20 MPH, sorry

--

....................................

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

....................................





"'Mike'" wrote in message
...


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 27, 11:16 pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 27/01/2012 09:52, harry wrote:

Re29/31mph, yes, that could be the case. It might make the difference
between hitting someone and not.

So you'll agree that driving at 31 may be illegal but not unsafe?

Andy


In some circumstances for some people in some cars.

Godshill Village here on the Isle of Wight has a 30 MPH speed limit. At
the height of the tourist season, if you can drive through at 20 MH
""SAFELY"" you are lucky. "You drive according to the conditions
prevailing at the time"

Only had a licence since 1954 so some are more experienced than me
........ sorry

Mike


--

...................................

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

...................................

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f230bc0.1147904718@localhost...

The problem with having your attitude is that you are convinced that
if the speed limit is 60MPH, then it must be perfectly safe to
actually drive at 60MPH.


You do know the UK operates variable speed limits.. that is the maximum safe
speed up to and including the posted limit.
Its one of the fundamentals of driving.

On 28/01/2012 15:56, harry wrote:
On Jan 27, 11:16 pm, Andy wrote:
On 27/01/2012 09:52, harry wrote:

Re29/31mph, yes, that could be the case. It might make the difference
between hitting someone and not.

So you'll agree that driving at 31 may be illegal but not unsafe?

Andy


In some circumstances for some people in some cars.

So after all that we end up agreeing! (the converse is of course also
true; 29 might be legal, but unsafe)

Can I BTW refer you back to your earlier post (not to me):

" You are the delusional one. It is the same people determines the
speed limit whatever it's reason.
Whatever the reason it's not an excuse to ignore it."

Andy

On 25/01/2012 17:44, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of
labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal
working people to get your work?

On the simple point of undercutting labour, that is not a problem -
China is already doing that. As we already have to pay for imprisoning
people, getting them to work for no pay would simply be repatriating
work that has been outsourced and would produce "profit" (reducing
prison costs) at no cost to UK jobs.

However, it may be more cost effective overall to get prisoners
perfoming work that is more likely to be useful in getting a job after
release.

SteveW

On 29/01/2012 23:07, Steve Walker wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:44, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of
labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal
working people to get your work?

On the simple point of undercutting labour, that is not a problem -
China is already doing that. As we already have to pay for imprisoning
people, getting them to work for no pay would simply be repatriating
work that has been outsourced and would produce "profit" (reducing
prison costs) at no cost to UK jobs.

Have a harder think about what you're proposing. Think about the sort of
work it's practical to get prisoners doing, and think about the sort of
work which has been sent abroad - there's a very small intersection, and
it's not going to make any economic sense to do it.

However, it may be more cost effective overall to get prisoners
perfoming work that is more likely to be useful in getting a job after
release.

Agreed - but that's just part of normal rehabilitation, not punishment.
And doing that is not going to do what Harry desires, which is turn
enough of a profit to pay for the prisoner's keep.

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On the simple point of undercutting labour, that is not a problem -
China is already doing that.

For clearing out canals, removing graffiti, etc as has been suggested?
And you're suggesting the Chinese labour is unskilled, which it isn't, and
unskilled is the only sort of work prisoners could be expected to do.

As we already have to pay for imprisoning
people, getting them to work for no pay would simply be repatriating
work that has been outsourced and would produce "profit" (reducing
prison costs) at no cost to UK jobs.

Have you thought about the costs surrounding this work? Supervision of
prisoners etc? That's likely to cost more than their work brings in.

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On the simple point of undercutting labour, that is not a problem -
China is already doing that.

For clearing out canals, removing graffiti, etc as has been suggested?
And you're suggesting the Chinese labour is unskilled, which it isn't, and
unskilled is the only sort of work prisoners could be expected to do.

As we already have to pay for imprisoning
people, getting them to work for no pay would simply be repatriating
work that has been outsourced and would produce "profit" (reducing
prison costs) at no cost to UK jobs.

Have you thought about the costs surrounding this work? Supervision of
prisoners etc? That's likely to cost more than their work brings in.


The answer is simple: those on benefits who commit crimes get their
benefits withdrawn and they are then only eligible for whatever scheme
like the above is deemed socially useful. If they fail to turn up then
they don't get any money at all.

If they aren't on benefits they get a hefty fine redeemable if they DO
turn up to work on public service schemes.

This doesn't cater for the violent criminal, but for sure its a
replacement for the 'been busted with a kilo of grass again' sort.

Mind you, arguably they shouldnt be there at all anyway :-)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news-i...-201201254813/

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Have you thought about the costs surrounding this work? Supervision of
prisoners etc? That's likely to cost more than their work brings in.


