On 25 Jun 2014 10:26:47 GMT, Huge wrote:

I haven't been on a bus for decades, and I'm not about to start.

I hadn't been on a bus for 30 years before I got my pass, trip from
town took longer than walking so haven't used one since.

AJH

In message , Gary
writes
On 26/06/2014 14:50, bert wrote:
In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 25/06/2014 11:29, Huge wrote:
On 2014-06-24, Nightjar "cpb"@ "insert my surname here wrote:
....
Also good for avoiding town centre parking fees, if you have
somehere on
a bus route that will take you into town and where the parking is
free.

Ooh. Now *that's* an idea.

Except don't you have to be 65 to get a bus pass?..

Age 60 when I got my first one. They have been tightening the rules
since they realised how much the scheme was costing :-)


The rules have remained the same. It was argued that it was
discriminatory to give a free pas to women at 60 but not to men. IMHO
nonsensical but there it was.
The statutory requirement has not changed. However some councils
notably the urban conurbations were so flush with money that they
could afford to offer over and above that. Now they are having to trim



The pass is a pain for the bus companies. They get 35p for each pass
used. It was cut from 75p a couple or years ago.
It caused real pain when it was cut and normal fares have had to be
adjusted for it and services suffered.
That I believe is the central government payment. The major payment
comes from the local authority AIUI
--
bert

On 27/06/2014 21:30, bert wrote:
In message , Gary
writes
The pass is a pain for the bus companies. They get 35p for each pass
used. It was cut from 75p a couple or years ago.
It caused real pain when it was cut and normal fares have had to be
adjusted for it and services suffered.
That I believe is the central government payment. The major payment
comes from the local authority AIUI

Nope. That's the payment that the bus company gets. I was working for
one until last year that lost a significant percentage of their total
income due to this, and so had to cut back on the services outside peak
times, as well as lay drivers off and increase fares.

The local council can subsidise the *service*, but that's got nothing to
do with the pass, and most if not all councils are cutting back on the
subsidies, so if you live in a village outside town, the daily bus may
well now be weekly or not run at all. If you live in the suburbs, the
commuter peak hour buses will run, but off peak services will be cut to
the bone.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 27/06/2014 22:17, John Williamson wrote:
On 27/06/2014 21:30, bert wrote:
In message , Gary
writes
The pass is a pain for the bus companies. They get 35p for each pass
used. It was cut from 75p a couple or years ago.
It caused real pain when it was cut and normal fares have had to be
adjusted for it and services suffered.
That I believe is the central government payment. The major payment
comes from the local authority AIUI

Nope. That's the payment that the bus company gets. I was working for
one until last year that lost a significant percentage of their total
income due to this, and so had to cut back on the services outside peak
times, as well as lay drivers off and increase fares.

The local council can subsidise the *service*, but that's got nothing to
do with the pass, and most if not all councils are cutting back on the
subsidies, so if you live in a village outside town, the daily bus may
well now be weekly or not run at all. If you live in the suburbs, the
commuter peak hour buses will run, but off peak services will be cut to
the bone.

Can't see that being a problem. Buses around here are full at
school/rush hour & virtually empty the rest of the time. You quite often
see a bus with only 2 or 3 people on board.

Not quite sure why they should be subsidised at all.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 23:16:45 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Not quite sure why they should be subsidised at all.

Depends where you live. If the buses weren't subsidised around here
there wouldn't be any. And it's not as if they run empty, either,
it's normal to see 4 or 5 people waiting at each stop for The Bus.
It's not quite a singular service but there aren't many per day and
you still have to get into town to catch 'em.

The stupid thing is the argument between Cumbria and Northumberland
over the service from Alston (Cumbria) to Hexham (Northumberland).
Neither council want to subsidise it as the end point is in a
different county and they are only interested in transport bewteen
centers within their respective counties. This really daft as Hexham
is the nearest "center" with a hospital out patients department, the
normal "High Street" shops, large supermarkets, etc.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 27/06/2014 23:16, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 27/06/2014 22:17, John Williamson wrote:
The local council can subsidise the *service*, but that's got nothing to
do with the pass, and most if not all councils are cutting back on the
subsidies, so if you live in a village outside town, the daily bus may
well now be weekly or not run at all. If you live in the suburbs, the
commuter peak hour buses will run, but off peak services will be cut to
the bone.

Can't see that being a problem. Buses around here are full at
school/rush hour & virtually empty the rest of the time. You quite often
see a bus with only 2 or 3 people on board.

Not quite sure why they should be subsidised at all.

They are often deemed to be "socially necessary", in that people on
limited incomes without cars need to get to places like the nearest
hospital or school, or even to do their shopping, as the village shop
closed years ago, and is now a nice little home for a relatively rich
family.

Without the (Free at the point of use for some) bus service, these
people would need to move into the local urban centre, which they also
can't afford, and the move would let others move in, which would go a
step further to making the village yet another office workers' dormitory.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , John Williamson
writes
On 27/06/2014 21:30, bert wrote:
In message , Gary
writes
The pass is a pain for the bus companies. They get 35p for each pass
used. It was cut from 75p a couple or years ago.
It caused real pain when it was cut and normal fares have had to be
adjusted for it and services suffered.
That I believe is the central government payment. The major payment
comes from the local authority AIUI

Nope. That's the payment that the bus company gets. I was working for
one until last year that lost a significant percentage of their total
income due to this, and so had to cut back on the services outside peak
times, as well as lay drivers off and increase fares.


The local council can subsidise the *service*, but that's got nothing
to do with the pass, and most if not all councils are cutting back on
the subsidies, so if you live in a village outside town, the daily bus
may well now be weekly or not run at all. If you live in the suburbs,
the commuter peak hour buses will run, but off peak services will be
cut to the bone.

