In article ,
polygonum wrote:
On 28/03/2013 11:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 28/03/2013 00:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I have a car bought and paid for - but still have to pay the
appropriate taxes on it. Even if I don't use it.


If you don't use it there are no taxes.

If on private property and appropriately SORNed, then maybe not. But Mr
P did NOT say that it was on private property. Nor that he had applied
for SORN - merely that he doesn't use it. Perhaps he wishes to retain
the option of using it without going through the de-SORN rigmarole?
Perhaps he wishes or has to keep it not on private property.

Quite. It is available for instant use - as is a house which you pay
council tax on. Remove the roof of that house etc so it is no longer
suitable for use and you'd not pay council tax.

--
*A day without sunshine is like... night.*

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

On 28/03/2013 11:59, polygonum wrote:
On 28/03/2013 11:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 28/03/2013 00:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I have a car bought and paid for - but still have to pay the appropriate
taxes on it. Even if I don't use it.


If you don't use it there are no taxes.

If on private property and appropriately SORNed, then maybe not. But Mr
P did NOT say that it was on private property. Nor that he had applied
for SORN - merely that he doesn't use it. Perhaps he wishes to retain
the option of using it without going through the de-SORN rigmarole?
Perhaps he wishes or has to keep it not on private property.


So he is using it then, even if its only to hold the tax disc on the road.

On 28/03/2013 16:10, dennis@home wrote:
On 28/03/2013 11:59, polygonum wrote:
On 28/03/2013 11:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 28/03/2013 00:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I have a car bought and paid for - but still have to pay the
appropriate
taxes on it. Even if I don't use it.


If you don't use it there are no taxes.

If on private property and appropriately SORNed, then maybe not. But Mr
P did NOT say that it was on private property. Nor that he had applied
for SORN - merely that he doesn't use it. Perhaps he wishes to retain
the option of using it without going through the de-SORN rigmarole?
Perhaps he wishes or has to keep it not on private property.


So he is using it then, even if its only to hold the tax disc on the road.

That is ridiculous even by your standards.

--
Rod

In message , Apellation
Controlee writes
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Tim+
wrote:

Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 17:12, Tim+ wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 16:41, harry wrote:
On Mar 26, 4:37 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 26/03/2013 16:21, harry wrote:

Latest thing to be sold off, search and rescue.
Sign the e-petition here about this matter.

https://submissions.epetitions.direc...etitions/45283

HM Coastguard runs the ones around here and AIUI, they will oversee the
new service in much the same way. Personally, in times when the
Services' budget is being cut, I would rather see what money there is
going to equip the troops on the front lines. It is not as if we need to
get a lot of downed pilots out of The Channel these days.

Colin Bignell

Tch. The service is for ANYONE in trouble on land or sea.
They fly in all weathers,sea rescue, mountain rescue civilians
military etc.

Exactly, so what particular reason is there for the SAR to be a military
operation? As I said, the Coastguard do it around here and the Police
helicopter also does searches.

Colin Bignell

Because the military will fly in conditions that would make any civilian
pilot's hair curl.

Where do you think the Police and Coastguard hire their pilots?

Colin Bignell

Do they fly under the same H&S regs? I strongly suspect military pilots
have more leeway.

Or are considered expendable in some circumstances...
Yes I wonder what the legal position would be if a civilian SAR crewman
was forced to make the awful decision to abandon his winchman to save
the aircraft. Sea Kings have a hydraulically operated axe next to the
cable for this purpose. It's not something which happens very often but
it is not unknown. Maybe civilian pilots would stay further away from
such risky situations.
--
bert

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
I don't have kids, don't use the fire service or police or really any
council services other than bin collection, but still pay full council
tax. This can't be legal, can it?

Council tax is just an idle way of arbitrarily collecting taxes to fund
local services. The expenditure on those services is largely property
independent if you look at the breakdown provided by your council round
this time of year.

I've never seen such a breakdown.

Leaving a house empty - other than for a short while when moving etc -
is a very anti-social act.

Real socialist thinking that one. It's my house, bought and paid for.

I have a car bought and paid for - but still have to pay the appropriate
taxes on it. Even if I don't use it.

But no-one calls you anti-social for leaving a car unused.
--
bert

In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Leaving a house empty - other than for a short while when moving etc -
is a very anti-social act.

Real socialist thinking that one. It's my house, bought and paid for.

I have a car bought and paid for - but still have to pay the appropriate
taxes on it. Even if I don't use it.

But no-one calls you anti-social for leaving a car unused.

Really? Even one parked for months outside your house?