The answer is simple: those on benefits who commit crimes get their
benefits withdrawn and they are then only eligible for whatever scheme
like the above is deemed socially useful. If they fail to turn up then
they don't get any money at all.

Does anyone in prison still get benefits? I somehow doubt it.

If they aren't on benefits they get a hefty fine redeemable if they DO
turn up to work on public service schemes.

I assume warders would be taking them there and supervising them.

This doesn't cater for the violent criminal, but for sure its a
replacement for the 'been busted with a kilo of grass again' sort.

Mind you, arguably they shouldnt be there at all anyway :-)

Quite. The idea of a prisoner being able to 'pay for his keep' is most
unlikely.

--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Have you thought about the costs surrounding this work? Supervision of
prisoners etc? That's likely to cost more than their work brings in.


The answer is simple: those on benefits who commit crimes get their
benefits withdrawn and they are then only eligible for whatever scheme
like the above is deemed socially useful. If they fail to turn up then
they don't get any money at all.

Does anyone in prison still get benefits? I somehow doubt it.


their dependents do.

BUT that wasn't my point.

My point was to NOT give them free board and lodging at public expense
which costs a lot more than benefits, but to make them dependent on
actually doing **** work to get any money at all.



If they aren't on benefits they get a hefty fine redeemable if they DO
turn up to work on public service schemes.

I assume warders would be taking them there and supervising them.

This doesn't cater for the violent criminal, but for sure its a
replacement for the 'been busted with a kilo of grass again' sort.

Mind you, arguably they shouldnt be there at all anyway :-)

Quite. The idea of a prisoner being able to 'pay for his keep' is most
unlikely.


??? I don't follow your logic..

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Does anyone in prison still get benefits? I somehow doubt it.


their dependents do.

You want their children etc to starve?

BUT that wasn't my point.

My point was to NOT give them free board and lodging at public expense
which costs a lot more than benefits, but to make them dependent on
actually doing **** work to get any money at all.

Then I ask again. What **** work? If it is manufacturing things, that
needs at least some skill. And simple things are likely made by machine
rather cheaper now anyway. If some form of unskilled work - like has been
said clearing litter etc - that needs supervision and transport etc. All
of which costs.



If they aren't on benefits they get a hefty fine redeemable if they DO
turn up to work on public service schemes.

I assume warders would be taking them there and supervising them.

This doesn't cater for the violent criminal, but for sure its a
replacement for the 'been busted with a kilo of grass again' sort.

Mind you, arguably they shouldnt be there at all anyway :-)

Quite. The idea of a prisoner being able to 'pay for his keep' is most
unlikely.


??? I don't follow your logic..

Sigh. It cost a great deal of money per head to imprison. The chances of
them being able to truly earn their keep is very unlikely. If you wish to
just generate some form of work for them to do as part of the punishment,
fair enough. Provided you realise this may likely just *add* to the cost
of keeping them in prison. If it didn't, wouldn't it be in force now?

--
*Where there's a will, I want to be in it.

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

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:30:05 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

It was obviously designed to be an *attended* system. It is therefore
up to the individual to ensure that it *is* attended 24/7. As far as
the alarm not being heard is concerned - what a pathetic excuse to use
when someone's life is at stake! If it were myself whose partner was
on such a system, I'd fit a loud siren at the very least.

So you expect a woman in her eighties and her ill husband to second
guess the NHS, know that things should be better and fight for it. They
were simply glad that he could spend his final time at home rather than
being stuck in hospital tied to their machines.

Unless she was senile (in which case she should not have been given
the position of carer), then yes, I would certainly expect *any* adult
to realise that they might not hear the alarm that was fitted, and to
arrange for an improvement.

And even if the woman herself did not realise the deficiency, it seems
that *you* did, and could have informed the woman and have suggested
possible remedies. You can buy devices off the shelf for under £20
that will effectively increase the volume of an alarm so that nobody
could sleep through it.

--
Cynic

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:35:14 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

It will be necessary for the carer to work out solutions to that
problem. Just as a parent must work out an arrangement to ensure that
their baby is not left unattended. No, it is not a particularly
enviable position to be in, but it is *far* from being insurmountable.
If the backup system that was provided is indequate for the
environment it is to be used in, then either the environment will need
to change, or additional backups fitted.

You are surely not saying that the setup would be significantly better
if only there were no thieves?

So what's the solution to you being on your final warning at work,
knowing that you have no resources to fall back on if dismissed and the
arranged carers don't turn up yet again, your neighbours are out, etc.?
The NHS won't provide any better and you have no money to pay for
anything yourself?

In another post you stated that the woman was in her 80's, so you have
obviously invented an unlikely scenario that you believe would make it
impossible to keep the sick person safe.

If the life of someone I cared about depended on it however, I assure
you that I would be able to find a solution PDQ. I can think of
several possible solutions to the situation you pose, but if I suggest
any you would simply counter with a different scenario.

