On 01/11/13 14:31, Jethro_uk wrote:
On a very subtley different point, where does "standardisation" stop and
"regulation" begin. Once you start to "regulate" you are in the realms of
having to join the table to negotiate it, or be lumbered with the results
of other peoples deliberations.


It is quite clear. standardisation means you may need to adapt to
standards to sell your product somewhere else.
Regulation means you cant sell it anywhere unless you do.

The classic example is French provincial 'live' cheeses from
unpasteurised milk. The French fought for an exemption to sell these
unhealthy and unsafe cheeses (according to EU law) at least to
themselves. However it now seems that my local supermarket has an area
for 'unpasteurised' cheese and as long as they are separated by a sheet
of perspex from pasteurised ones, everything is Elfin safety happy.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 01/11/2013 13:34, Java Jive wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:44:04 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

But you were only looking for something to support your opinion, not at
the whole picture, or even at the whole of the BBC report that your cite
was a part of.

I did what anyone else would do. I put suitable terms into a search
and clicked on the results.

As I said you were looking for support for your (biased) opinion.

There is nothing in either page which supports his claim that:

We wouldn't have the expense of all this EU crap and basket case ex commie
countries to support

No? You didn't see all those east European countries filling out the
negative tail of the net contributions list? Of course you did. You just
don't want to lose face by acknowledging you were (and are) wrong.

I stand by my demonstration that his claims were based on prejudice
rather than fact.

Of course Harry is prejudiced but that doesn't alter the fact that he
has a valid point about the amount of money the eastern Europeans in
particular get out of the EU.

Additionally, you have conveniently overlooked this paragraph from the
actual page that you linked (the same page as you are accusing me of
deliberately ignoring, when in fact I just simply didn't ever get to
see it) ...

Oh, now you are a mind reader and an unsuccessful one at that.

"There is one other important part of the revenue calculations: the UK
rebate, which returns to the UK two-thirds of its payments.

This rebate is paid for by the other 26 countries as a fixed amount of
their gross national income."

... so, if you are accusing me of cherry-picking, what does that make
you?

How about a little bit of that logic you are so keen on. It is
nonsensical to draw up a table for net contributions if the rebate is
not included.

From the '% of income page':

"There are some variations however. Thanks to its rebate, the UK pays a
smaller proportion of its GNI than other countries."

--
Roger Chapman

In message , Adrian
writes
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 12:02:35 +0000, bert wrote:

The EU is including in there opening up European Health services to
international (US) competition and that will include the NHS. So a
fundamental aspect of the NHS may no longer be a solely UK decision.

In case you hadn't noticed, the NHS is already free to sign up to
international deals - and already has. So, basically, no change.

But international companies cannot currently demand the right to bid
for NHS contracts. That would change.

Umm, and...?

That means the NHS would no longer be entirely under the control of the
UK as you claimed. You really are hard work.

So you really think that the NHS not being able to refuse international
companies from tendering is "no longer under the control of the UK"?

You obviously have no experience of tendering and so you do not
understand the implications of that for the NHS
**** me, but you're almost as cretinous as Harry. thinks Are you Harry?
People who have lost the argument often resort to abuse.
--
bert

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:56:56 +0000, bert wrote:

The EU is including in there opening up European Health services
to international (US) competition and that will include the NHS.
So a fundamental aspect of the NHS may no longer be a solely UK
decision.

In case you hadn't noticed, the NHS is already free to sign up to
international deals - and already has. So, basically, no change.

But international companies cannot currently demand the right to bid
for NHS contracts. That would change.

Umm, and...?

That means the NHS would no longer be entirely under the control of
the UK as you claimed. You really are hard work.

So you really think that the NHS not being able to refuse international
companies from tendering is "no longer under the control of the UK"?

You obviously have no experience of tendering and so you do not
understand the implications of that for the NHS

I have more than enough experience of tendering to understand the
difference between preventing somebody from submitting a tender, and
awarding them the contract.