Nope. In my area they are paid 53% of the average adult fare for the
company for each passenger trip carried free.
The objective of the reimbursement is to ensure that operators are no
worse of financially by participating in the scheme.
Taken from a document on Cheshire East website but for some reason I
cannot seem to be able to cut and paste from it.
--
bert

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 27/06/2014 22:17, John Williamson wrote:
On 27/06/2014 21:30, bert wrote:
In message , Gary
writes
The pass is a pain for the bus companies. They get 35p for each pass
used. It was cut from 75p a couple or years ago.
It caused real pain when it was cut and normal fares have had to be
adjusted for it and services suffered.
That I believe is the central government payment. The major payment
comes from the local authority AIUI

Nope. That's the payment that the bus company gets. I was working for
one until last year that lost a significant percentage of their total
income due to this, and so had to cut back on the services outside peak
times, as well as lay drivers off and increase fares.

The local council can subsidise the *service*, but that's got nothing to
do with the pass, and most if not all councils are cutting back on the
subsidies, so if you live in a village outside town, the daily bus may
well now be weekly or not run at all. If you live in the suburbs, the
commuter peak hour buses will run, but off peak services will be cut to
the bone.

Can't see that being a problem. Buses around here are full at
school/rush hour & virtually empty the rest of the time. You quite
often see a bus with only 2 or 3 people on board.

Not quite sure why they should be subsidised at all.


Outside London services are in two categories. Commercial services
receive no subsidies but your local council has no say in where or when
they run. They are licensed by a District Traffic Commissioner who in
our area has very cleverly licensed two different No 6 services but
that's another story.

The local council has the option to enter into contracts with the bus
companies to provide additional services usually out of hours and
weekends or rural services for social reasons and obviously these must
be subsidised. It is not only the elderly with their bus passes that
benefit - early starting/late finishing workers and young people without
car transport for example. The benefit of the bus pass for the elderly
is that it promotes a physically and mentally healthier lifestyle thus
reducing demand for other services such as health and social care. It
also enables them to participate more in the local economy enabling the
net contribution of some £54bn per annum which the RVS has calculated
they make to the economy.

Cutting these services may well prove to be an expensive measure in the
long run.
--
bert

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 27/06/2014 22:17, John Williamson wrote:
On 27/06/2014 21:30, bert wrote:
In message , Gary
writes
The pass is a pain for the bus companies. They get 35p for each pass
used. It was cut from 75p a couple or years ago.
It caused real pain when it was cut and normal fares have had to be
adjusted for it and services suffered.
That I believe is the central government payment. The major payment
comes from the local authority AIUI

Nope. That's the payment that the bus company gets. I was working for
one until last year that lost a significant percentage of their total
income due to this, and so had to cut back on the services outside peak
times, as well as lay drivers off and increase fares.

The local council can subsidise the *service*, but that's got nothing to
do with the pass, and most if not all councils are cutting back on the
subsidies, so if you live in a village outside town, the daily bus may
well now be weekly or not run at all. If you live in the suburbs, the
commuter peak hour buses will run, but off peak services will be cut to
the bone.

Can't see that being a problem. Buses around here are full at school/rush
hour & virtually empty the rest of the time. You quite often see a bus
with only 2 or 3 people on board.

Not quite sure why they should be subsidised at all.


Outside London services are in two categories. Commercial services receive
no subsidies but your local council has no say in where or when they run.
They are licensed by a District Traffic Commissioner who in our area has
very cleverly licensed two different No 6 services but that's another
story.

The local council has the option to enter into contracts with the bus
companies to provide additional services usually out of hours and weekends
or rural services for social reasons and obviously these must be
subsidised. It is not only the elderly with their bus passes that
benefit - early starting/late finishing workers and young people without
car transport for example. The benefit of the bus pass for the elderly is
that it promotes a physically and mentally healthier lifestyle thus
reducing demand for other services such as health and social care. It also
enables them to participate more in the local economy enabling the net
contribution of some £54bn per annum which the RVS has calculated they
make to the economy.

Cutting these services may well prove to be an expensive measure in the
long run.

Bet it doesn't, essentially because the benefits are pretty minor with the
elderly.

In message , Rod Speed
writes


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 27/06/2014 22:17, John Williamson wrote:
On 27/06/2014 21:30, bert wrote:
In message , Gary
writes
The pass is a pain for the bus companies. They get 35p for each pass
used. It was cut from 75p a couple or years ago.
It caused real pain when it was cut and normal fares have had to be
adjusted for it and services suffered.
That I believe is the central government payment. The major payment
comes from the local authority AIUI

Nope. That's the payment that the bus company gets. I was working for
one until last year that lost a significant percentage of their total
income due to this, and so had to cut back on the services outside peak
times, as well as lay drivers off and increase fares.

The local council can subsidise the *service*, but that's got nothing to
do with the pass, and most if not all councils are cutting back on the
subsidies, so if you live in a village outside town, the daily bus may
well now be weekly or not run at all. If you live in the suburbs, the
commuter peak hour buses will run, but off peak services will be cut to
the bone.

Can't see that being a problem. Buses around here are full at
school/rush hour & virtually empty the rest of the time. You quite
often see a bus with only 2 or 3 people on board.

Not quite sure why they should be subsidised at all.


Outside London services are in two categories. Commercial services
receive no subsidies but your local council has no say in where or
when they run. They are licensed by a District Traffic Commissioner
who in our area has very cleverly licensed two different No 6
services but that's another story.

The local council has the option to enter into contracts with the bus
companies to provide additional services usually out of hours and
weekends or rural services for social reasons and obviously these
must be subsidised. It is not only the elderly with their bus passes
that benefit - early starting/late finishing workers and young people
without car transport for example. The benefit of the bus pass for
the elderly is that it promotes a physically and mentally healthier
lifestyle thus reducing demand for other services such as health and
social care. It also enables them to participate more in the local
economy enabling the net contribution of some £54bn per annum which
the RVS has calculated they make to the economy.

Cutting these services may well prove to be an expensive measure in
the long run.

Bet it doesn't, essentially because the benefits are pretty minor with
the elderly.
You can bet all you like but as usual you haven't a clue what you are
talking about.
--
bert

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 27/06/2014 22:17, John Williamson wrote:
On 27/06/2014 21:30, bert wrote:
In message , Gary
writes
The pass is a pain for the bus companies. They get 35p for each pass
used. It was cut from 75p a couple or years ago.
It caused real pain when it was cut and normal fares have had to be
adjusted for it and services suffered.
That I believe is the central government payment. The major payment
comes from the local authority AIUI

Nope. That's the payment that the bus company gets. I was working for
one until last year that lost a significant percentage of their total
income due to this, and so had to cut back on the services outside
peak
times, as well as lay drivers off and increase fares.