It's no good saying that NHS/Social services will provide. They won't.
Funds are always limited and many things that absolutely should be done,
aren't.

I have always been able to find some way to manage without long-term
state assistance or charity. Perhaps because I don't *expect* anyone
to look out for me except myself.

--
Cynic

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:57:54 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote:

All lawyers and memebers of the judiciary should spent two years
living on a sink estate for a start.

What do you believe that might achive?

ISTM that if it achieves anything at all, it would be to make judges
more sympathetic toward people in such a situation, and they would
possibly impose more lenient sentences on any convicted of a crime.

Unless they'd had their windows smashed and their car scratched for
being "posh".

My response was to the suggestion that judges etc. should live on a
sink estate for 2 years. I took that to mean that they should live
*in the same conditions* as the people on such an estate.

Anyone who lives their life at a standard that is visibly and
considerably different to their neighbours is likely to be victimised.
It would be little different if a person who had lived all their life
on a sink estate were to inherit a house in a "posh" estate. Unless
they could and did alter their lifestyle considerably, it would set
them apart and they would be resented by their neighbours. Maybe they
would not have their windows smashed or car keyed (though it is not
all that unlikely that those things would happen), but they would
probably be subjected to forms of harassment that are just as bad -
even if they are legal forms of harassment.

--
Cynic

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:50:08 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

You lament to your teenage son that some ******* nicked all your tools
from your shed and drove off with them in a van. Your son tells a few
of his mates. The group of teenagers come across a parked van
containing tools that your son mistakes for the ones stolen from you.
He and his mates decide to grab them back. While they are doing so,
the bloke your son assumes is the thief starts shouting at them from a
rooftop. He and his mates shout back abuse at the supposed thief.

Is taking back the supposedly stolen tools acceptable vigilante
behaviour or not?

No. My (true) story was quite clear. He himself saw the tools being
stolen and who took them. Not second hand identification - the "rumour"
I mentioned. In your scenario, it is obvious that the son cannot know
for sure. As the tools are actually there, there is no problem with
calling the police and waiting - noting the van's reg. in case he drives
off.

You miss the point. In my scenario, your relative would have seen
*exactly* the same thing, and so been just as certain that his tools
were being taken by a thief, when in fact the person taking them fully
believed that he was perfectly entitled to take the tools.

The point is that even when it *appears* to be absolutely certain that
a crime is being committed, occassionally the witness is mistaken and
what they see is not what it appears to be.

--
Cynic

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Does anyone in prison still get benefits? I somehow doubt it.


their dependents do.

You want their children etc to starve?

BUT that wasn't my point.

My point was to NOT give them free board and lodging at public expense
which costs a lot more than benefits, but to make them dependent on
actually doing **** work to get any money at all.

Then I ask again. What **** work? If it is manufacturing things, that
needs at least some skill. And simple things are likely made by machine
rather cheaper now anyway. If some form of unskilled work - like has been
said clearing litter etc - that needs supervision and transport etc. All
of which costs.



Fruit picking which is currently run by Mafia supplied Eastern Europeans
is a good one.

Meat packing is good too.

So is ditch clearing. And removing litter and cleaning dog poop from
footpaths.

Or shovelling snow (other than up your nose).

The point is these jobs DONT get done because no one can afford to pay
amnyine miniumum wage. So pass a law saying 'minimum age doesn't apply
to prisoners etc' and let them do that for £3 an hour and make it up to
£6 and hour or whatever - its still cheaper than the nick.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:52:58 +0000, Clive George
wrote:

Try answering the question I asked.

No, it's a straw man.

It certainly is not. It is fundamental to the issue of allowing
employees to share the profits of a company. Because if employees
share the profits, they should also surely be obliged to share the
losses.

You've asserted that those at the top earn their
money through taking risks, and those risks affect them. I'm pointing
out you're wrong.

Not in most cases I'm not. Whilst those who finally "make it" may be
in a position of low risk, the vast majority had to risk everything,
and devote a greater percentage of their life to the company than most
employees would dream of doing in order to get to that position.

For every successful person who you envy, there will be 10 who failed
and lost everything.

Yes, sure there are a few cases where the person has had everything
handed to them on a plate, but that is the exception rather than the
rule. Most people earning 6 or 7 figures worked bloody hard, made
many sacrifices and took many risks to get there.

--
Cynic

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Does anyone in prison still get benefits? I somehow doubt it.

By law the council has to keep their tenancy open for sentences of less
that a year (could be 6 months, not sure).



I assume warders would be taking them there and supervising them.
There are no warders in the UK prison service.