I also have more than enough experience of business to understand the
difference between awarding a contract to somebody and them running my
business.

**** me, but you're almost as cretinous as Harry. thinks Are you
Harry?

People who have lost the argument often resort to abuse.

If you don't want to be called cretinous, don't post cretinous ********.
It's that simple. It's not abuse, it's a statement of fact.

Anyway, _are_ you Harry, Bert?

In message , Adrian
writes
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:56:56 +0000, bert wrote:

The EU is including in there opening up European Health services
to international (US) competition and that will include the NHS.
So a fundamental aspect of the NHS may no longer be a solely UK
decision.

In case you hadn't noticed, the NHS is already free to sign up to
international deals - and already has. So, basically, no change.

But international companies cannot currently demand the right to bid
for NHS contracts. That would change.

Umm, and...?

That means the NHS would no longer be entirely under the control of
the UK as you claimed. You really are hard work.

So you really think that the NHS not being able to refuse international
companies from tendering is "no longer under the control of the UK"?

You obviously have no experience of tendering and so you do not
understand the implications of that for the NHS

I have more than enough experience of tendering to understand the
difference between preventing somebody from submitting a tender, and
awarding them the contract.

Then it doesn't show.
I also have more than enough experience of business to understand the
difference between awarding a contract to somebody and them running my
business.

Prove it.

**** me, but you're almost as cretinous as Harry. thinks Are you
Harry?

People who have lost the argument often resort to abuse.

If you don't want to be called cretinous, don't post cretinous ********.
It's that simple. It's not abuse, it's a statement of fact.

2-0 to me I think
Anyway, _are_ you Harry, Bert?
WTF is Harry Bert?
--
bert

In message , SteveW
writes
On 31/10/2013 11:57, bert wrote:
In message , Adrian
writes
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:53:09 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And they wonder why UKIP membership is increasing faster than its
declining in the other parties....

Perhaps because those liable to join UKIP are easily swayed by such
selective reporting?

I notice you omitted this bit...
"Experts have reported that in Netherlands, and maybe soon in France,
toilets with less than 6 litres per flush cannot be installed. Portugal
should face the same limitations. In the UK, new toilets with more than 6
l/flush are forbidden and installations of toilets with less than 6 l/
flush are encouraged though it depends on where and when the property was
built, the drainage system installed, etc. For Britain, the Commission
notes that some toilets already in place before the new legislation can
use 7 or 9 l/flush."

Sounds to me like standardisation might be a good plan...

Why? Seems to me such differences are of no consequence.

There are many things in Europe that I dislike strongly and I would
vastly prefer to be out of the EU, however standardisation of
requirements for products *is* sensible. If the EU wants to save water
by requiring limited volumes of water to be used, it is only sensible
that manufacturers here and throughout the world conform to that
standard, so that they can sell into all the countries of the EU
without restriction and without having to have differing products for
each country.

That favours the larger manufacturers who can invest in production
changes necessary to meet the standard.
Supposing yo have s small manufacturer supplying larger toilets to the
North West of Scotland. A standard designed to save water in Spain would
be irrelevant but could put him out of business. This is just an
illustration.

Where the EU should stay out is on how countries run things internally.
For instance, how rubbish is disposed of, how many hours people can
work, protection of rare species, etc. should be entirely up to the
individual country.

If it crosses borders then standardisation is often sensible, if it
doesn't then there is no need.

SteveW

Often sensible but mostly does not need the bureaucratic overhead. The
main aim of the EU commission is to produce regulations.
--
bert

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 01/11/13 14:31, Jethro_uk wrote:
On a very subtley different point, where does "standardisation" stop and
"regulation" begin. Once you start to "regulate" you are in the realms of
having to join the table to negotiate it, or be lumbered with the results
of other peoples deliberations.


It is quite clear. standardisation means you may need to adapt to
standards to sell your product somewhere else.
Regulation means you cant sell it anywhere unless you do.