You seem uncharacteristically tolerant on this.

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

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

On Mar 28, 8:23*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message , Apellation
Controlee writes







On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Tim+
wrote:

Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 17:12, Tim+ wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 16:41, harry wrote:
On Mar 26, 4:37 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 26/03/2013 16:21, harry wrote:

Latest thing to be sold off, search and rescue.
Sign the e-petition here about this matter.

https://submissions.epetitions.direc...etitions/45283

HM Coastguard runs the ones around here and AIUI, they will oversee the
new service in much the same way. Personally, in times when the
Services' budget is being cut, I would rather see what money there is
going to equip the troops on the front lines. It is not as if we need to
get a lot of downed pilots out of The Channel these days.

Colin Bignell

Tch. The service is for ANYONE in trouble on land or sea.
They fly in all weathers,sea rescue, mountain rescue civilians
military etc.

Exactly, so what particular reason is there for the SAR to be a military
operation? As I said, the Coastguard do it around here and the Police
helicopter also does searches.

Colin Bignell

Because the military will fly in conditions that would make any civilian
pilot's hair curl.

Where do you think the Police and Coastguard hire their pilots?

Colin Bignell

Do they fly under the same H&S regs? *I strongly suspect military pilots
have more leeway.

Or are considered expendable in some circumstances...

Yes I wonder what the legal position would be if a civilian SAR crewman
was forced to *make the awful decision to abandon his *winchman to save
the aircraft. Sea Kings have a hydraulically operated axe next to the
cable for this purpose. It's not something which happens very often but
it is not unknown. Maybe civilian pilots would stay further away from
such risky situations.
--
bert

It is there to cut the cable if it gets snagged on some ground thing
like a tree.
Not for "abandoning the winchman".

Certain glider towing tugs have exactly the same arrangement as do
winches for launching gliders.

whisky-dave wrote:

Strange that considering I was told by someone on here yesyerday that it was run by a charity/charities

Mountain rescue teams, lifeboats etc are run by charities but this
is for the military run SAR you know sea kings/nimrods etc, whose
primary role was retrieval of downed military pilots, civilian SAR was
a (very important) sideshoot to this role.


ASIDE:-
Are the coastgaurd considered as governmental or are they a charity
run thing?

On 29/03/2013 09:21, soup wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

Strange that considering I was told by someone on here yesyerday that
it was run by a charity/charities

Mountain rescue teams, lifeboats etc are run by charities but this
is for the military run SAR you know sea kings/nimrods etc, whose
primary role was retrieval of downed military pilots, civilian SAR was
a (very important) sideshoot to this role.


ASIDE:-
Are the coastgaurd considered as governmental or are they a charity
run thing?


It is currently part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which is
part of the Department for Transport, although it has been handed around
a number of different Ministries and Departments since the Board of
Trade took it over from the Admiralty in 1923. Its origins were as part
of HM Customs. They have had sub-contracted SAR helicopters at four
bases for quite some time now.

The Coastguard Rescue Service, which does cliff, swift water and mud
rescue and searches for missing people is a volunteer body within HM
Coastguard.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
soup wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

Strange that considering I was told by someone on here yesyerday that it was run by a charity/charities

Mountain rescue teams, lifeboats etc are run by charities but this
is for the military run SAR you know sea kings/nimrods etc, whose
primary role was retrieval of downed military pilots, civilian SAR was
a (very important) sideshoot to this role.


ASIDE:-
Are the coastgaurd considered as governmental or are they a charity
run thing?

in the appropriate area you contact the by ringing 999 (or 112). No they
aren't a charity. In the USA they are one of the 4 Armed Services.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Nightjar wrote:

It is currently part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which is
part of the Department for Transport, although it has been handed around
a number of different Ministries and Departments since the Board of
Trade took it over from the Admiralty in 1923. Its origins were as part
of HM Customs. They have had sub-contracted SAR helicopters at four
bases for quite some time now.

The Coastguard Rescue Service, which does cliff, swift water and mud
rescue and searches for missing people is a volunteer body within HM
Coastguard.

Thanks for that.

harry wrote:

All true these days. Filled with idle scum.

Generalise much?

In message
,
harry writes
On Mar 28, 8:23*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message , Apellation
Controlee writes







On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Tim+
wrote:

Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 17:12, Tim+ wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 16:41, harry wrote:
On Mar 26, 4:37 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 26/03/2013 16:21, harry wrote:

Latest thing to be sold off, search and rescue.
Sign the e-petition here about this matter.

https://submissions.epetitions.direc...etitions/45283

HM Coastguard runs the ones around here and AIUI, they will
oversee the
new service in much the same way. Personally, in times when the
Services' budget is being cut, I would rather see what money there is
going to equip the troops on the front lines. It is not as if
we need to
get a lot of downed pilots out of The Channel these days.