Bill

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Sigh. It cost a great deal of money per head to imprison. The chances of
them being able to truly earn their keep is very unlikely. If you wish to
just generate some form of work for them to do as part of the punishment,
fair enough. Provided you realise this may likely just *add* to the cost
of keeping them in prison. If it didn't, wouldn't it be in force now?

Don't forget that prisoners are expected to take part in either
'Industries' (factory work within the prison) or Education. Lounging in
the cell all day is discouraged. Some prisons have extensive industrial
training departments where prisoners can learn a trade.
They also do a lot of work around the site (painting, gardening, minor
improvement works, window cleaning, general site maintenance). All the
food is prepared and cooked by prisoners. The laundry is operated by
prisoners. Prisoners also staff the library, and the literate ones help
out with the education of their less fortunate bretheren. The TV systems
are usually operated by a prisoners (DVDs to change, info pages to
prepare and upload, etc).

Bill

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:06:32 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

There are only a few reasons they get caught, either..

they saw the camera and ignored it

they were travelling too fast for them to slow down when they saw the camera

they didn't see the bright yellow box on a stick

they aren't paying attention to their driving and don't know what the speed
limit is

None of them are make a good driver!

I disagree that failing to see the camera necessarily makes a person a
bad driver. A good driver should focus their prime attention on
everything that is likely to be a risk factor, and other things that
are not a safety issue should be of secondary concern. In some cases
the driver will quite correctly be fully focussed on moving objects
that are obviously far more hazardous than a piece of stationary
street furniture, and have insufficient spare capacity to notice the
colour of the roadside flowers, the bright advert on the side of a bus
shelter or a square yellow box.

There was an inquest a year or so back when the coroner remarked that
a driver's reaction to a pedestrian stepping out in front of his car
was quite possibly slowed due to having just spotted a speed camera
and becoming focussed on ensuring he did not pass it too fast. The
pedestrian's death was ruled as being an accident with no blame to the
driver, who forensics found was travelling below the speed limit at
the time the pedestrian stepped into the road. The position of the
camera was however considered to be a contribitory factor

According to what you have stated however, a driver who had spotted
the pedestrian and given full attention to avoiding hitting that
pedestrian, but who had not spotted the bright yellow camera would be
a worse driver.

--
Cynic

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:48:03 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The problem with having your attitude is that you are convinced that
if the speed limit is 60MPH, then it must be perfectly safe to
actually drive at 60MPH.

You do know the UK operates variable speed limits.. that is the maximum safe
speed up to and including the posted limit.
Its one of the fundamentals of driving.

So many people believe what you have stated that it is difficult to
know whether you are serious or not.

--
cynic

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:53:50 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Children trespassing, but meaning no harm are very different to adults
damaging and stealing deliberately.

I do not agree. They are both doing something they know is forbidden
for the sole purpose of getting some form of personal gratification.

Are you sure there is any such law involving trespassing?

Whether there is a law or not is beside the point. The person doing
it knows that it is wrong, and the act is dangerous enough to be
fatal.

IIUC however, trespassing *on railway property* is indeed a crime,
BICBW.

--
Cynic

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Then I ask again. What **** work? If it is manufacturing things, that
needs at least some skill. And simple things are likely made by
machine rather cheaper now anyway. If some form of unskilled work -
like has been said clearing litter etc - that needs supervision and
transport etc. All of which costs.



Fruit picking which is currently run by Mafia supplied Eastern Europeans
is a good one.

Right. So you put all the prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs on buses and take
them to Evesham?

Meat packing is good too.

Could be. But then most of these facilities are centralised these days.

So is ditch clearing. And removing litter and cleaning dog poop from
footpaths.

True

Or shovelling snow (other than up your nose).

Bit seasonal?

The point is these jobs DONT get done because no one can afford to pay
amnyine miniumum wage. So pass a law saying 'minimum age doesn't apply
to prisoners etc' and let them do that for £3 an hour and make it up to
£6 and hour or whatever - its still cheaper than the nick.

I'd need to know the extra costs of transporting them around, supervision,
feeding etc while working outside the prison before making any decisions.
And my guess is it's already been looked at and decided it will cost more
than it brings in.

--
*Income tax service - We‘ve got what it takes to take what you've got.

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

In article 4f26c442.69430531@localhost,
Cynic wrote:
Not in most cases I'm not. Whilst those who finally "make it" may be
in a position of low risk, the vast majority had to risk everything,
and devote a greater percentage of their life to the company than most
employees would dream of doing in order to get to that position.

That's not been the case in any of the companies I've worked for.

For every successful person who you envy, there will be 10 who failed
and lost everything.

Envy? The envy seems to be from those who want workers not to go on strike
and to be grateful for any morsels from the lord's table.

Yes, sure there are a few cases where the person has had everything
handed to them on a plate, but that is the exception rather than the
rule. Most people earning 6 or 7 figures worked bloody hard, made
many sacrifices and took many risks to get there.