Does the EU commission appreciate that subtle separation
The classic example is French provincial 'live' cheeses from
unpasteurised milk. The French fought for an exemption to sell these
unhealthy and unsafe cheeses (according to EU law) at least to
themselves. However it now seems that my local supermarket has an area
for 'unpasteurised' cheese and as long as they are separated by a
sheet of perspex from pasteurised ones, everything is Elfin safety happy.


I can remember when pasteurised milk was optional. How did we ever
survive?
--
bert

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:51:17 +0000, bert wrote:

Anyway, _are_ you Harry, Bert?

WTF is Harry Bert?

points to comma
Your lack of basic reading skills does not help your argument.

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:56:49 +0000, bert wrote:

That favours the larger manufacturers who can invest in production
changes necessary to meet the standard.
Supposing yo have s small manufacturer supplying larger toilets to the
North West of Scotland. A standard designed to save water in Spain would
be irrelevant but could put him out of business. This is just an
illustration.

A manufacturer who is incapable of making such basic and straightforward
design changes is not a viable business.

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:59:41 +0000, bert wrote:

I can remember when pasteurised milk was optional. How did we ever
survive?

See if you can spot what other changes have happened in the production
and supply of milk since then, together with our understanding of
microbiology and food hygiene.

On 01/11/13 19:56, bert wrote:
In message , SteveW
writes

If it crosses borders then standardisation is often sensible, if it
doesn't then there is no need.

SteveW
Often sensible but mostly does not need the bureaucratic overhead. The
main aim of the EU commission is to produce regulations.

And the main aim of the EU is to create a superstate that pulls power
from nations states into Brussels. Which would be fine if they were
actually capable of ruling wisely, and weren't a corrupt bent bunch of
ex-commies hand in glove with European big business bent on European
domination at any price..

...since they are not, I want out....

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 01/11/13 21:37, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:56:49 +0000, bert wrote:

That favours the larger manufacturers who can invest in production
changes necessary to meet the standard.
Supposing yo have s small manufacturer supplying larger toilets to the
North West of Scotland. A standard designed to save water in Spain would
be irrelevant but could put him out of business. This is just an
illustration.

A manufacturer who is incapable of making such basic and straightforward
design changes is not a viable business.

Well I will give you a better example.

A disability wheel chair. In fact two, One British well made and cheap.
One German. More expensive and no better.

German company approaches EU and a 'directive' is issued saying that any
disability chair MUST be able to withstand correct operation in a high
gauss magnetic field. Such as you MIGHT just find in a hospital cat
scanner room, or scrapyard sorting metal. British design uses reliable
reed switches and fails test. German design uses expensive unreliable
electronic switches and passes. British manufacturer goes down. German
manufacturer raises prices 50%.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In message , Adrian
writes
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:51:17 +0000, bert wrote:

Anyway, _are_ you Harry, Bert?

WTF is Harry Bert?

points to comma
Your lack of basic reading skills does not help your argument.
Yawn
--
bert

In message , Adrian
writes
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:59:41 +0000, bert wrote:

I can remember when pasteurised milk was optional. How did we ever
survive?

See if you can spot what other changes have happened in the production
and supply of milk since then, together with our understanding of
microbiology and food hygiene.
Why?
--
bert

In message , Adrian
writes
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:56:49 +0000, bert wrote:

That favours the larger manufacturers who can invest in production
changes necessary to meet the standard.
Supposing yo have s small manufacturer supplying larger toilets to the
North West of Scotland. A standard designed to save water in Spain would
be irrelevant but could put him out of business. This is just an
illustration.

A manufacturer who is incapable of making such basic and straightforward
design changes is not a viable business.
It was an illustration sigh
--
bert

On 01/11/2013 13:32, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:25:29 +0000, SteveW wrote:

but it still does anger those of us that have lived in the area all our
lives and struggle to get our kids into the local schools.

