http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598...ope-referendum

In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598...ope-referendum


Did you actually understand it?

An average of 6000 quid per head spent on food and accommodation in a
year.

But then I's guess you're used to living in a hovel.

Be interesting how much your friend Nige spent on the same.

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

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

On 17/08/2015 17:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598...ope-referendum


Did you actually understand it?

An average of 6000 quid per head spent on food and accommodation in a
year.

But then I's guess you're used to living in a hovel.

Be interesting how much your friend Nige spent on the same.


Interesting to see some of the EU Directive myths being perpetuated on
the same page, like the curved banana ban that never was, the claim that
jam cannot be called jam if it contains less than 60% sugar (the limit
is 50% in the UK) or the claim that eggs cannot be sold by the dozen,
which is completely wrong, although the pack must also show the weight.

--
Colin Bignell

On 17/08/2015 19:36, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 17/08/2015 17:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598...ope-referendum



Did you actually understand it?

An average of 6000 quid per head spent on food and accommodation in a
year.

But then I's guess you're used to living in a hovel.

Be interesting how much your friend Nige spent on the same.


Interesting to see some of the EU Directive myths being perpetuated on
the same page, like the curved banana ban that never was, the claim that
jam cannot be called jam if it contains less than 60% sugar (the limit
is 50% in the UK) or the claim that eggs cannot be sold by the dozen,
which is completely wrong, although the pack must also show the weight.

And isn't spin on the original story ******** anyway - the 6000 quid per
head includes personal expenditure. The card is paid for by the
employee, and they have to claim their expenses back.

On 17/08/2015 20:59, Clive George wrote:
On 17/08/2015 19:36, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 17/08/2015 17:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598...ope-referendum




Did you actually understand it?

An average of 6000 quid per head spent on food and accommodation in a
year.

But then I's guess you're used to living in a hovel.

Be interesting how much your friend Nige spent on the same.


Interesting to see some of the EU Directive myths being perpetuated on
the same page, like the curved banana ban that never was, the claim that
jam cannot be called jam if it contains less than 60% sugar (the limit
is 50% in the UK) or the claim that eggs cannot be sold by the dozen,
which is completely wrong, although the pack must also show the weight.

And isn't spin on the original story ******** anyway - the 6000 quid per
head includes personal expenditure. The card is paid for by the
employee, and they have to claim their expenses back.



Indeed. The £6000 is a maximum, but it is not necessarily any guide to
the actual amounts reclaimed as expenses.

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Clive George wrote:
On 17/08/2015 19:36, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 17/08/2015 17:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598...ope-referendum



Did you actually understand it?

An average of 6000 quid per head spent on food and accommodation in a
year.

But then I's guess you're used to living in a hovel.

Be interesting how much your friend Nige spent on the same.


Interesting to see some of the EU Directive myths being perpetuated on
the same page, like the curved banana ban that never was, the claim that
jam cannot be called jam if it contains less than 60% sugar (the limit
is 50% in the UK) or the claim that eggs cannot be sold by the dozen,
which is completely wrong, although the pack must also show the weight.

And isn't spin on the original story ******** anyway - the 6000 quid per
head includes personal expenditure. The card is paid for by the
employee, and they have to claim their expenses back.

It's all standard Mail fare. Print the sort of stuff their readers want to
believe is true. Regardless of facts.

I well remember one 'report' they published in the '70s regarding a
particular instance of stolen equipment at BBC TV Centre, which I
'discovered' being the first one in that day - for a change. 90% of their
article was simply made up, and factually wrong.

But that the likes of harry still hang on their every word says more about
him than the paper.

--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost? *

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

On Monday, 17 August 2015 19:36:56 UTC+1, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 17/08/2015 17:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598...ope-referendum


Did you actually understand it?

An average of 6000 quid per head spent on food and accommodation in a
year.

But then I's guess you're used to living in a hovel.

Be interesting how much your friend Nige spent on the same.


Interesting to see some of the EU Directive myths being perpetuated on
the same page, like the curved banana ban that never was,

But like the colossous squid it could just be true.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...yth_after_all/

"Yet it now turns out that, by the EU's own admission, there were rules specifying the maximum permitted curvature of bananas. Now, Commission Regulation Number 2257/94, which lays down that bananas must be "free from abnormal curvature of the fingers", is to be scrapped."

as they say, you couldn't make it up.
The above could be all lies, so all someone has to do is prove it's a lie.



the claim that
jam cannot be called jam if it contains less than 60% sugar (the limit
is 50% in the UK) or the claim that eggs cannot be sold by the dozen,
which is completely wrong, although the pack must also show the weight.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-8536956.html

On Monday, Mr Cable will announce plans to change the regulations, describing them as an example of unnecessary red tape and "gold-plating" of European Union directives. "This looks like jam, smells like jam and tastes like jam," he said. "The only thing stopping it being called jam is some outdated rules."


again the above could be all lies, so all someone has to do is prove it's a lie.