Colin Bignell

Tch. The service is for ANYONE in trouble on land or sea.
They fly in all weathers,sea rescue, mountain rescue civilians
military etc.

Exactly, so what particular reason is there for the SAR to be a
military
operation? As I said, the Coastguard do it around here and the Police
helicopter also does searches.

Colin Bignell

Because the military will fly in conditions that would make any civilian
pilot's hair curl.

Where do you think the Police and Coastguard hire their pilots?

Colin Bignell

Do they fly under the same H&S regs? *I strongly suspect military pilots
have more leeway.

Or are considered expendable in some circumstances...

Yes I wonder what the legal position would be if a civilian SAR crewman
was forced to *make the awful decision to abandon his *winchman to save
the aircraft. Sea Kings have a hydraulically operated axe next to the
cable for this purpose. It's not something which happens very often but
it is not unknown. Maybe civilian pilots would stay further away from
such risky situations.
--
bert

It is there to cut the cable if it gets snagged on some ground thing
like a tree.
Not for "abandoning the winchman".

Same difference if he happens to be on the end of it
Certain glider towing tugs have exactly the same arrangement as do
winches for launching gliders.

--
bert

On Mar 29, 1:10*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
,
harry writes







On Mar 28, 8:23 pm, bert ] wrote:
In message , Apellation
Controlee writes

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:42:41 +0000 (UTC), Tim+
wrote:

Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 17:12, Tim+ wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 16:41, harry wrote:
On Mar 26, 4:37 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 26/03/2013 16:21, harry wrote:

Latest thing to be sold off, search and rescue.
Sign the e-petition here about this matter.

https://submissions.epetitions.direc...etitions/45283

HM Coastguard runs the ones around here and AIUI, they will
oversee the
new service in much the same way. Personally, in times when the
Services' budget is being cut, I would rather see what money there is
going to equip the troops on the front lines. It is not as if
we need to
get a lot of downed pilots out of The Channel these days.

Colin Bignell

Tch. The service is for ANYONE in trouble on land or sea.
They fly in all weathers,sea rescue, mountain rescue civilians
military etc.

Exactly, so what particular reason is there for the SAR to be a
military
operation? As I said, the Coastguard do it around here and the Police
helicopter also does searches.

Colin Bignell

Because the military will fly in conditions that would make any civilian
pilot's hair curl.

Where do you think the Police and Coastguard hire their pilots?

Colin Bignell

Do they fly under the same H&S regs? I strongly suspect military pilots
have more leeway.

Or are considered expendable in some circumstances...

Yes I wonder what the legal position would be if a civilian SAR crewman
was forced to make the awful decision to abandon his winchman to save
the aircraft. Sea Kings have a hydraulically operated axe next to the
cable for this purpose. It's not something which happens very often but
it is not unknown. Maybe civilian pilots would stay further away from
such risky situations.
--
bert

It is there to cut the cable if it gets snagged on some ground thing
like a tree.
Not for "abandoning the winchman".

Same difference if he happens to be on the end of it

He might be abandoned but he's not likely to die/be injured.

Certain glider towing tugs have exactly the same arrangement as do
winches for launching gliders.

--
bert

On 27/03/2013 18:58, bert wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes

I don't have kids, don't use the fire service or police or really any
council services other than bin collection, but still pay full council
tax. This can't be legal, can it?

Council tax is just an idle way of arbitrarily collecting taxes to fund
local services. The expenditure on those services is largely property
independent if you look at the breakdown provided by your council round
this time of year.

It's not arbitrary - it's very much contrived. It's possibly the last
example of LAs having any real control over service provision (and even
then it's tightly controlled). I reckon if central government took it
away we'd have mutiny. 75% of tax goes to central government, 25% to LG.
Of course, in my view, it should more or less stay where it's generated.

Leaving a house empty - other than for a short while when moving etc - is
a very anti-social act.

Real socialist thinking that one. It's my house, bought and paid for.

In our society, yes, money is the key, and I have to concede that
because you have a lot more money to spare than most, you can buy as
many houses as you please.

As of 2010 the UK had a shortage of homes. I can't reconcile the misery
faced by many in cramped, insecure and expensive housing, with the
contentedness of those with more than one home. Surprised you can, to be
honest.

Rob

On 28/03/2013 07:46, harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 7:25 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 28/03/13 00:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Leaving a house empty - other than for a short while when moving etc -
is a very anti-social act.