And you think hard work is restricted to those who earn large sums?

--
*Rehab is for quitters.

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

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Does anyone in prison still get benefits? I somehow doubt it.

By law the council has to keep their tenancy open for sentences of less
that a year (could be 6 months, not sure).

Given they would only have to re-house them if they didn't, makes sense.
Although you could well be the type who thinks one punishment isn't
enough.

I assume warders would be taking them there and supervising them.

There are no warders in the UK prison service.

This from the one who constantly goes on about how sad it is when the
language use changes...

--
*Am I ambivalent? Well, yes and no.

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

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Sigh. It cost a great deal of money per head to imprison. The chances
of them being able to truly earn their keep is very unlikely. If you
wish to just generate some form of work for them to do as part of the
punishment, fair enough. Provided you realise this may likely just
*add* to the cost of keeping them in prison. If it didn't, wouldn't it
be in force now?

Don't forget that prisoners are expected to take part in either
'Industries' (factory work within the prison) or Education. Lounging in
the cell all day is discouraged. Some prisons have extensive industrial
training departments where prisoners can learn a trade.
They also do a lot of work around the site (painting, gardening, minor
improvement works, window cleaning, general site maintenance). All the
food is prepared and cooked by prisoners. The laundry is operated by
prisoners. Prisoners also staff the library, and the literate ones help
out with the education of their less fortunate bretheren. The TV systems
are usually operated by a prisoners (DVDs to change, info pages to
prepare and upload, etc).

Indeed. And rightly so. If prison really did rehabilitate, it would be
worth the cost. Of course it does for some, but sadly not for most.

--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

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

On 30/01/2012 16:33, Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:52:58 +0000, Clive George
wrote:

Try answering the question I asked.

No, it's a straw man.

It certainly is not. It is fundamental to the issue of allowing
employees to share the profits of a company. Because if employees
share the profits, they should also surely be obliged to share the
losses.

You seem to be completely ignoring the financial makeup of a lot of big
companies. The people at the top there don't take personal risks. They
risk other's money.

The bosses are not the same people as the shareholders in big publically
traded companies, or indeed in many privately held ones. The link has
been broken, and that is giving the problems we're talking about.
(yes, the bosses have a shareholding, but only a small one)

You've asserted that those at the top earn their
money through taking risks, and those risks affect them. I'm pointing
out you're wrong.

Not in most cases I'm not. Whilst those who finally "make it" may be
in a position of low risk, the vast majority had to risk everything,

Disagree.

and devote a greater percentage of their life to the company than most
employees would dream of doing in order to get to that position.

Working hard is not the same as risking everything.

For every successful person who you envy, there will be 10 who failed
and lost everything.

The people I'm talking about didn't place themselves in a position where
they could fail and lose everything.

Yes, sure there are a few cases where the person has had everything
handed to them on a plate, but that is the exception rather than the
rule. Most people earning 6 or 7 figures worked bloody hard, made
many sacrifices and took many risks to get there.

Disagree. Worked hard, yes, made sacrifices, well as part of working
hard, long hours maybe, took many risks of their own money, definitely not.

There's a question in there - what proportion of those earning that
amount are self-made, and what proportion are those who grew within
existing companies. I reckon the majority are the latter.

Clive George wrote:
On 30/01/2012 16:33, Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:52:58 +0000, Clive George
wrote:

Try answering the question I asked.

No, it's a straw man.

It certainly is not. It is fundamental to the issue of allowing
employees to share the profits of a company. Because if employees
share the profits, they should also surely be obliged to share the
losses.

You seem to be completely ignoring the financial makeup of a lot of big
companies. The people at the top there don't take personal risks. They
risk other's money.

Thats the difference between a privately owned company and a listed one.

Most listed companies were risk takers once, but tat was years ago.

Then they become cash cows, leveraging their market shares and fine
tuning productivity.

The top management have gold plated contracts whether they do a good job
or not, by and large.

It's a very different story in an SME where the owner mortgages his home
to start it and stands to lose everything, and personally knows all the
staff members.

In article , hugh
] writes
How about removing Himalayan Balsam from the waterways of this country.

There is a bit of a precedent for this, back in the 1960's some of
Winson Green's residents helped restore the southern part of the
Stratford upon Avon canal.


Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "news" with "adrian" and "nospam" with "ffoil"
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

On 30/01/2012 01:39, Clive George wrote:
On 29/01/2012 23:07, Steve Walker wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:44, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of
labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal
working people to get your work?

On the simple point of undercutting labour, that is not a problem -
China is already doing that. As we already have to pay for imprisoning
people, getting them to work for no pay would simply be repatriating
work that has been outsourced and would produce "profit" (reducing
prison costs) at no cost to UK jobs.