--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, Mr Cable will announce plans to change the regulations,
describing them as an example of unnecessary red tape and "gold-plating"
of European Union directives. "This looks like jam, smells like jam and
tastes like jam," he said. "The only thing stopping it being called jam
is some outdated rules."

With no regs, plenty of unscrupulous makers would find ways of using
cheaper ingredients. As with all processed foods.
But, of course, the only important thing is profit. Legislating that
something must be as described has never suited makers out for a fast buck.

--
*Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students.

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

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:10:06 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, Mr Cable will announce

With no regs, plenty of unscrupulous makers would find ways of using
cheaper ingredients. As with all processed foods.

But, apart from that, I don't think Vince Cable's going to be announcing
very much of any relevance for a little while, if ever... The article in
question is two and a half years old.

I guess we can also ignore the fact that the Jam and Similar Products
Regulations 2003 (which reflected EC directive 2001/113) replaced the Jam
and Similar Products Regulations 1981, which itself reflected EEC
directive 79/693/EEC - which required HIGHER levels of fruit (45% rather
than 35%) than the 2001 regs, and had exactly the same requirements for
sugar, but had no scope for "reduced sugar" products at all.

So, in short, the article in question seems to be flagging up somebody
who ignored legislation that's been in place for at least three and a
half decades, whilst our whisky-soaked friend is bemoaning the fact that
the EU relaxed the restrictions only a decade and a half ago.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:48:01 +0000, Adrian wrote:

I guess we can also ignore the fact that the Jam and Similar Products
Regulations 2003 (which reflected EC directive 2001/113) replaced the
Jam and Similar Products Regulations 1981, which itself reflected EEC
directive 79/693/EEC - which required HIGHER levels of fruit (45% rather
than 35%) than the 2001 regs, and had exactly the same requirements for
sugar, but had no scope for "reduced sugar" products at all.

So, in short, the article in question seems to be flagging up somebody
who ignored legislation that's been in place for at least three and a
half decades, whilst our whisky-soaked friend is bemoaning the fact that
the EU relaxed the restrictions only a decade and a half ago.

Oh, and barely a handful of months after that article, DEFRA announced
plans to reduce that minimum sugar level - and got abused for that,
too... "coloured mud"...

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...wars-reducing-
sugar-britain

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 15:48:06 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:10:06 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, Mr Cable will announce

With no regs, plenty of unscrupulous makers would find ways of using
cheaper ingredients. As with all processed foods.

But, apart from that, I don't think Vince Cable's going to be announcing
very much of any relevance for a little while, if ever... The article in
question is two and a half years old.

I guess we can also ignore the fact that the Jam and Similar Products
Regulations 2003 (which reflected EC directive 2001/113) replaced the Jam
and Similar Products Regulations 1981, which itself reflected EEC
directive 79/693/EEC - which required HIGHER levels of fruit (45% rather
than 35%) than the 2001 regs, and had exactly the same requirements for
sugar, but had no scope for "reduced sugar" products at all.

So, in short, the article in question seems to be flagging up somebody
who ignored legislation that's been in place for at least three and a
half decades, whilst our whisky-soaked friend is bemoaning the fact that
the EU relaxed the restrictions only a decade and a half ago.

Who exaclty ignored the legislation that's been in place for 35 years and exaclty what place what that legislation in.

And my main poin twhich you skipped was it appear that the EU did
have a ruling on the shape of bananas.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Clive George wrote:
On 17/08/2015 19:36, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 17/08/2015 17:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598...ope-referendum

snip

It's all standard Mail fare. Print the sort of stuff their readers want to
believe is true. Regardless of facts.

Too bad you can't read.

On 18/08/2015 13:39, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 17 August 2015 19:36:56 UTC+1, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 17/08/2015 17:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598...ope-referendum


Did you actually understand it?

An average of 6000 quid per head spent on food and accommodation in a
year.

But then I's guess you're used to living in a hovel.

Be interesting how much your friend Nige spent on the same.


Interesting to see some of the EU Directive myths being perpetuated on
the same page, like the curved banana ban that never was,

But like the colossous squid it could just be true.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...yth_after_all/

"Yet it now turns out that, by the EU's own admission, there were rules specifying the maximum permitted curvature of bananas. Now, Commission Regulation Number 2257/94, which lays down that bananas must be "free from abnormal curvature of the fingers", is to be scrapped."

as they say, you couldn't make it up.
The above could be all lies, so all someone has to do is prove it's a lie.