Real socialist thinking that one. It's my house, bought and paid for.


Feel free to appropriate the word 'socialist' and make it your own ;-)

And you'd be happy living next door to a permanently empty house?

better that than full of people who have it handed to them on a plate
and spend the next ten years destroying it.

As my niece remarked before she emigrated 'you can tell whose on social
housing: curtains drawn till midday, three Sky dishes on the walls,
garden has 4 ft high grass cot its never mown, and there are plastic
toys and old washing machines in it all year round'


All true these days. Filled with idle scum.


Amazing. We have over 3 million social (state/HA) homes in the UK -
almost 1 in 5. The vast majority are well cared for and (literally) of a
decent standard, with void rates well below the private sector, let
securely on something approaching affordable rates.

I've met many hundreds of tenants (as a housing worker), most
unemployed, and never met a single one who didn't want a job.

When I worked in an FE college in Hackney (1995-2005) we used to get
100+ students on the housing courses alone - almost all unemployed and
living in local council housing, desperate for a job. Almost all women,
too, curiously.

Q:
What is the grey box behind a satellite dish?
A:
A council house.


Stage awaits, you do have talent.

Rob

On Mar 30, 7:28*am, RJH wrote:
On 27/03/2013 18:58, bert wrote:

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
I don't have kids, don't use the fire service or police or really any
council services other than bin collection, but still pay full council
tax. This can't be legal, can it?

Council tax is just an idle way of arbitrarily collecting taxes to fund
local services. The expenditure on those services is largely property
independent if you look at the breakdown provided by your council round
this time of year.

It's not arbitrary - it's very much contrived. It's possibly the last
example of LAs having any real control over service provision (and even
then it's tightly controlled). I reckon if central government took it
away we'd have mutiny. 75% of tax goes to central government, 25% to LG.
Of course, in my view, it should more or less stay where it's generated.

Leaving a house empty - other than for a short while when moving etc - is
a very anti-social act.

Real socialist thinking that one. It's my house, bought and paid for.

In our society, yes, money is the key, and I have to concede that
because you have a lot more money to spare than most, you can buy as
many houses as you please.

As of 2010 the UK had a shortage of homes. I can't reconcile the misery
faced by many in cramped, insecure and expensive housing, with the
contentedness of those with more than one home. Surprised you can, to be
honest.

Rob

Brought about by immigration. They're all living somewhere.

If you're poor, it's a consequence of your own earlier actions. Or
inaction.

I'm sure these "poor"people were told even at school what these
consequences were but they chose to ignore the advice.
So, they have to take what they're given.

BTW there is virtually no poverty in the UK. Yet.
You have to travel abroad to see real poverty.

On Mar 30, 7:40*am, RJH wrote:
On 28/03/2013 07:46, harry wrote:

On Mar 28, 7:25 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 28/03/13 00:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article ,
* * *bert ] wrote:
Leaving a house empty - other than for a short while when moving etc -
is a very anti-social act.

Real socialist thinking that one. It's my house, bought and paid for..

Feel free to appropriate the word 'socialist' and make it your own ;-)

And you'd be happy living next door to a permanently empty house?

better that than full of people who have it handed to them on a plate
and spend the next ten years destroying it.

As my niece remarked before she emigrated 'you can tell whose on social
housing: curtains drawn till midday, three Sky dishes on the walls,
garden has 4 ft high grass cot its never mown, and there are plastic
toys and old washing machines in it all year round'

All true these days. Filled with idle scum.

Amazing. We have over 3 million social (state/HA) homes in the UK *-
almost 1 in 5. The vast majority are well cared for and (literally) of a
decent standard, with void rates well below the private sector, let
securely on something approaching affordable rates.

I've met many hundreds of tenants (as a housing worker), most
unemployed, and never met a single one who didn't want a job.

When I worked in an FE college in Hackney (1995-2005) we used to get
100+ students on the housing courses alone - almost all unemployed and
living in local council housing, desperate for a job. Almost all women,
too, curiously.


Well in the recent past there was work for all until socialists
destroyed the economy/society.
Insofar as Bliar/Brown can be called socialists.

But even then there were the idle sat in their council houses on
benefits.

There is still lots of seasonal work where I live picking fruit/
vegetables.
But I don't suppose these buggers want to do this work?
They all want highly paid work sat in front of a computer screen. But
nothing that involves effort or a bit uncomfortable/inconvenient.

harry wrote:

Well in the recent past there was work for all until socialists
destroyed the economy/society.