The local council can subsidise the *service*, but that's got nothing
to
do with the pass, and most if not all councils are cutting back on the
subsidies, so if you live in a village outside town, the daily bus may
well now be weekly or not run at all. If you live in the suburbs, the
commuter peak hour buses will run, but off peak services will be cut
to
the bone.

Can't see that being a problem. Buses around here are full at
school/rush hour & virtually empty the rest of the time. You quite often
see a bus with only 2 or 3 people on board.

Not quite sure why they should be subsidised at all.


Outside London services are in two categories. Commercial services
receive no subsidies but your local council has no say in where or when
they run. They are licensed by a District Traffic Commissioner who in
our area has very cleverly licensed two different No 6 services but
that's another story.

The local council has the option to enter into contracts with the bus
companies to provide additional services usually out of hours and
weekends or rural services for social reasons and obviously these must
be subsidised. It is not only the elderly with their bus passes that
benefit - early starting/late finishing workers and young people without
car transport for example. The benefit of the bus pass for the elderly
is that it promotes a physically and mentally healthier lifestyle thus
reducing demand for other services such as health and social care. It
also enables them to participate more in the local economy enabling the
net contribution of some £54bn per annum which the RVS has calculated
they make to the economy.

Cutting these services may well prove to be an expensive measure in the
long run.

Bet it doesn't, essentially because the benefits are pretty minor with the
elderly.

You can bet all you like but as usual you haven't a clue what you are
talking about.

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

On 29/06/2014 23:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"bert" ] wrote in message
The local council has the option to enter into contracts with the
bus companies to provide additional services usually out of hours
and weekends or rural services for social reasons and obviously
these must be subsidised. It is not only the elderly with their bus
passes that benefit - early starting/late finishing workers and
young people without car transport for example. The benefit of the
bus pass for the elderly is that it promotes a physically and
mentally healthier lifestyle thus reducing demand for other services
such as health and social care. It also enables them to participate
more in the local economy enabling the net contribution of some
£54bn per annum which the RVS has calculated they make to the economy.

Cutting these services may well prove to be an expensive measure in
the long run.

Bet it doesn't, essentially because the benefits are pretty minor
with the elderly.

You can bet all you like but as usual you haven't a clue what you are
talking about.

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

In this case, you *don't* know what you're talking about. Cutting the
subsidy for the bus service means that the elderly will either need to
move into expensive accommodation in the town, or the council will need
to provide transport for them to attend appointments, as there will be
no bus service available.

So, to save the cost of subsidising a bus service which lets people live
in their own, usually fully paid for, home, you either need to provide a
fleet of vehicles adapted to cope with various physical handicaps, all
staffed by qualified personnel, or provide sheltered accommodation in a
relatively expensive area. You would also need to provide council run
bus services for children to get to school, as they would no longer be
able to use the subsidised bus, and the council are required by law to
provide home to school transport if that distance is more than about 3
miles, or 1 mile for younger children, as the local school will have
been closed years ago in a previous round of cuts.

Benefits paid directly to the people using the bus don't come into the
picture at all.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote
Rod Speed wrote
bert ] wrote
Rod Speed wrote
bert ] wrote

The local council has the option to enter into contracts with the
bus companies to provide additional services usually out of hours
and weekends or rural services for social reasons and obviously
these must be subsidised. It is not only the elderly with their bus
passes that benefit - early starting/late finishing workers and
young people without car transport for example. The benefit of the bus
pass for the elderly is that it promotes a physically and
mentally healthier lifestyle thus reducing demand for other services
such as health and social care. It also enables them to participate
more in the local economy enabling the net contribution of some £54bn
per annum which the RVS has calculated they make to the economy.

Cutting these services may well prove to be an expensive measure in
the long run.

Bet it doesn't, essentially because the benefits are pretty minor
with the elderly.

You can bet all you like but as usual you haven't a clue what you are
talking about.

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

In this case, you *don't* know what you're talking about.

We'll see...

Cutting the subsidy for the bus service means that the elderly will either
need to move into expensive accommodation in the town,

BULL****.

or the council will need to provide transport for them to attend
appointments,

BULL****. They can obviously use a taxi.

as there will be no bus service available.

Doesn't mean that there is nothing at all they can use.

So, to save the cost of subsidising a bus service which lets people live
in their own, usually fully paid for, home, you either need to provide a
fleet of vehicles adapted to cope with various physical handicaps,

Those are there already. We have called them taxis for quite a while now.

all staffed by qualified personnel,

Even sillier than you usually manage. Taxi
drivers are just as well qualified as bus drivers.

or provide sheltered accommodation in a relatively expensive area.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

We get real radical and have people visit them in their
homes at a MUCH lower cost than subsidising the
buses that very few of the most disabled use at all.

You would also need to provide council run bus services for children to
get to school, as they would no longer be able to use the subsidised bus,
and the council are required by law to provide home to school transport if
that distance is more than about 3 miles, or 1 mile for younger children,
as the local school will have been closed years ago in a previous round of
cuts.

Separate matter entirely to what I commented on.

Benefits paid directly to the people using the bus don't come into the
picture at all.

I didn't even comment on that.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:36:21 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

... or the council will need to provide transport for them to
attend
appointments,

BULL****. They can obviously use a taxi.

Hum hospital appointment from here by taxi, 50 ish mile round trip
plus say 2 hours waiting time:

£2.70 first 0.7 mile.
£2.00/mile there after
£14.00/hour waiting time

2.70 + (2 * 50) + (2 * 14) = £130.70

State Pension: £113.10/week

BUT as this is hospital appointment the NHS will provide transport if
there is no suitable public transport. The transport is still
subsidsed from your taxes it just comes out of a different budget. In
this case it moves from the councils to the NHS.