Have a harder think about what you're proposing. Think about the sort of
work it's practical to get prisoners doing, and think about the sort of
work which has been sent abroad - there's a very small intersection, and
it's not going to make any economic sense to do it.

A lot of assembly and simple manufacturing work has been sent abroad. As
the prisoners already have to be housed and supervised, the cost of
getting them doing something is not great and therefore their labour
could be costed out to companies as a very low rate. IIRC Volex dimmer
switches used to be assembled at Styal Prison.

However, it may be more cost effective overall to get prisoners
perfoming work that is more likely to be useful in getting a job after
release.

Agreed - but that's just part of normal rehabilitation, not punishment.
And doing that is not going to do what Harry desires, which is turn
enough of a profit to pay for the prisoner's keep.

He may be suggesting that, but I am not. I simply think that keeping the
prisoners occupied and maybe earning a small amount towards the prison
service is better than nothing. No way would it pay even a reasonbable
proportion of the cost of imprisoning people, but it would make a small
contribution and, possibly more importantly, keep them occupied.

SteveW

On 30/01/2012 12:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Steve wrote:
On the simple point of undercutting labour, that is not a problem -
China is already doing that.

For clearing out canals, removing graffiti, etc as has been suggested?
And you're suggesting the Chinese labour is unskilled, which it isn't, and
unskilled is the only sort of work prisoners could be expected to do.

IIRC prisoners at Styal Prison used to assemble Volex dimmer switches.

Light manufacturing and assembly work is perfectly possible in the lower
category prisons.

As we already have to pay for imprisoning
people, getting them to work for no pay would simply be repatriating
work that has been outsourced and would produce "profit" (reducing
prison costs) at no cost to UK jobs.

Have you thought about the costs surrounding this work? Supervision of
prisoners etc? That's likely to cost more than their work brings in.

They have to be supervised anyway. The cost of some additional
supervision vs the sums charged to companies to produce their goods
would surely permit some small element of profit, no matter how tiny -
as I said before, it used to be done.

I personally would prefer that they were given decent training towards
future work, but as that is costly and difficult, even getting them to
do basic work and be used to working full time would be an advantage.

SteveW

On 30/01/2012 20:45, Steve Walker wrote:
On 30/01/2012 01:39, Clive George wrote:
On 29/01/2012 23:07, Steve Walker wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:44, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of
labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal
working people to get your work?

On the simple point of undercutting labour, that is not a problem -
China is already doing that. As we already have to pay for imprisoning
people, getting them to work for no pay would simply be repatriating
work that has been outsourced and would produce "profit" (reducing
prison costs) at no cost to UK jobs.

Have a harder think about what you're proposing. Think about the sort of
work it's practical to get prisoners doing, and think about the sort of
work which has been sent abroad - there's a very small intersection, and
it's not going to make any economic sense to do it.

A lot of assembly and simple manufacturing work has been sent abroad. As
the prisoners already have to be housed and supervised, the cost of
getting them doing something is not great and therefore their labour
could be costed out to companies as a very low rate. IIRC Volex dimmer
switches used to be assembled at Styal Prison.

The overheads of employing prisoners will mean this is never
cost-effective. Chinese labour is insanely cheap, and doesn't require
extra security.

However, it may be more cost effective overall to get prisoners
perfoming work that is more likely to be useful in getting a job after
release.

Agreed - but that's just part of normal rehabilitation, not punishment.
And doing that is not going to do what Harry desires, which is turn
enough of a profit to pay for the prisoner's keep.

He may be suggesting that, but I am not. I simply think that keeping the
prisoners occupied and maybe earning a small amount towards the prison
service is better than nothing. No way would it pay even a reasonbable
proportion of the cost of imprisoning people, but it would make a small
contribution and, possibly more importantly, keep them occupied.

TV keeps them occupied.

Getting them doing positive work is a good plan, but it'll cost more
than it makes and it won't satisfy those who want chain gangs. Harry is
one of those people.

On Jan 30, 8:45*pm, Steve Walker -
family.me.uk wrote:
On 30/01/2012 01:39, Clive George wrote:





On 29/01/2012 23:07, Steve Walker wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:44, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of
labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal
working people to get your work?

On the simple point of undercutting labour, that is not a problem -
China is already doing that. As we already have to pay for imprisoning
people, getting them to work for no pay would simply be repatriating
work that has been outsourced and would produce "profit" (reducing
prison costs) at no cost to UK jobs.

Have a harder think about what you're proposing. Think about the sort of
work it's practical to get prisoners doing, and think about the sort of
work which has been sent abroad - there's a very small intersection, and
it's not going to make any economic sense to do it.