How recent is recent? We had a Labour Government for twenty threeish
years before this coalition.

And "work for all " I was one of Maggie's millions. Something like
three million unemployed. Don't get me wrong I am not pro Labour/anti
Conservative I am just anti generalisation.

But even then there were the idle sat in their council houses on
benefits.

Not everyone in a council house is idle nor are all the idle in Council
houses.

There is still lots of seasonal work where I live picking fruit/
vegetables.

Not a lot of fruit farms here in Scotland and virtually all veg farms
are highly mechanised [1].

I applied when I was much younger to several fruit farms and was told
there was only accommodation for females. Excellent job (spot the
sarcasm), 2X Forty mile commute daily to Blaeberry farms from my mum's
in central Edinburgh, for minimum wage. Managed in the end to get bar
and hotel work whilst studying for my degree.

[1] Even Tattie howking (potato digging) (surely the most back
breaking, if unskilled, work ever) work was hard to get when I was at
primary, but there's not even the remnants of that now as it's all
machines these days.

harry wrote:

If you're poor, it's a consequence of your own earlier actions. Or
inaction.


BIG HAIRY ******** !!!

I take it my son won't get paid employment because he is lazy not
because of his BPD (Bronchopulmonary dysplasia)(meaning he is working
on only 30% of one lung ) or because the cranial bleeds (a consequence
of his being ventilated) he suffered as a baby leaving him with
learning difficulties.

He was born with a lack of surfactants in his lungs (though primarily
found in premature babies he was full term) so wasn't getting enough
oxygen. So the BPD/learning difficulties were not a consequence of
his actions. I suppose you are now going to take the same stance as the
religious nuts that it must have been something the parents did then.

You do talk *&^£ sometimes harry.

In article
,
harry wrote:
Well in the recent past there was work for all until socialists
destroyed the economy/society.
Insofar as Bliar/Brown can be called socialists.

Bankers are all socialists? Have you anything to support this?

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?

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

In article ,
soup wrote:
And "work for all " I was one of Maggie's millions. Something like
three million unemployed. Don't get me wrong I am not pro Labour/anti
Conservative I am just anti generalisation.

Quite. I was one of many put out of work by the direct action of that
government, in an industry which was very profitable.

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

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

In article
,
harry wrote:
If you're poor, it's a consequence of your own earlier actions. Or
inaction.

I'm sure these "poor"people were told even at school what these
consequences were but they chose to ignore the advice.
So, they have to take what they're given.

Have I mistakenly jumped to the Richard Littlejohn blog?

--
*I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.

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

In message , RJH
writes
On 28/03/2013 07:46, harry wrote:
On Mar 28, 7:25 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 28/03/13 00:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article
,
bert ] wrote:
Leaving a house empty - other than for a short while when moving etc -
is a very anti-social act.

Real socialist thinking that one. It's my house, bought and paid for.


Feel free to appropriate the word 'socialist' and make it your own ;-)

And you'd be happy living next door to a permanently empty house?

better that than full of people who have it handed to them on a plate
and spend the next ten years destroying it.

As my niece remarked before she emigrated 'you can tell whose on social
housing: curtains drawn till midday, three Sky dishes on the walls,
garden has 4 ft high grass cot its never mown, and there are plastic
toys and old washing machines in it all year round'


All true these days. Filled with idle scum.


Amazing. We have over 3 million social (state/HA) homes in the UK -
almost 1 in 5. The vast majority are well cared for and (literally) of
a decent standard, with void rates well below the private sector, let
securely on something approaching affordable rates.

I've met many hundreds of tenants (as a housing worker), most
unemployed, and never met a single one who didn't want a job.

Provided they didn't have to travel more than????
Provided they didn't have to get up before?????
Provided they were paid at least?????
Provided
Provided
Provided
snip
--
bert

In message , Nightjar
writes
On 29/03/2013 13:10, bert wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
On Mar 28, 8:23 pm, bert ] wrote:
...
Yes I wonder what the legal position would be if a civilian SAR crewman
was forced to make the awful decision to abandon his winchman to save
the aircraft. Sea Kings have a hydraulically operated axe next to the
cable for this purpose. It's not something which happens very often but
it is not unknown. Maybe civilian pilots would stay further away from
such risky situations.
--
bert

It is there to cut the cable if it gets snagged on some ground thing
like a tree.
Not for "abandoning the winchman".

Same difference if he happens to be on the end of it

Not really. He will still be attached to something, even if it is the
superstructure of a sinking ship, and can be rescued, probably by the
Lifeboat if that has happened.