You would also need to provide council run bus services for
children to
get to school, as they would no longer be able to use the
subsidised
bus,

cough The public are no longer allowed on the school bus, at least
around here.

... and the council are required by law to provide home to school
transport if that distance is more than about 3 miles, or 1 mile
for
younger children,

Or if there is no suitable "safe" walking route. No pavements along
the roads here apart from the last 100 yds.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 30/06/2014 14:52, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:36:21 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

... or the council will need to provide transport for them to
attend
appointments,

BULL****. They can obviously use a taxi.
Snip

BUT as this is hospital appointment the NHS will provide transport if
there is no suitable public transport. The transport is still
subsidsed from your taxes it just comes out of a different budget. In
this case it moves from the councils to the NHS.

And the cost to the NHS of running the service is much more than
subsidising a daily bus service.

You would also need to provide council run bus services for
children to
get to school, as they would no longer be able to use the
subsidised
bus,

cough The public are no longer allowed on the school bus, at least
around here.

A lot of public stage carriage services here and where I used to live
until last year carry schoolchildren using free council passes. Some of
these services are subsidised by the council apart from the revenue from
the passes. Dedicated school buses are, as you say, not available for
public use.

... and the council are required by law to provide home to school
transport if that distance is more than about 3 miles, or 1 mile
for
younger children,

Or if there is no suitable "safe" walking route. No pavements along
the roads here apart from the last 100 yds.

That too.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 30/06/2014 13:36, Rod Speed wrote:
John Williamson wrote
Rod Speed wrote
bert ] wrote
Rod Speed wrote
bert ] wrote

The local council has the option to enter into contracts with the
bus companies to provide additional services usually out of hours
and weekends or rural services for social reasons and obviously
these must be subsidised. It is not only the elderly with their bus
passes that benefit - early starting/late finishing workers and
young people without car transport for example. The benefit of the
bus pass for the elderly is that it promotes a physically and
mentally healthier lifestyle thus reducing demand for other services
such as health and social care. It also enables them to
participate more in the local economy enabling the net
contribution of some £54bn per annum which the RVS has calculated
they make to the economy.

Cutting these services may well prove to be an expensive measure in
the long run.

Bet it doesn't, essentially because the benefits are pretty minor
with the elderly.

You can bet all you like but as usual you haven't a clue what you are
talking about.

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

In this case, you *don't* know what you're talking about.

We'll see...

Cutting the subsidy for the bus service means that the elderly will
either need to move into expensive accommodation in the town,

BULL****.

or the council will need to provide transport for them to attend
appointments,

BULL****. They can obviously use a taxi.

as there will be no bus service available.

Doesn't mean that there is nothing at all they can use.

You've not lived in the average British village, have you? I lived in
one a while ago where the nearest shop was 5 miles away, and the nearest
hospital 15 miles. The nearest doctor was 10 miles in the opposite
direction. The only bus service was once a week to the nearest market
town, which had neither hospital or a doctor's practice which would
accept you as a patient. There *was* a daily schoolbus, but that was
strictly kids only. *I* had a car and could drive. Many of the older
occupants either couldn't afford a car, or couldn't drive due to the
lack of a licence or physical infirmity.

So, to save the cost of subsidising a bus service which lets people
live in their own, usually fully paid for, home, you either need to
provide a fleet of vehicles adapted to cope with various physical
handicaps,

Those are there already. We have called them taxis for quite a while now.

*You* might have called them taxis. We call them ambulances. They come
in various grades from a minibus with a wheelchair ramp to the full
mobile intensive care unit.

In the cases I gave above, a private taxi to and from the hospital would
cost *at least* two full day's pension for the average pensioner in the
village.

all staffed by qualified personnel,

Even sillier than you usually manage. Taxi
drivers are just as well qualified as bus drivers.

As a bus and coach driver, I would strongly dispute that.

or provide sheltered accommodation in a relatively expensive area.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

We get real radical and have people visit them in their
homes at a MUCH lower cost than subsidising the
buses that very few of the most disabled use at all.

You really haven't looked at the costs here, have you? A doctor can see
a few dozen patients per day in his or her surgery, but can only fit in
half a dozen home visits when the patients live in villages spread round
their area, which may, in some areas, be a few hundred square miles.
It's a much more sensible use of restricted funds to bring the patients
to the doctor whenever possible than the other way round.

You would also need to provide council run bus services for children
to get to school, as they would no longer be able to use the
subsidised bus, and the council are required by law to provide home to
school transport if that distance is more than about 3 miles, or 1
mile for younger children, as the local school will have been closed
years ago in a previous round of cuts.

Separate matter entirely to what I commented on.

It's part of the question about whether bus services need to be
subsidised. You subsidise them for *all* users, not just pensioners.

Benefits paid directly to the people using the bus don't come into the
picture at all.

I didn't even comment on that.

So what did you mean by "Bet it doesn't, essentially because the
benefits are pretty minor with the elderly."
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 30/06/2014 16:13, John Williamson wrote:
It's a much more sensible use of restricted funds to bring the patients
to the doctor whenever possible than the other way round.

But the doctors themselves create lots of appointments. I have to get an
annual blood test. The way I am expected to that is to make an
appointment with a doctor, get a blood test form, make an appointment
for that, make a follow up appointment to discuss the results.

What I do is call to ask receptionist to get a blood test form produced,
drop in to collect it, have blood test at the hospital at a time both
convenient for me and physiologically more sensible, then finally have a
single appointment.

--
Rod

On 30/06/2014 18:39, polygonum wrote:
On 30/06/2014 16:13, John Williamson wrote:
It's a much more sensible use of restricted funds to bring the patients
to the doctor whenever possible than the other way round.

But the doctors themselves create lots of appointments. I have to get an
annual blood test. The way I am expected to that is to make an
appointment with a doctor, get a blood test form, make an appointment
for that, make a follow up appointment to discuss the results.

What I do is call to ask receptionist to get a blood test form produced,
drop in to collect it, have blood test at the hospital at a time both
convenient for me and physiologically more sensible, then finally have a
single appointment.

What Wodders would apparently have them do is to get the doctor to drive
to your village, give you the form or take the blood, take the blood
back to the surgery, then come out to your house with the results of the
test and discuss them with you.

