's.

--
Tim Watts

On 13/11/2011 19:27, Tim Watts wrote:
jgharston wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
Latest tree shagging lefty moronicity from some "leader in educashun" was
in the paper yesterday, headlined (paraphrased) "Don't make schoolkids
clean their plate before getting pudding".

Pudding? Wots that?

Realisitcally, how/why are schools preventing children from
learning to adjust future actions based on past experiences?
"I had too much food on my plate yesterday, so today I'll
put less food on my plate."


At primary, they don't get a choice - they get a standard serving of one of
typically 2 options.

I've eaten with both of mine at school (allergy issues, testing some menu
options) and I have a few observations:

1) Modern state school meals (at least at our primary school) are bloody
fanstastic. No dodgey liver(+tubes) + bacon, no battery-acid-sour rhubarb
tart - everything was really decent.

2) They don't "require" kids clean their plate, though they give stickers to
those who do. However, my kids cleaned their plates because I told them that
was expected by me, even if the school did not expect it.

3) My kids tell me of a few other kids who discard half (or more) of their
main meal and still get pudding.

2 disappoints me - these are age 5-12 year olds. As a parent, I trust the
school to ensure they eat properly at lunchtime, as that is the reason I pay
for school dinners, because, particularly in winter, nothing is a good as a
hot meal. But I fully support the choice to provide a packed lunch for those
that want to.

3 disappoints me more - kids that young don't have the nous to make good
choices all the time and I don;t support rewarding bad eating habits with
puddings.


The school does try to encourage healthy eating though, with free fruits for
reception kids and a "no sweets" policy. I won't make a fuss because big sis
will report on little bro if he fails to eat everything, but the last thing
I want to see is some high level twonk encouraging poor behaviour at the top
when they should be doing exactly the opposite.

It smacks of the same lefty wooly thinking ******** that ruined education in
the 70's.

Yes, my education was utterly ruined by the lack of insistence that I
ate my main before pudding. Or rather, it wasn't.

One of the strongest memories I have of childhood is the infant school
teacher trying to make me eat my main course. I didn't. I think I
probably threw up at them. Not long after that I was on packed lunches,
which lasted till secondary school where that wasn't an option, but at
least there they didn't do anything foolish like try to make me eat it.
It wouldn't have been worth the stress for them, and they wouldn't have
succeeded.

The lesson from that? Prescriptive policies of the form you'd like don't
actually work.

Interestingly the lefty wooly thinking ******** comp I went to was also
much better than the telegraph-friendly grammar school I went to later,
despite having a broader intake.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 11:21:24 -0800 (PST), "js.b1"
wrote:

CBI want Welfare For Business, USA has been running it for years -
until it runs out of money or rather someone else's.

Friends Of The Earth are to take the govt to court over FiT cuts.
Utterly ridiculous. If they wanted to really get PV uptake they would
call for the subsidy of panels and get B&Q selling kits... so who is
using Friends Of The Earth Charitable Trust as a front for their
commercial interests??

It's about time all these Environment activists they were banned by HM
Govt for terrorist acts.


--

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:28:58 -0800 (PST), JohnW
wrote:

On 12 Nov, 03:21, John Rumm wrote:


Why do they think that creating more jobs per kwh is a "good thing"? What
they are in effect suggesting is that we should be looking to minimise
the efficiency of an industry so as to use as many people as possible,
to do as little as possible.

Presumably the answer is millions of generator bicycles, which would
solve the energy crisis and provide employment at the same time.

I'd use them for fuel. FoE that is. I know they'll be a bit wet
behind the ears but surely we can lock them up in a secure facility,
farm them on lentils, and extract useful quantities of methane gas.

When the gas production falls off we should burn them and as this
final disposal is a fully carbon neutral process I can't see any
reason for them to complain.


--

hugh wrote:

FFS everybody knows it's the other consumers who pay

I don't think Joe Public knows or cares about it, it may be a hot topic
here, but not so around workplace kettles or pub tables!

On Nov 13, 9:22 pm, Clive George wrote:
On 13/11/2011 19:27, Tim Watts wrote:



jgharston wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
Latest tree shagging lefty moronicity from some "leader in educashun" was
in the paper yesterday, headlined (paraphrased) "Don't make schoolkids
clean their plate before getting pudding".

Pudding? Wots that?

Realisitcally, how/why are schools preventing children from
learning to adjust future actions based on past experiences?
"I had too much food on my plate yesterday, so today I'll
put less food on my plate."

At primary, they don't get a choice - they get a standard serving of one of
typically 2 options.

I've eaten with both of mine at school (allergy issues, testing some menu
options) and I have a few observations:

1) Modern state school meals (at least at our primary school) are bloody
fanstastic. No dodgey liver(+tubes) + bacon, no battery-acid-sour rhubarb
tart - everything was really decent.

2) They don't "require" kids clean their plate, though they give stickers to
those who do. However, my kids cleaned their plates because I told them that
was expected by me, even if the school did not expect it.

3) My kids tell me of a few other kids who discard half (or more) of their
main meal and still get pudding.

2 disappoints me - these are age 5-12 year olds. As a parent, I trust the
school to ensure they eat properly at lunchtime, as that is the reason I pay
for school dinners, because, particularly in winter, nothing is a good as a
hot meal. But I fully support the choice to provide a packed lunch for those
that want to.

3 disappoints me more - kids that young don't have the nous to make good
choices all the time and I don;t support rewarding bad eating habits with
puddings.

The school does try to encourage healthy eating though, with free fruits for
reception kids and a "no sweets" policy. I won't make a fuss because big sis
will report on little bro if he fails to eat everything, but the last thing
I want to see is some high level twonk encouraging poor behaviour at the top
when they should be doing exactly the opposite.

It smacks of the same lefty wooly thinking ******** that ruined education in
the 70's.

Yes, my education was utterly ruined by the lack of insistence that I
ate my main before pudding. Or rather, it wasn't.

One of the strongest memories I have of childhood is the infant school
teacher trying to make me eat my main course. I didn't. I think I
probably threw up at them. Not long after that I was on packed lunches,
which lasted till secondary school where that wasn't an option, but at
least there they didn't do anything foolish like try to make me eat it.
It wouldn't have been worth the stress for them, and they wouldn't have
succeeded.

The lesson from that? Prescriptive policies of the form you'd like don't
actually work.

Interestingly the lefty wooly thinking ******** comp I went to was also
much better than the telegraph-friendly grammar school I went to later,
despite having a broader intake.

wonder what harry;s school meals policy was....?

Jim K