Would it make a difference to your perceptions if the other parents had
moved to the area from 50 miles away?

It's not where they are from it is that a large influx has massively
increased the local population. It is highly unlikely that such a large
and rapid change would occur from local migration. The fact that they
are mainly East Europeans is neither here nor there, except that it
demonstrates a sudden and large movement of people from a particular
area - funnily enough when controls were relaxed. No similarly large
migration has occurred from France, Germany or the like, as their
economies, services, benefits and wages are similar enough to our own so
as not to make that massively attractive.

SteveW

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:25:29 +0000, SteveW wrote:

but it still does anger those of us that have lived in the area all our
lives and struggle to get our kids into the local schools.

Would it make a difference to your perceptions if the other parents had
moved to the area from 50 miles away?

Typical socialist drivel.
These people are parasites on our system.
All thanks the Bliar.Brown.
Things will get a lot worse come next year when a lot of uneducated peasants
and criminals arrive from Bulgaria etc.
They have huge families so there will be no chance of getting suitable
school places.

They contributed nothing to our economy, just here to scrounge.
The likes of Poland has been able to export its problem unemployed so
shifting the financial burden to us.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

People coming to do crop picking live in accommodation on site provided
by the farmer for the purpose (which stands empty the rest of the
year), and therefore has no impact on general housing. These folk,
AFAIK, come from Eastern Europe but it'd make no difference whether
they come Inverness or Kerry.

The problem is these people coming here, taking jobs and sending the
money back home.
And making use of all our services.
Many work on the QT, cash in hand and pay no tax.

As I could have said before, the farmer in question has had poor
experience of getting unemployed locals to do the work. The picking
season is not that long anyway; once they've finished they push off and
come back next year. And the question of tax is gonna depend on the
integrity of the farmer.


Drivel
The picking season moves round the country and from South to North.
Many do other agricultural work too.
Only an idiot townie thinks stuff grows on it's own.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 07:46:23 +0000, harryagain wrote:

It doesn't. Isn't it odd that, a quarter of a century ago, a big-name
right-wing Tory was calling for people to "get on their bike" and go
and chase jobs, rather than waiting for them to come to them. Now, it
appears that's a _bad_ thing in the eyes of the right-wing of the Tory
party...

If somebody's willing to get off their arse and turn their life upside-
down in a bid to earn money and change their family's lot, fair play to
'em. Does it really matter if they're going from Inverness, Kerry, or
Gdansk to London?

Going from?????

Are you a bit hard of thinking, Harry?

Well you can be going to or coming from.
But "Going from"?

Are you foreign?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:52:38 +0000, Adrian wrote:

The NHS is entirely a UK decision.

No it isn't -see my other post

Which one? About two dozen replies from you seem to have arrived damn-
near simultaneously. Not one of which gives any kind of information as
to why the NHS isn't a UK decision.

I rather suspect you've completely misunderstood the NHS's problems with
the cross-border healthcare directive.

If and when that actually takes effect, it'll resolve many of the issues
that people whinge about with the NHS - because it'll give the NHS
stronger rights to bill "EU health tourists" home health systems for any
treatment they get in the UK.

Trouble is, the NHS can't do that currently, because the NHS would have
to publish a price list. And the NHS can't do that currently, because the
NHS is such a dog's dinner that they don't actually know what they should
charge, because they don't actually know what anything costs. If they
could be bothered to work it out, and to track who receives what
treatment, they could ALREADY recharge.

The NHS does try to retrieve
oney..
Once individuals have left the country it's almost impossible to retreive
the money either from them or their government. In spite of various
agreements.
And I used to work fro the NHS so why don't you shut the f**k up with your
drivel

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:44:04 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

But you were only looking for something to support your opinion, not at
the whole picture, or even at the whole of the BBC report that your cite
was a part of.

I did what anyone else would do. I put suitable terms into a search
and clicked on the results.