Colin Bignell

They don't have life boats at the bottom of mountainous cliff faces,
which was the location of the last misfortune - that I am aware of.
--
bert

On 30/03/2013 13:56, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:42:35 +0000, bert wrote:

Provided they didn't have to travel more than????
Provided they were paid at least?????

Careful these two are related. No point in taking a job if the cost of
traveling to it takes a significant amount of the pay.

Minimum wage £6.50/hr (ish) less tax, NI, etc. So in the pocket about a
£5/hour or £35/day. A car costs about 40p/mile to run. 20 mile round trip
£8/day. £27 in your pocket, oh lunch £3 "meal deal"? £24/day. Say
£125/week in your pocket, how much is Job Seekers Allowance (or what ever
it's called this week) and other benefits per week? Getting close if not
more. The "poverty trap" is very real at the bottom of the pay scale.

Then take into account the loss of certain benefits when you start work.
The tax rate at the bottom end of the scale can be well over 100%.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 30/03/2013 12:52, bert wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 29/03/2013 13:10, bert wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
On Mar 28, 8:23 pm, bert ] wrote:
...
Yes I wonder what the legal position would be if a civilian SAR
crewman
was forced to make the awful decision to abandon his winchman to
save
the aircraft. Sea Kings have a hydraulically operated axe next to the
cable for this purpose. It's not something which happens very often
but
it is not unknown. Maybe civilian pilots would stay further away from
such risky situations.
--
bert

It is there to cut the cable if it gets snagged on some ground thing
like a tree.
Not for "abandoning the winchman".

Same difference if he happens to be on the end of it

Not really. He will still be attached to something, even if it is the
superstructure of a sinking ship, and can be rescued, probably by the
Lifeboat if that has happened.

Colin Bignell

They don't have life boats at the bottom of mountainous cliff faces,
which was the location of the last misfortune - that I am aware of.

Indeed, but I did specify the condition that he was attached to the
superstructure of a sinking ship. For an inland cliff face it would be
the mountain rescue team instead or, if close enough to one of their
bases, the Coastguard cliff rescue team.

Colin Bignell

On Mar 30, 10:54*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

Well in the recent past there was work for all until socialists
destroyed the economy/society.
Insofar as Bliar/Brown can be called socialists.

Bankers are all socialists? Have you anything to support this?

Bankster are greedy *******s.
Brown/Bliar enabled them to wreck the economy.
Not to mention government/private debt.

Also enabling mass immigration that has destroyed our society and
created much of the unemployment.

On Mar 30, 10:57*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *soup wrote:

And "work for all " I was one of Maggie's millions. *Something like
three million unemployed. Don't get me wrong I am not pro Labour/anti
Conservative I am just anti generalisation.

Quite. I was one of many put out of work by the direct action of that
government, in an industry which was very profitable.


Oho! One Scargill's useful idiots that thought you could install a
Marxist government?

On Mar 30, 12:52*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes







On 29/03/2013 13:10, bert wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
On Mar 28, 8:23 pm, bert ] wrote:
...
Yes I wonder what the legal position would be if a civilian SAR crewman
was forced to *make the awful decision to abandon his *winchman to save
the aircraft. Sea Kings have a hydraulically operated axe next to the
cable for this purpose. It's not something which happens very often but
it is not unknown. Maybe civilian pilots would stay further away from
such risky situations.
--
bert

It is there to cut the cable if it gets snagged on some ground thing
like a tree.
Not for "abandoning the winchman".

Same difference if he happens to be on the end of it

Not really. He will still be attached to something, even if it is the
superstructure of a sinking ship, and can be rescued, probably by the
Lifeboat if that has happened.

Colin Bignell

They don't have life boats at the bottom of mountainous cliff faces,
which was the location of the last misfortune - that I am aware of.
--
bert

But if it snags, it will be close to something solid.

On Mar 30, 1:56*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:42:35 +0000, bert wrote:
Provided they didn't have to travel more than????
Provided they were paid at least?????

Careful these two are related. No point in taking a job if the cost of
traveling to it takes a significant amount of the pay.

Minimum wage £6.50/hr (ish) less tax, NI, etc. So in the pocket about a
£5/hour or £35/day. A car costs about 40p/mile to run. 20 mile round trip
£8/day. £27 in your pocket, oh lunch £3 "meal deal"? £24/day. Say
£125/week in your pocket, how much is Job Seekers Allowance (or what ever
it's called this week) and other benefits per week? Getting close if not
more. The "poverty trap" is very real at the bottom of the pay scale.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Little tax is paid by low earners.
When I was a lad, people moved house to get a job.
Nobody on low pay had a car anyway.
I ate sandwiches made at home.
Low paid work leads on to higher paid work.
I changed job for less money on a few occasions for better prospects.
Lack of ambition and idleness is at the root of all their misfortunes
in this country.