Your way is about the same way I do it, except that my doctor sends me
the form in the post a week or two before the due date. I then wander
down to the local vampire centre to have the sample taken, then I get
told my negotiable appointment time for the chat (AKA the telling off).

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 30/06/2014 18:54, John Williamson wrote:
Your way is about the same way I do it, except that my doctor sends me
the form in the post a week or two before the due date. I then wander
down to the local vampire centre to have the sample taken, then I get
told my negotiable appointment time for the chat (AKA the telling off).

They never think to tell me anything - I have to read the repeat
prescription which says when next review is due.

And (so far) no telling off. :-)

However, next appointment could be fun. I am going to complain about
repeats only lasting 56 days. If they re-tested me every 56 days, I
would not complain, but they only test once a year so why restrict the
number of tablets? Am also going to explain that I actually buy my own
from Germany because it works better for me than does the UK product. So
longer prescriptions help to reduce postal costs.

--
Rod

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:27:27 +0100, polygonum wrote:

On 30/06/2014 18:54, John Williamson wrote:
Your way is about the same way I do it, except that my doctor sends me
the form in the post a week or two before the due date. I then wander
down to the local vampire centre to have the sample taken, then I get
told my negotiable appointment time for the chat (AKA the telling off).

They never think to tell me anything - I have to read the repeat
prescription which says when next review is due.

And (so far) no telling off. :-)

However, next appointment could be fun. I am going to complain about
repeats only lasting 56 days. If they re-tested me every 56 days, I
would not complain, but they only test once a year so why restrict the
number of tablets? Am also going to explain that I actually buy my own
from Germany because it works better for me than does the UK product. So
longer prescriptions help to reduce postal costs.

My mother in law gets only 28 days. It's a pain if she comes to visit,
out of phase with the repeats. We have to do a temporary registration
here and then wait ages to get her in for a consultation and finally a
prescription.

I get 84 days.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 30/06/2014 21:45, Tim Streater wrote:

I'm on 28. But by judiciously repeating a day or two early for long
enough, I am now a month ahead, precisely to cover holidays, them being
out of one or other med, etc etc.

Bloody ridiculous for most medicines. Indeed, the MHRA expressly say
that prescriptions should be for 84 days (or more, I guess):

"Levothyroxine should be prescribed and dispensed in quantities covering
three months supply, where appropriate, in order to address issues of
continuity of supply and also to improve convenience to patients."

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/p.../con222566.pdf

--
Rod

On 30/06/2014 21:51, polygonum wrote:
MHRA expressly say that prescriptions

*** for my medicine ***

--
Rod

Dave Liquorice wrote
Rod Speed wrote

... or the council will need to provide transport
for them to attend appointments,

BULL****. They can obviously use a taxi.

Hum hospital appointment from here by taxi, 50 ish mile round trip

**** all of the situations being discussed have anything like that.

plus say 2 hours waiting time:

No need to pay for that, just get another taxi for the trip home.

£2.70 first 0.7 mile.
£2.00/mile there after
£14.00/hour waiting time

2.70 + (2 * 50) + (2 * 14) = £130.70

State Pension: £113.10/week

BUT as this is hospital appointment the NHS will provide
transport if there is no suitable public transport.

So his original claim has blown up in his
face and covered him with black stuff.

The transport is still subsidsed from your
taxes it just comes out of a different budget.

Sure, but that's an entirely separate issue to his original
stupid claim that eliminating the bus subsidy is certain
to result in MUCH higher costs overall.

In this case it moves from the councils to the NHS.

And clearly the occasional long distance trip
like that wouldn't be seen that often in real life.

You would also need to provide council run bus
services for children to get to school, as they would
no longer be able to use the subsidised bus,

cough The public are no longer allowed
on the school bus, at least around here.

... and the council are required by law to provide home
to school transport if that distance is more than about
3 miles, or 1 mile for younger children,

Or if there is no suitable "safe" walking route. No pavements
along the roads here apart from the last 100 yds.

We have **** all pavements along the roads here, and the kids manage fine.

John Williamson wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
Rod Speed wrote

... or the council will need to provide transport
for them to attend appointments,

BULL****. They can obviously use a taxi.

BUT as this is hospital appointment the NHS will provide
transport if there is no suitable public transport. The transport
is still subsidsed from your taxes it just comes out of a different
budget. In this case it moves from the councils to the NHS.

And the cost to the NHS of running the service is
much more than subsidising a daily bus service.

Bull****. Because VERY few of the bus trips are to a hospital/doctor.

And we get real radical and have the nurse show up at your
place to change the dressing etc instead of having the usually
much less mobile individual use a bus to get to the hospital too.

And I know that because a diabetic mate of mine has just
recently has his lower leg amputated and we have been
driving him around because his wife also had a major
injury and is no longer capable of driving him around.

You would also need to provide council run bus
services for children to get to school, as they would
no longer be able to use the subsidised bus,

cough The public are no longer allowed
on the school bus, at least around here.

A lot of public stage carriage services here and where I used to
live until last year carry schoolchildren using free council passes.
Some of these services are subsidised by the council apart from
the revenue from the passes. Dedicated school buses are, as you
say, not available for public use.

... and the council are required by law to provide home
to school transport if that distance is more than about
3 miles, or 1 mile for younger children,

Or if there is no suitable "safe" walking route. No pavements
along the roads here apart from the last 100 yds.

That too.

Ours managed fine with **** all pavements.

John Williamson wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Williamson wrote
Rod Speed wrote
bert ] wrote
Rod Speed wrote
bert ] wrote

The local council has the option to enter into contracts with the
bus companies to provide additional services usually out of hours
and weekends or rural services for social reasons and obviously
these must be subsidised. It is not only the elderly with their bus
passes that benefit - early starting/late finishing workers and
young people without car transport for example. The benefit of the
bus pass for the elderly is that it promotes a physically and
mentally healthier lifestyle thus reducing demand for other services
such as health and social care. It also enables them to participate
more in the local economy enabling the net
contribution of some £54bn per annum which the RVS has calculated
they make to the economy.