There is nothing in either page which supports his claim that:

We wouldn't have the expense of all this EU crap and basket case ex
commie
countries to support

No? You didn't see all those east European countries filling out the
negative tail of the net contributions list? Of course you did. You just
don't want to lose face by acknowledging you were (and are) wrong.

I stand by my demonstration that his claims were based on prejudice
rather than fact.

Additionally, you have conveniently overlooked this paragraph from the
actual page that you linked (the same page as you are accusing me of
deliberately ignoring, when in fact I just simply didn't ever get to
see it) ...

"There is one other important part of the revenue calculations: the UK
rebate, which returns to the UK two-thirds of its payments.

This rebate is paid for by the other 26 countries as a fixed amount of
their gross national income."


The rebate is paid for entirely by us as we pay in more then we take out.
What a load of paper shuffling bollix.
All to support a gravy train elite living it up in Brussels.

"SteveW" wrote in message
...
On 31/10/2013 11:57, bert wrote:
In message , Adrian
writes
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:53:09 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And they wonder why UKIP membership is increasing faster than its
declining in the other parties....

Perhaps because those liable to join UKIP are easily swayed by such
selective reporting?

I notice you omitted this bit...
"Experts have reported that in Netherlands, and maybe soon in France,
toilets with less than 6 litres per flush cannot be installed. Portugal
should face the same limitations. In the UK, new toilets with more than
6
l/flush are forbidden and installations of toilets with less than 6 l/
flush are encouraged though it depends on where and when the property
was
built, the drainage system installed, etc. For Britain, the Commission
notes that some toilets already in place before the new legislation can
use 7 or 9 l/flush."

Sounds to me like standardisation might be a good plan...

Why? Seems to me such differences are of no consequence.

There are many things in Europe that I dislike strongly and I would vastly
prefer to be out of the EU, however standardisation of requirements for
products *is* sensible. If the EU wants to save water by requiring
limited volumes of water to be used, it is only sensible that
manufacturers here and throughout the world conform to that standard, so
that they can sell into all the countries of the EU without restriction
and without having to have differing products for each country.

Where the EU should stay out is on how countries run things internally.
For instance, how rubbish is disposed of, how many hours people can work,
protection of rare species, etc. should be entirely up to the individual
country.

If it crosses borders then standardisation is often sensible, if it
doesn't then there is no need.

Stuff that is sensible will be done anyway with overpaid ****s from Europe's
expensive dabbling.

The problem is those things can have an impact outside of national
borders.

Do you recall in the 80s, the Scandinavians getting arsey because the
acid rain destroying their forests mostly originated from the UK ?


If it crosses borders then standardisation is often sensible, if it
doesn't then there is no need.

On a very subtley different point, where does "standardisation" stop and
"regulation" begin. Once you start to "regulate" you are in the realms of
having to join the table to negotiate it, or be lumbered with the results
of other peoples deliberations.

Once you start with regulation you need inspectors and a whole host of
expensive administrators.
Empire building. More and more costs and uncompetitiveness.
Jobs for the boys.

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 01/11/13 14:31, Jethro_uk wrote:
On a very subtley different point, where does "standardisation" stop and
"regulation" begin. Once you start to "regulate" you are in the realms
of
having to join the table to negotiate it, or be lumbered with the
results
of other peoples deliberations.


It is quite clear. standardisation means you may need to adapt to
standards to sell your product somewhere else.
Regulation means you cant sell it anywhere unless you do.

Does the EU commission appreciate that subtle separation
The classic example is French provincial 'live' cheeses from unpasteurised
milk. The French fought for an exemption to sell these unhealthy and
unsafe cheeses (according to EU law) at least to themselves. However it
now seems that my local supermarket has an area for 'unpasteurised' cheese
and as long as they are separated by a sheet of perspex from pasteurised
ones, everything is Elfin safety happy.


I can remember when pasteurised milk was optional. How did we ever
survive?

Some of us didn't.
We got TB and died.
Pastueurising all milk was not an EU thing.