On 30/03/2013 17:38, harry wrote:
Little tax is paid by low earners.

True. Unfortunately though, the way the benfits system is set up, if you
take a job with low wages, the effective tax rate on your extra income
can exceed 100%.

When I was a lad, people moved house to get a job.

Not possible now in a lot of cases, as they can't afford the new rent on
the wages where the work is.

Nobody on low pay had a car anyway.

Unless you live in the right position relative to your place of work,
public transport isn't a cost-effective way to get to work. Or, in my
case, a possible way. It takes 6 minutes to drive there, 40 minutes to
walk or 20 minutes to cycle along a dangerous lane, or up to an hour by bus.

I ate sandwiches made at home.

Lots of people still do.

Low paid work leads on to higher paid work.

Low paid work leads to employers wondering why all you can get is a low
paid job. So they won't consider you for anything else.

I changed job for less money on a few occasions for better prospects.

Good for you. I'm glad it worked out. You are one of the few.

Lack of ambition and idleness is at the root of all their misfortunes
in this country.

Or, take the position of someone I know who is an alcoholic. He has
excellent qualifications, the equivalent of A-levels and NVQs, but can't
even get a job here flipping burgers because he hasn't got enough GCSEs.
Never mind his computing qualifications, which are equivalent to a
degree, but not from this country. He is a British citizen.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:58:14 +0000, John Williamson wrote:

Then take into account the loss of certain benefits when you start
work. The tax rate at the bottom end of the scale can be well over
100%.

Yep, and it's not just hwat most may think as "benefits" as well. Most
working people with kids will be getting Child Tax Credit and possibly
Working Tax Credit. Those drop the more you earn. I've caught by that
one. Had a "good" year grossed someting like 3k more than the previous
year, following year the Tax Credits fell by more than 2k. Worked harder
got sod all extra in my pocket, why bother.

I suspect the same is going to happen this year, except the numbers are
bigger think I'm 10k up so I can see the WTC disappearing completely and
a halving in the CTC. Again work hard get sod all in the pocket...

When I broke my ankle and was on incapacity benefit and drawing on my
permenant health insurance my income didn't change and expenses dropped
as I wasn't driving all over the top end of the country. I suspect I was
better off financially by not being available for work...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mar 26, 7:33*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 26/03/2013 18:42, Tim+ wrote:









Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 17:12, Tim+ wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 26/03/2013 16:41, harry wrote:
On Mar 26, 4:37 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 26/03/2013 16:21, harry wrote:

Latest thing to be sold off, search and rescue.
Sign the e-petition here about this matter.

https://submissions.epetitions.direc...etitions/45283

HM Coastguard runs the ones around here and AIUI, they will oversee the
new service in much the same way. Personally, in times when the
Services' budget is being cut, I would rather see what money there is
going to equip the troops on the front lines. It is not as if we need to
get a lot of downed pilots out of The Channel these days.

Colin Bignell

Tch. The service is for ANYONE in trouble on land or sea.
They fly in all weathers,sea rescue, mountain rescue civilians
military etc.

Exactly, so what particular reason is there for the SAR to be a military
operation? As I said, the Coastguard do it around here and the Police
helicopter also does searches.

Colin Bignell

Because the military will fly in conditions that would make any civilian
pilot's hair curl.

Where do you think the Police and Coastguard hire their pilots?

Colin Bignell

Do they fly under the same H&S regs? *I strongly suspect military pilots
have more leeway.

The rules are set by the CAA and a Police Operator's Licence probably
gives more leeway than military pilots have in civil airspace, although
most rules can be overridden by the need to save life.

Colin Bignell

Like the poor woman who fell down a mine shaft in Lanarkshire and the
fire brigade couldn't go down for her because of H & S Rules - after
6 hours they got the MR team or cavers to go for her but she died as
they got to her.

On Mar 27, 8:57*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:48:47 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
The privatised firm will be able to get ex-military pilots at the
moment. *But when the supply of them runs out,

So the military are not going to fly any helicopters at all?

... who will pay for the cost of training new pilots?

We will, as is the case now. The path the money takes is just a bit
different.

--
Cheers
Dave.