A lot of assembly and simple manufacturing work has been sent abroad. As
the prisoners already have to be housed and supervised, the cost of
getting them doing something is not great and therefore their labour
could be costed out to companies as a very low rate. IIRC Volex dimmer
switches used to be assembled at Styal Prison.

However, it may be more cost effective overall to get prisoners
perfoming work that is more likely to be useful in getting a job after
release.

Agreed - but that's just part of normal rehabilitation, not punishment.
And doing that is not going to do what Harry desires, which is turn
enough of a profit to pay for the prisoner's keep.

He may be suggesting that, but I am not. I simply think that keeping the
prisoners occupied and maybe earning a small amount towards the prison
service is better than nothing. No way would it pay even a reasonbable
proportion of the cost of imprisoning people, but it would make a small
contribution and, possibly more importantly, keep them occupied.

SteveW- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am suggesting that prisoners stay in jail until they have fully
compensated their victims. Some would have to stay there for ever but
who cares?
I feel quite sure a weekly cheque would be appreciated by the victims.
And they should pay for their keep and any luxuries/priviledges they
have.

And persons studying law should expereince total immersion in crime.
The present judiciary is in lala land. They have zero experience of
life in their rarified circles. You only have to see some of the
utter crap spouted here.

On Jan 30, 10:11*pm, Clive George wrote:
On 30/01/2012 20:45, Steve Walker wrote:





On 30/01/2012 01:39, Clive George wrote:
On 29/01/2012 23:07, Steve Walker wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:44, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of
labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal
working people to get your work?

On the simple point of undercutting labour, that is not a problem -
China is already doing that. As we already have to pay for imprisoning
people, getting them to work for no pay would simply be repatriating
work that has been outsourced and would produce "profit" (reducing
prison costs) at no cost to UK jobs.

Have a harder think about what you're proposing. Think about the sort of
work it's practical to get prisoners doing, and think about the sort of
work which has been sent abroad - there's a very small intersection, and
it's not going to make any economic sense to do it.

A lot of assembly and simple manufacturing work has been sent abroad. As
the prisoners already have to be housed and supervised, the cost of
getting them doing something is not great and therefore their labour
could be costed out to companies as a very low rate. IIRC Volex dimmer
switches used to be assembled at Styal Prison.

The overheads of employing prisoners will mean this is never
cost-effective. Chinese labour is insanely cheap, and doesn't require
extra security.

However, it may be more cost effective overall to get prisoners
perfoming work that is more likely to be useful in getting a job after
release.

Agreed - but that's just part of normal rehabilitation, not punishment..
And doing that is not going to do what Harry desires, which is turn
enough of a profit to pay for the prisoner's keep.

He may be suggesting that, but I am not. I simply think that keeping the
prisoners occupied and maybe earning a small amount towards the prison
service is better than nothing. No way would it pay even a reasonbable
proportion of the cost of imprisoning people, but it would make a small
contribution and, possibly more importantly, keep them occupied.

TV keeps them occupied.

Getting them doing positive work is a good plan, but it'll cost more
than it makes and it won't satisfy those who want chain gangs. Harry is
one of those people.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, I'm a chain ganger. It's called deterrence. I also think hanging
and flogging is good. And caning in schools.

I watched the TV programme the other night about the Oz backpack
killer.
Ideal candidate for flogging first and then hanging.
I expect cynic will say he is innocent and it was his mother's fault..

For the religious nuts, it's all in the bible too.
2000 years of experience can't be wrong.

In message
,
harry writes
On Jan 30, 10:11*pm, Clive George wrote:
On 30/01/2012 20:45, Steve Walker wrote:





On 30/01/2012 01:39, Clive George wrote:
On 29/01/2012 23:07, Steve Walker wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:44, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of
labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal
working people to get your work?

On the simple point of undercutting labour, that is not a problem -
China is already doing that. As we already have to pay for imprisoning
people, getting them to work for no pay would simply be repatriating
work that has been outsourced and would produce "profit" (reducing
prison costs) at no cost to UK jobs.

Have a harder think about what you're proposing. Think about the sort of
work it's practical to get prisoners doing, and think about the sort of
work which has been sent abroad - there's a very small intersection, and
it's not going to make any economic sense to do it.

A lot of assembly and simple manufacturing work has been sent abroad. As
the prisoners already have to be housed and supervised, the cost of
getting them doing something is not great and therefore their labour
could be costed out to companies as a very low rate. IIRC Volex dimmer
switches used to be assembled at Styal Prison.

The overheads of employing prisoners will mean this is never
cost-effective. Chinese labour is insanely cheap, and doesn't require
extra security.

However, it may be more cost effective overall to get prisoners
perfoming work that is more likely to be useful in getting a job after
release.

Agreed - but that's just part of normal rehabilitation, not punishment.
And doing that is not going to do what Harry desires, which is turn
enough of a profit to pay for the prisoner's keep.