Cutting these services may well prove to be an expensive measure in
the long run.

Bet it doesn't, essentially because the benefits are pretty minor
with the elderly.

You can bet all you like but as usual you haven't a clue what you are
talking about.

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

In this case, you *don't* know what you're talking about.

We'll see...

Cutting the subsidy for the bus service means that the elderly will
either need to move into expensive accommodation in the town,

BULL****.

or the council will need to provide transport for them to attend
appointments,

BULL****. They can obviously use a taxi.

as there will be no bus service available.

Doesn't mean that there is nothing at all they can use.

You've not lived in the average British village, have you?

That diabetic mate of mine does in fact live in a village that
is very similar in all but age to the average british village.

I lived in one a while ago where the nearest shop was 5 miles away, and
the nearest hospital 15 miles.

Plenty of ours are like that. Plenty of them have
the nearest hospital much further away than that.

While the diabetic mate of mine does have a full base
hospital about that distance away, it doesn't do amputations
of limbs and prosthetics, that hospital is 150 miles away.

We just drive him in his car to that hospital as required
for adjustments to his new metal leg and there are
various volunteer operations that do that for those
who do not have their own car, and there is a minibus
entirely for medical events available as well.

The nearest doctor was 10 miles in the opposite direction.

Our doctors mostly have enough of a clue to be located
reasonably close to the base hospital, but not all of them
do, one of them is actually in one of the villages.

The only bus service was once a week to the nearest market town,

We don't have anything like that at all.

which had neither hospital or a doctor's practice which would accept you
as a patient. There *was* a daily schoolbus, but that was strictly kids
only. *I* had a car and could drive. Many of the older occupants either
couldn't afford a car, or couldn't drive due to the lack of a licence or
physical infirmity.

But are free to get someone else who does have a car
to assist them and to use a taxi as required as well.

So, to save the cost of subsidising a bus service which lets people live
in their own, usually fully paid for, home, you either need to provide a
fleet of vehicles adapted to cope with various physical handicaps,

Those are there already. We have called them taxis for quite a while now.

*You* might have called them taxis. We call them ambulances.

Those who can use a bus can use a taxi.

Some of our taxis have wheel chair access and none of our busses do.

They come in various grades from a minibus with a wheelchair ramp

We have some taxis like that.

to the full mobile intensive care unit.

We have those as well but the don't get used by
those who could have used a bus if it was available.

In the cases I gave above, a private taxi to and from the hospital would
cost *at least* two full day's pension for the average pensioner in the
village.

Not when the NHS can pay for the taxi instead
of the state providing the bus subsidy.

all staffed by qualified personnel,

Even sillier than you usually manage. Taxi
drivers are just as well qualified as bus drivers.

As a bus and coach driver, I would strongly dispute that.

Doesn't matter a damn what you dispute, the other mate
of mine who also drives the diabetic around was a school
bus driver until his cataracts put a stop to that.

And another was a taxi driver for a while.

or provide sheltered accommodation in a relatively expensive area.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

We get real radical and have people visit them in their
homes at a MUCH lower cost than subsidising the
buses that very few of the most disabled use at all.

You really haven't looked at the costs here, have you?

Those who decided to do things that way clearly have.

A doctor can see a few dozen patients per day in his or her surgery,

There is a lot more involved than just doctors.

but can only fit in half a dozen home visits when the patients live in
villages spread round their area,

Which isnt all that common a situation country wide even in britain.

which may, in some areas, be a few hundred square miles.

And yet we have nurses do that all the time over a much bigger area.

It's a much more sensible use of restricted funds to bring the patients to
the doctor whenever possible than the other way round.

Bull****, particularly with nurses that have to redo
dressings for diabetics multiple times a week.

MUCH cheaper than keeping them in hospital.

You would also need to provide council run bus services for children to
get to school, as they would no longer be able to use the subsidised
bus, and the council are required by law to provide home to school
transport if that distance is more than about 3 miles, or 1 mile for
younger children, as the local school will have been closed years ago in
a previous round of cuts.

Separate matter entirely to what I commented on.

It's part of the question about whether bus services need to be
subsidised.

That wasn't what I chose to comment on.

You subsidise them for *all* users, not just pensioners.

That mangles the real story. You actually subsidise them for
just a couple of groups, the pensioners and the school kids.

The rest get to pay the cost of providing the service in
any place with even half a clue about how to do things.

Benefits paid directly to the people using the bus don't come into the
picture at all.

I didn't even comment on that.

So what did you mean by "Bet it doesn't, essentially because the benefits
are pretty minor with the elderly."

That was a comment on bert's

Cutting these services may well prove to be an expensive measure in
the long run.

And

The benefit of the bus pass for the elderly is that it promotes a
physically and mentally healthier lifestyle thus reducing demand for
other services such as health and social care.

Its unlikely that that not being as easy would
prove an expensive measure in the long term.

polygonum wrote
John Williamson wrote

It's a much more sensible use of restricted funds to bring the patients
to the doctor whenever possible than the other way round.

But the doctors themselves create lots of appointments.
I have to get an annual blood test.

I don't have to but agree with the doctor that it makes sense.

I've always been into measuring things instead of waiting for
symptoms to show up with stuff as important as my health.

The way I am expected to that is to make an appointment
with a doctor, get a blood test form, make an appointment
for that, make a follow up appointment to discuss the results.

I see the doctor twice a year, get him to provide me with the
form on the one before the one where the blood test is done.
No appointment necessary for the blood test, just show up
with the form and have the blood taken. I do that a week
before the next doctor's appointment is due, so we can
discuss the test when I show up for that appointment.

What I do is call to ask receptionist to get a blood test form
produced, drop in to collect it, have blood test at the hospital at a
time both convenient for me and physiologically more sensible,

I do mine literally as soon as they open, because it's a
fasting test and I hate doing anything without breakfast.

then finally have a single appointment.

John Williamson wrote
polygonum wrote
John Williamson wrote

It's a much more sensible use of restricted funds to bring the patients
to the doctor whenever possible than the other way round.