I think the point is that currently there are RAF helicopter pilots
and related teams who have developed particular skills in flying
rescue work. These may well now trasfer in one way or another to
Bristow. That will work for the short term but the future services'
helicopter pilots will not be specialised in SAR. so there will be a
training short fall.
Rob

On Mar 30, 8:00*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
On 30/03/2013 17:38, harry wrote:

* Little tax is paid by low earners.

True. Unfortunately though, the way the benfits system is set up, if you
take a job with low wages, the effective tax rate on your extra income
can exceed 100%.

When I was a lad, people moved house to get a job.

Not possible now in a lot of cases, as they can't afford the new rent on
the wages where the work is.

Nobody on low pay had a car anyway.

Unless you live in the right position relative to your place of work,
public transport isn't a cost-effective way to get to work. Or, in my
case, a possible way. It takes 6 minutes to drive there, 40 minutes to
walk or 20 minutes to cycle along a dangerous lane, or up to an hour by bus.

I ate sandwiches made at home.

Lots of people still do.

Low paid work leads on to higher paid work.

Low paid work leads to employers wondering why all you can get is a low
paid job. So they won't consider you for anything else.

I changed job for less money on a few occasions for better prospects.

Good for you. I'm glad it worked out. You are one of the few.

Lack of ambition and idleness is at the root of all their misfortunes
in this country.

Or, take the position of someone I know who is an alcoholic. He has
excellent qualifications, the equivalent of A-levels and NVQs, but can't
even get a job here flipping burgers because he hasn't got enough GCSEs.
Never mind his computing qualifications, which are equivalent to a
degree, but not from this country. He is a British citizen.



I expect that at some point in his life, someone told him he was
drinking too much.
Surprising he couldn't work it out for himself.
Drinking is not cheap either.

I expect the immigrants have taken the burger-flipping jobs.
Round here it's Poles/other Eastern Europeans.

Vote UKIP.

On Mar 30, 8:26*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 14:58:14 +0000, John Williamson wrote:
Then take into account the loss of certain benefits when you start
work. The tax rate at the bottom end of the scale can be well over
100%.

Yep, and it's not just hwat most may think as "benefits" as well. Most
working people with kids will be getting Child Tax Credit and possibly
Working Tax Credit. Those drop the more you earn. I've caught by that
one. Had a "good" year grossed someting like 3k more than the previous
year, following year the Tax Credits fell by more than 2k. Worked harder
got sod all extra in my pocket, why bother.

I suspect the same is going to happen this year, except the numbers are
bigger think I'm 10k up so I can see the WTC disappearing completely and
a halving in the CTC. Again work hard get sod all in the pocket...

When I broke my ankle and was on incapacity benefit and drawing on my
permenant health insurance my income didn't change and expenses dropped
as I wasn't driving all over the top end of the country. I suspect I was
better off financially by not being available for work...

--
Cheers
Dave.

I get bored sat in the house.
Don't worry, benefits are to be cut, this won't happen in the future.

in 1216737 20130330 084903 soup wrote:

How recent is recent? We had a Labour Government for twenty threeish
years before this coalition.

Dates??

On 31/03/2013 07:39, harry wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:00 pm, John Williamson
Or, take the position of someone I know who is an alcoholic. He has
excellent qualifications, the equivalent of A-levels and NVQs, but can't
even get a job here flipping burgers because he hasn't got enough GCSEs.
Never mind his computing qualifications, which are equivalent to a
degree, but not from this country. He is a British citizen.



I expect that at some point in his life, someone told him he was
drinking too much.
Surprising he couldn't work it out for himself.
Drinking is not cheap either.

All that shows is how little you know about alcoholism. It's mainly a
mental illness, sufferers can't work out what it's costing them in
either money or opportunity. He's been through three rehab courses that
I know of, none of whih made any difference.

It is an addiction, both mental and physical, that is, by and large,
socially acceptable.

I expect the immigrants have taken the burger-flipping jobs.
Round here it's Poles/other Eastern Europeans.

Not round here. Strangely enough, none of the immigrants have GCSEs,
either....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
All that shows is how little you know about alcoholism. It's mainly a
mental illness, sufferers can't work out what it's costing them in
either money or opportunity. He's been through three rehab courses that
I know of, none of whih made any difference.

He can't have yet got to the point where he accepts his condition. That he
is an alcoholic - ie powerless over alcohol. And that there is no cure -
it will need continuous treatment for the rest of his life in the form of
aftercare. Which in practice for most means regular AA meetings. And even
then, success isn't guaranteed.

It is an addiction, both mental and physical, that is, by and large,
socially acceptable.

Quite. Politicians try to control other drugs by attempting to restrict
the supply. Yet make alcohol more and more freely available. Something not
quite logical there.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread? *

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