He may be suggesting that, but I am not. I simply think that keeping the
prisoners occupied and maybe earning a small amount towards the prison
service is better than nothing. No way would it pay even a reasonbable
proportion of the cost of imprisoning people, but it would make a small
contribution and, possibly more importantly, keep them occupied.

TV keeps them occupied.

Getting them doing positive work is a good plan, but it'll cost more
than it makes and it won't satisfy those who want chain gangs. Harry is
one of those people.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, I'm a chain ganger. It's called deterrence. I also think hanging
and flogging is good. And caning in schools.

I watched the TV programme the other night about the Oz backpack
killer.
Ideal candidate for flogging first and then hanging.
I expect cynic will say he is innocent and it was his mother's fault..

For the religious nuts, it's all in the bible too.
2000 years of experience can't be wrong.

But such punishments are rarely advocated in 'The Bible 2' (the
follow-on bit that was written and compiled 2000 years ago).
--
Ian

In article
,
harry wrote:
I am suggesting that prisoners stay in jail until they have fully
compensated their victims. Some would have to stay there for ever but
who cares?

I do. It costs a great deal to keep someone in prison, and is only
worthwhile where that person presents a danger to the community. As a
deterrent it's fairly useless given the poor detection of many crimes. And
perhaps most come out after their sentence more able/keen to pursue a life
of crime, rather than rehabilitated.

I feel quite sure a weekly cheque would be appreciated by the victims.
And they should pay for their keep and any luxuries/priviledges they
have.

Given that 'pay check' will come from the state anyway, how are you going
to decide what it is? And how do you decide what 'their keep' costs? The
actual costs of keeping someone in prison is higher than the national
average wage.

And persons studying law should expereince total immersion in crime. The
present judiciary is in lala land. They have zero experience of life in
their rarified circles. You only have to see some of the utter crap
spouted here.

Well, I keep on asking for some real world details of how all this would
work. And they are sadly lacking. You seem to mimic dribble in believing
explicitly in ideas without clue as to how to implement them.

--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

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

In article
,
harry wrote:
Yes, I'm a chain ganger. It's called deterrence. I also think hanging
and flogging is good. And caning in schools.

Is it doing the flogging that turns you on - or receiving it?

I watched the TV programme the other night about the Oz backpack
killer.
Ideal candidate for flogging first and then hanging.
I expect cynic will say he is innocent and it was his mother's fault..

For the religious nuts, it's all in the bible too.
2000 years of experience can't be wrong.

You think all of the Bible can't be wrong? Or just the bits that suit you?

--
*Don't use no double negatives *

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

On Jan 27, 3:23*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:13:29 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=

wrote:
Well, you can post your fantasies to your heart's content, but it
doesn't make them facts.

It was not *meant* to be factual. *It was meant to be a joke.

Do you similarly believe that "Fawlty Towers" is supposed to be a
factual representation of the hotel industy?

it was based on a real hotel.


--
Cynic

In article
,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Jan 27, 3:23 pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:13:29 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=

wrote:
Well, you can post your fantasies to your heart's content, but it
doesn't make them facts.

It was not *meant* to be factual. It was meant to be a joke.

Do you similarly believe that "Fawlty Towers" is supposed to be a
factual representation of the hotel industy?

it was based on a real hotel.

and I've stayed in one just like it - in Devon, but not the Torbay area.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Jan 31, 10:21*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

Yes, I'm a chain ganger. It's called deterrence. I also think hanging
and flogging is good. *And caning in schools.

Is it doing the flogging that turns you on - or receiving it?

Why not both.

of cause one way is to let the prisoner decide his own punishment
without actually letting on.

They asked a the person who raped and 80 year old women
what he would do to someone that raped his grandmother,
he said" I'd f***ing kill them" or word to that effect

So there you go, he sentanced himself.



I watched the TV programme the other night about the Oz backpack
killer.
Ideal candidate for flogging first and then hanging.
I expect cynic will say he is innocent and it was his mother's fault..
For the religious nuts, it's all in the bible too.
2000 years of experience can't be wrong.

You think all of the Bible can't be wrong? Or just the bits that suit you?

I thought mosty of the Bible was stories made up and embelished by
those wnating
an interesting read while telling others how they should behave.


--
*Don't use no double negatives *

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

In article 7db73b28-724b-45e0-baf5-d3ffba617379
@o12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jan 27, 3:23*pm, (Cynic) wrote:

Do you similarly believe that "Fawlty Towers" is supposed to be a
factual representation of the hotel industy?

it was based on a real hotel.

I've heard of and experienced of real life guest houses that make Fawlty
Towers look good, and Basil seem a comparatively sane and welcoming host
:-)

Janet