But the doctors themselves create lots of appointments. I have to get an
annual blood test. The way I am expected to that is to make an
appointment with a doctor, get a blood test form, make an appointment
for that, make a follow up appointment to discuss the results.

What I do is call to ask receptionist to get a blood test form produced,
drop in to collect it, have blood test at the hospital at a time both
convenient for me and physiologically more sensible, then finally have a
single appointment.

What Wodders would apparently have them do is to get the doctor to drive
to your village, give you the form or take the blood, take the blood back
to the surgery, then come out to your house with the results of the test
and discuss them with you.

Nope, I never said that doctors should do that with those who
are capable of getting on a bus or a taxi or their own car or
bike or walking.

It does make a lot more sense to have NURSES show up
at your house to do multiple dressing changes a week
with diabetics rather than keeping them in hospital tho.

And much cheaper than subsidising all buses for the odd
few diabetics that need multiple dressing changes a week too.

Your way is about the same way I do it, except that my doctor sends me the
form in the post a week or two before the due date. I then wander down to
the local vampire centre to have the sample taken, then I get told my
negotiable appointment time for the chat (AKA the telling off).

I got told by mine that he wished his cholesterol levels were as good as
mine.

On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 07:31:23 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Hum hospital appointment from here by taxi, 50 ish mile round trip

**** all of the situations being discussed have anything like that.

You over estimate the density of hospitals in the UK that have out
patients departments. If the consultants and her team didn't come to
the hospital 25 miles away I would be going to one 50+ miles away.

plus say 2 hours waiting time:

No need to pay for that, just get another taxi for the trip home.

So two cars doing the 50 mile round trip instead of one?

In this case it moves from the councils to the NHS.

And clearly the occasional long distance trip like that wouldn't be seen
that often in real life.

I go every 6 months, there are three or four other people in this
locality that have the same condition. This is just one condition of
the many that are out there that require regular clinic visits. The
clinic I attend is run every Tuesday, all day, seeing 30+ patients.
This is a rural area, I'd expect the vast majority of those patients
to have travelled 10 miles or more.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Hum hospital appointment from here by taxi, 50 ish mile round trip

**** all of the situations being discussed have anything like that.

You over estimate the density of hospitals in
the UK that have out patients departments.

Nope, I realise that few live that far from a hospital
that have an outpatient department even in britain.

If the consultants and her team didn't come to the hospital
25 miles away I would be going to one 50+ miles away.

Sure, its certainly true for some, but not enough to matter
when deciding whether it makes any sense at all to be
subsidising all buses to handles those very few economically.

plus say 2 hours waiting time:

No need to pay for that, just get another taxi for the trip home.

So two cars doing the 50 mile round trip instead of one?

If that makes sense total price wise, sure.

In this case it moves from the councils to the NHS.

And clearly the occasional long distance trip
like that wouldn't be seen that often in real life.

I go every 6 months, there are three or four other people in this
locality that have the same condition. This is just one condition
of the many that are out there that require regular clinic visits.

But **** all of those don't have a car.

The clinic I attend is run every Tuesday, all day, seeing 30+
patients. This is a rural area, I'd expect the vast majority of
those patients to have travelled 10 miles or more.

And the bulk of those would have a car.

Rod Speed wrote:

I got told by mine that he wished his cholesterol levels were as good as
mine.

On average. Below 5.4, men die. Below 6.2, women die. The single test
level is almost meaningless as the results are very inconsistent. The
average GP is pretty ignorant and should always be double checked.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 21:45:10 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Bob Eager
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:27:27 +0100, polygonum wrote:

On 30/06/2014 18:54, John Williamson wrote:
Your way is about the same way I do it, except that my doctor sends
me the form in the post a week or two before the due date. I then
wander down to the local vampire centre to have the sample taken,
then I get told my negotiable appointment time for the chat (AKA the
telling off).

They never think to tell me anything - I have to read the repeat
prescription which says when next review is due.

And (so far) no telling off.

However, next appointment could be fun. I am going to complain about
repeats only lasting 56 days. If they re-tested me every 56 days, I
would not complain, but they only test once a year so why restrict
the number of tablets? Am also going to explain that I actually buy
my own from Germany because it works better for me than does the UK
product. So longer prescriptions help to reduce postal costs.

My mother in law gets only 28 days. It's a pain if she comes to visit,
out of phase with the repeats. We have to do a temporary registration
here and then wait ages to get her in for a consultation and finally a
prescription.

I get 84 days.

How d'ye manage that ???

Intelligent staff at the university medical centre!

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:05:56 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

And clearly the occasional long distance trip like that wouldn't
be
seen that often in real life.

I go every 6 months, there are three or four other people in this
locality that have the same condition. This is just one condition
of the many that are out there that require regular clinic visits.


But **** all of those don't have a car.

The clinic I attend is run every Tuesday, all day, seeing 30+
patients. This is a rural area, I'd expect the vast majority of
those patients to have travelled 10 miles or more.

And the bulk of those would have a car.

My condition is "notifiable", ie I have to tell the DVLA. They
reissue my driving licence for, currently, 3 years after contacting
my consultant and getting a "Yes, he is OK to drive" response. I have
just over a year left on the last 3 year issue. It's not so much
having a car as being able to use it.

ICBA'd to respond to further posts that contain bad language.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Capitol wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I got told by mine that he wished his cholesterol levels were as good as
mine.

On average. Below 5.4, men die.

Bull****.

Below 6.2, women die.

Bull****.

The single test level is almost meaningless as the results are very
inconsistent.

Mine arent single tests, they are done
every year and are very consistent.

The average GP is pretty ignorant

None of mine are. And the cardiologist in spades.

and should always be double checked.

My cholesterol levels have been a hell of a lot more than just double
checked.

Dave Liquorice wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And clearly the occasional long distance trip like
that wouldn't be seen that often in real life.

I go every 6 months, there are three or four other people in this
locality that have the same condition. This is just one condition
of the many that are out there that require regular clinic visits.

But **** all of those don't have a car.

The clinic I attend is run every Tuesday, all day, seeing 30+
patients. This is a rural area, I'd expect the vast majority of
those patients to have travelled 10 miles or more.