When all badgers are dead we can go back to unpasteurised milk.

TB was brought back here by immigrants from Africa.

On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 19:56:49 +0000 Bert wrote :
Supposing yo have s small manufacturer supplying larger toilets to the
North West of Scotland. A standard designed to save water in Spain
would be irrelevant but could put him out of business. This is just an
illustration.

But AIUI it also means they can sell their products in Spain without
further testing or certification.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 07:39:53 +0000, harryagain wrote:

As I could have said before, the farmer in question has had poor
experience of getting unemployed locals to do the work. The picking
season is not that long anyway; once they've finished they push off and
come back next year. And the question of tax is gonna depend on the
integrity of the farmer.

Drivel

Thanks for the advance warning.

The picking season moves round the country and from South to North.

Within a week or three, yes. But across the full year? No. B'sides, I
thought you disliked people travelling to find work? Or is it only if
there's a national border crossed?

Many do other agricultural work too.

The vast majority of the year is FAR less labour intensive than harvest.

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 07:47:33 +0000, harryagain wrote:

The NHS is entirely a UK decision.

No it isn't -see my other post

Which one? About two dozen replies from you seem to have arrived damn-
near simultaneously. Not one of which gives any kind of information as
to why the NHS isn't a UK decision.

I rather suspect you've completely misunderstood the NHS's problems
with the cross-border healthcare directive.

If and when that actually takes effect, it'll resolve many of the
issues that people whinge about with the NHS - because it'll give the
NHS stronger rights to bill "EU health tourists" home health systems
for any treatment they get in the UK.

Trouble is, the NHS can't do that currently, because the NHS would have
to publish a price list. And the NHS can't do that currently, because
the NHS is such a dog's dinner that they don't actually know what they
should charge, because they don't actually know what anything costs. If
they could be bothered to work it out, and to track who receives what
treatment, they could ALREADY recharge.

The NHS does try to retrieve oney..
Once individuals have left the country it's almost impossible to
retreive the money either from them or their government. In spite of
various agreements.

Really?
Oh, OK. Clearly all those many press reports - and the health minister -
are wrong.
Here's one for a start - written by somebody working within the NHS,
running a clinic, who can't get the NHS to figure out who to charge what
- and who thinks the cross-border healthcare directive is a bloody good
thing for the NHS.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rupe...the-eu-reform-
the-nhs_b_4173052.html

And I used to work fro the NHS so why don't you shut the f**k up with
your drivel

What level of the finance department of which health authority?

So - from your position of expertise - what amount is already billed to
EU governments but never paid? Why isn't it paid? And how's the amount
calculated in the first place? Nobody else seems to agree on a figure.
Perhaps they should have asked you.

And how does that affect whether the NHS is a "UK decision" or not?

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 23:10:28 +0000, bert wrote:

That favours the larger manufacturers who can invest in production
changes necessary to meet the standard.
Supposing yo have s small manufacturer supplying larger toilets to the
North West of Scotland. A standard designed to save water in Spain
would be irrelevant but could put him out of business. This is just an
illustration.

A manufacturer who is incapable of making such basic and straightforward
design changes is not a viable business.

It was an illustration sigh

Indeed it was. One that was so ill-conceived as to prove a fine
demonstration of your grasp on the concepts involved.

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 23:37:18 +0000, SteveW wrote:

but it still does anger those of us that have lived in the area all
our lives and struggle to get our kids into the local schools.

Would it make a difference to your perceptions if the other parents had
moved to the area from 50 miles away?

It's not where they are from it is that a large influx has massively
increased the local population.

So that's a "No".

OK, fine. So you'd restrict access to local services to people from other
areas _within_ the UK, in the same way as to people from other EU
countries? If so, then the EU is an irrelevance to your argument. Your
argument is against population mobility, full stop.

No similarly large migration has occurred from France, Germany or the
like

Except the French population is one of the largest within London, and
makes London the city with the sixth largest population of French
nationals, world-wide. Including within France.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930

That's about twice the size of the Irish, Pakistani or Bangladeshi
communities. Three times the size of the Chinese community. About the
same size as the Black Caribbean community. Four times the size of the
Arab community. A full one in three of the "other White" (including all
Eastern Europeans) category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 07:36:49 +0000, harryagain wrote:

but it still does anger those of us that have lived in the area all
our lives and struggle to get our kids into the local schools.

Would it make a difference to your perceptions if the other parents had
moved to the area from 50 miles away?

Typical socialist drivel.
These people are parasites on our system.
All thanks the Bliar.Brown.
Things will get a lot worse come next year when a lot of uneducated
peasants and criminals arrive from Bulgaria etc.
They have huge families so there will be no chance of getting suitable
school places.

They contributed nothing to our economy, just here to scrounge.
The likes of Poland has been able to export its problem unemployed so
shifting the financial burden to us.

Thank you for finally putting voice to your inner xenophobia, and
revealing the motives behind your veneer of economic concern.

Once again, you prove that UKIP are just BNP-lite.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:56:49 +0000, bert wrote:

That favours the larger manufacturers who can invest in production
changes necessary to meet the standard.
Supposing yo have s small manufacturer supplying larger toilets to the
North West of Scotland. A standard designed to save water in Spain would
be irrelevant but could put him out of business. This is just an
illustration.

A manufacturer who is incapable of making such basic and straightforward
design changes is not a viable business.

It's not thedesign change - that's easy. It's setting up a new production
line is the expense.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article , harryagain
wrote:

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 01/11/13 14:31, Jethro_uk wrote:
On a very subtley different point, where does "standardisation" stop
and "regulation" begin. Once you start to "regulate" you are in the
realms of having to join the table to negotiate it, or be lumbered
with the results of other peoples deliberations.


It is quite clear. standardisation means you may need to adapt to
standards to sell your product somewhere else. Regulation means you
cant sell it anywhere unless you do.

Does the EU commission appreciate that subtle separation
The classic example is French provincial 'live' cheeses from
unpasteurised milk. The French fought for an exemption to sell these
unhealthy and unsafe cheeses (according to EU law) at least to
themselves. However it now seems that my local supermarket has an area
for 'unpasteurised' cheese and as long as they are separated by a
sheet of perspex from pasteurised ones, everything is Elfin safety
happy.


I can remember when pasteurised milk was optional. How did we ever
survive?

Some of us didn't. We got TB and died. Pastueurising all milk was not an
EU thing.

When all badgers are dead we can go back to unpasteurised milk.

TB was brought back here by immigrants from Africa.

Immigrant badgers?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 01/11/2013 19:59, bert wrote:

I can remember when pasteurised milk was optional. How did we ever survive?

A lot didn't they died from various diseases but you probably forget that.
Those days could return with resistant bacteria.

On 01/11/2013 22:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/11/13 21:37, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:56:49 +0000, bert wrote:

That favours the larger manufacturers who can invest in production
changes necessary to meet the standard.
Supposing yo have s small manufacturer supplying larger toilets to the
North West of Scotland. A standard designed to save water in Spain would
be irrelevant but could put him out of business. This is just an
illustration.

A manufacturer who is incapable of making such basic and straightforward
design changes is not a viable business.

Well I will give you a better example.

A disability wheel chair. In fact two, One British well made and cheap.
One German. More expensive and no better.

German company approaches EU and a 'directive' is issued saying that any
disability chair MUST be able to withstand correct operation in a high
gauss magnetic field. Such as you MIGHT just find in a hospital cat
scanner room, or scrapyard sorting metal. British design uses reliable
reed switches and fails test. German design uses expensive unreliable
electronic switches and passes. British manufacturer goes down. German
manufacturer raises prices 50%.



You wouldn't be allowed to put any such wheelchair in the CAT scanner
room so not a very good example.