And the bulk of those would have a car.

My condition is "notifiable", ie I have to tell the DVLA. They
reissue my driving licence for, currently, 3 years after contacting
my consultant and getting a "Yes, he is OK to drive" response.
I have just over a year left on the last 3 year issue. It's not so
much having a car as being able to use it.

**** all of those you listed are not allowed to drive.

ICBA'd to respond to further posts that contain bad language.

Your problem.

replying to Mick IOW, Marion Meekings wrote:
I remember it well I was 18 and working hard to survive it all.
But we dI'd it as a great British nation would do. We prepared ourselves for
it.
We mainly had Coal fires although coal was limited then .
My poor old was 58 then and worked in a powerful station he would collect any
wood wherever he could to keep us warm and have hot water. My sister lived in
a Tower Block 22 floors high they lived on the top floor with 2 very small
babies.
We had to organise our times but it was fun, candles and conversation our own
entertainment kettles on the back boiler for a lovely cuppa and bread toasted
by the fire. .
The bedrooms had ice on the inside of the windows so mum and dad put a
parafin heater in the room before we went to bed.
Even now when I smell paraffin it takes me straight back to them times.
Dad played a mouth organ and mum and us kids use to sing along.
I actually miss them days

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...0s-980209-.htm

replying to Tim Watts, Marion Meekings wrote:
3 hrs on 3hrs off I remember it .

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...0s-980209-.htm

Does this go back a while as a thread?
Where I worked we had a generator, here I had several old car batteries and
a battery light and tv.

The parafin heaters were great but oh the condensation.
Note that shops nowadays would not cope, neither would banks they rely on
their leccy and internet connections too much.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Marion Meekings" m wrote
in message ...
replying to Mick IOW, Marion Meekings wrote:
I remember it well I was 18 and working hard to survive it all. But we
dI'd it as a great British nation would do. We prepared ourselves for
it.
We mainly had Coal fires although coal was limited then .
My poor old was 58 then and worked in a powerful station he would collect
any
wood wherever he could to keep us warm and have hot water. My sister lived
in
a Tower Block 22 floors high they lived on the top floor with 2 very small
babies.
We had to organise our times but it was fun, candles and conversation our
own
entertainment kettles on the back boiler for a lovely cuppa and bread
toasted
by the fire. .
The bedrooms had ice on the inside of the windows so mum and dad put a
parafin heater in the room before we went to bed.
Even now when I smell paraffin it takes me straight back to them times.
Dad played a mouth organ and mum and us kids use to sing along.
I actually miss them days
--
for full context, visit
https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...0s-980209-.htm

Brian Gaff wrote:
Does this go back a while as a thread?
Where I worked we had a generator, here I had several old car
batteries and a battery light and tv.

The parafin heaters were great but oh the condensation.
Note that shops nowadays would not cope, neither would banks they
rely on their leccy and internet connections too much.
Brian

Goes back to 2014 Brian.
The dickhead who posted it thought it was "fun" and misses those days.
This bellend had not seen her father arrive home from a 12 hour shift, walk
into a cold dark house and not eat a hot meal.
Land fit for heroes my backside.


replying to Mick IOW, Marion Meekings wrote:
I remember it well I was 18 and working hard to survive it all. But
we dI'd it as a great British nation would do. We prepared ourselves
for it.
We mainly had Coal fires although coal was limited then .
My poor old was 58 then and worked in a powerful station he would
collect any
wood wherever he could to keep us warm and have hot water. My sister
lived in
a Tower Block 22 floors high they lived on the top floor with 2 very
small babies.
We had to organise our times but it was fun, candles and
conversation our own
entertainment kettles on the back boiler for a lovely cuppa and bread
toasted
by the fire. .
The bedrooms had ice on the inside of the windows so mum and dad
put a parafin heater in the room before we went to bed.
Even now when I smell paraffin it takes me straight back to them
times. Dad played a mouth organ and mum and us kids use to sing
along. I actually miss them days
--
for full context, visit
https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...0s-980209-.htm

On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:46:42 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Brian Gaff wrote:
Does this go back a while as a thread?
Where I worked we had a generator, here I had several old car
batteries and a battery light and tv.

The parafin heaters were great but oh the condensation.
Note that shops nowadays would not cope, neither would banks they
rely on their leccy and internet connections too much.
Brian

Goes back to 2014 Brian.
The dickhead who posted it thought it was "fun" and misses those days.
This bellend had not seen her father arrive home from a 12 hour shift, walk
into a cold dark house and not eat a hot meal.
Land fit for heroes my backside.

Not soft enough for you then?

replying to Mick IOW, Marion Meekings wrote:
I remember it well I was 18 and working hard to survive it all. But
we dI'd it as a great British nation would do. We prepared ourselves
for it.
We mainly had Coal fires although coal was limited then .
My poor old was 58 then and worked in a powerful station he would
collect any
wood wherever he could to keep us warm and have hot water. My sister
lived in
a Tower Block 22 floors high they lived on the top floor with 2 very
small babies.
We had to organise our times but it was fun, candles and
conversation our own
entertainment kettles on the back boiler for a lovely cuppa and bread
toasted
by the fire. .
The bedrooms had ice on the inside of the windows so mum and dad
put a parafin heater in the room before we went to bed.
Even now when I smell paraffin it takes me straight back to them
times. Dad played a mouth organ and mum and us kids use to sing
along. I actually miss them days
--
for full context, visit
https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...0s-980209-.htm





--
Two Muslims have crashed a speedboat into the Thames barrier in London.
Police think it might be the start of Ram-a-dam.

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 17:46:42 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:
Does this go back a while as a thread?
Where I worked we had a generator, here I had several old car
batteries and a battery light and tv.

The parafin heaters were great but oh the condensation.
Note that shops nowadays would not cope, neither would banks they
rely on their leccy and internet connections too much.
Brian

Goes back to 2014 Brian.
The dickhead who posted it thought it was "fun" and misses those
days. This bellend had not seen her father arrive home from a 12
hour shift, walk into a cold dark house and not eat a hot meal.
Land fit for heroes my backside.

Not soft enough for you then?

What?