Link?

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 22:42:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

German company approaches EU and a 'directive' is issued saying that any
disability chair MUST be able to withstand correct operation in a high
gauss magnetic field. Such as you MIGHT just find in a hospital cat
scanner room, or scrapyard sorting metal. British design uses reliable
reed switches and fails test. German design uses expensive unreliable
electronic switches and passes. British manufacturer goes down. German
manufacturer raises prices 50%.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:01:30 +0000, charles wrote:

That favours the larger manufacturers who can invest in production
changes necessary to meet the standard.
Supposing yo have s small manufacturer supplying larger toilets to
the North West of Scotland. A standard designed to save water in
Spain would be irrelevant but could put him out of business. This is
just an illustration.

A manufacturer who is incapable of making such basic and
straightforward design changes is not a viable business.

It's not thedesign change - that's easy. It's setting up a new
production line is the expense.

Which makes _no_ difference whatsoever to the statement you just replied
to.

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:40:49 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

As I said you were looking for support for your (biased) opinion.

I was looking for some relevant facts to counteract Harry's usual
drivel of factless bigotry.

There is nothing in either page which supports his claim that:

We wouldn't have the expense of all this EU crap and basket case ex commie
countries to support

No? You didn't see all those east European countries filling out the
negative tail of the net contributions list? Of course you did. You just
don't want to lose face by acknowledging you were (and are) wrong.

I stand by my demonstration that his claims were based on prejudice
rather than fact.

Of course Harry is prejudiced

Then why are we arguing?

but that doesn't alter the fact that he
has a valid point about the amount of money the eastern Europeans in
particular get out of the EU.

They are mostly both among the bottom contributors and the bottom
receivers, so his point was invalid, and you have done nothing to
prove otherwise.

Oh, now you are a mind reader and an unsuccessful one at that.

It's got nothing to do with mind reading. You made a claim that I was
being biased, and cited as 'evidence' a page which not only did not
invalidate what I had shown, but even contained a section which
supported my argument more strongly. That suggests to me that your
reading of the page you linked was itself biased.

"There are some variations however. Thanks to its rebate, the UK pays a
smaller proportion of its GNI than other countries."

Exactly, so Harry's original claim was even more wrong than I
originally proved.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Oh, so now it's NOT "basket case ex commie countries" any more but
instead "a gravy train elite living it up in Brussels"!!!??? Make up
your mind as to which piece of mindlessly illogical bigotry you are
trying to claim, do.

On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 07:52:30 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

All to support a gravy train elite living it up in Brussels.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

I really think it's about time we renamed this ng to
uk.bigots.anonymous.

Have you forgotten to take your medication again today?

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 22:36:10 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

a corrupt bent bunch of
ex-commies hand in glove with European big business bent on European
domination at any price..
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:01:30 +0000, charles wrote:

That favours the larger manufacturers who can invest in production
changes necessary to meet the standard.
Supposing yo have s small manufacturer supplying larger toilets to
the North West of Scotland. A standard designed to save water in
Spain would be irrelevant but could put him out of business. This is
just an illustration.

A manufacturer who is incapable of making such basic and
straightforward design changes is not a viable business.

It's not thedesign change - that's easy. It's setting up a new
production line is the expense.

Which makes _no_ difference whatsoever to the statement you just replied
to.

A business can be perfectly viable until the government brings in rule
changes, adding regulatory burdens which then make the business unviable.

As was pointed out, the design costs for a new product are minimal. What
costs the money is redesigning, rebuilding and debugging the production
process and testing the new product for compliance with the new rules,
especially as, when so often happens with British governments, the EU
rules are extended in their scope by the British implementation.

If you've got a dozen production lines, as the big manufacturers have,
then it's a small proportion of your output lost at any one time. At the
other extreme, if you only make one item, then it's *all* of your
production capacity that's out of commission, and very few companies can
survive that for any length of time..

--
Tciao for Now!

John.