Simple enough, if you read the original Directive. That created three
classes of banana; Extra, Class 1 and Class 2. Extra had to be free of
all blemishes and not have abnormal curvature. The newspapers seized on
the specifications for the Extra class and ignored the fact that the
shape and extent of blemishes only affected which class they were in for
the purposes of international trade. Class 2 bananas could be any shape.


the claim that
jam cannot be called jam if it contains less than 60% sugar (the limit
is 50% in the UK) or the claim that eggs cannot be sold by the dozen,
which is completely wrong, although the pack must also show the weight.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-8536956.html

On Monday, Mr Cable will announce plans to change the regulations, describing them as an example of unnecessary red tape and "gold-plating" of European Union directives. "This looks like jam, smells like jam and tastes like jam," he said. "The only thing stopping it being called jam is some outdated rules."


again the above could be all lies, so all someone has to do is prove it's a lie.

Hidden in that article is the fact that it was entirely up to the UK
government, in the form of DEFRA, as to how much sugar was needed in
something described as jam. The EU only prescribed the minimum that
would apply, if national governments chose not to exercise their right
to relax the limit.


--
Colin Bignell

On 18/08/2015 16:00, whisky-dave wrote:
....
And my main poin twhich you skipped was it appear that the EU did
have a ruling on the shape of bananas.

They had a ruling on the shape, but the claim was that they banned bent
bananas, which is not true. The shape only determined which class they
would fall into.


--
Colin Bignell

O
the claim that
jam cannot be called jam if it contains less than 60% sugar (the limit
is 50% in the UK) or the claim that eggs cannot be sold by the dozen,
which is completely wrong, although the pack must also show the weight..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...d-8536956.html

On Monday, Mr Cable will announce plans to change the regulations, describing them as an example of unnecessary red tape and "gold-plating" of European Union directives. "This looks like jam, smells like jam and tastes like jam," he said. "The only thing stopping it being called jam is some outdated rules."


again the above could be all lies, so all someone has to do is prove it's a lie.

Hidden in that article is the fact that it was entirely up to the UK
government, in the form of DEFRA, as to how much sugar was needed in
something described as jam. The EU only prescribed the minimum that
would apply, if national governments chose not to exercise their right
to relax the limit.

So they spend their time and our money on drivelish pointless regulation?
There's a surprise.

On Monday, 17 August 2015 17:54:13 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598...ope-referendum


Did you actually understand it?

An average of 6000 quid per head spent on food and accommodation in a
year.

But then I's guess you're used to living in a hovel.

Be interesting how much your friend Nige spent on the same.

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

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


I had expenses when working in the NHS.
Maybe £400/year mainly petrol/travel allowances.
Every mile accounted for.
All receipts handed in.
As was everyone's out of pocket expenses in the NHS.

We all know where secret expense leads to.
Duck houses.
Especially in innately corrupt European culture.
Where their accounts haven't been cleared for twenty odd years.

Every one of them at it. Suck, suck, suck at the tit.

Blood suckers, vampires and parasites.

In article ,
Richard wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Clive George wrote:
On 17/08/2015 19:36, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 17/08/2015 17:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598...ope-referendum

snip

It's all standard Mail fare. Print the sort of stuff their readers want
to believe is true. Regardless of facts.

Too bad you can't read.

Another gullible fool.

--
*Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Richard wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Clive George wrote:
On 17/08/2015 19:36, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 17/08/2015 17:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598...ope-referendum

snip

It's all standard Mail fare. Print the sort of stuff their readers want
to believe is true. Regardless of facts.

Too bad you can't read.

Another gullible fool.

How so?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 17 August 2015 17:54:13 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/598...ope-referendum


Did you actually understand it?

An average of 6000 quid per head spent on food and accommodation in a
year.

But then I's guess you're used to living in a hovel.

Be interesting how much your friend Nige spent on the same.

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

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


I had expenses when working in the NHS.
Maybe £400/year mainly petrol/travel allowances.
Every mile accounted for.
All receipts handed in.
As was everyone's out of pocket expenses in the NHS.

We all know where secret expense leads to.
Duck houses.
Especially in innately corrupt European culture.
Where their accounts haven't been cleared for twenty odd years.

Every one of them at it. Suck, suck, suck at the tit.

Blood suckers, vampires and parasites.

Farage admitted that that is why UKIP has MEPs, to suck at that tit.

In article ,
harry wrote:
I had expenses when working in the NHS.
Maybe £400/year mainly petrol/travel allowances.
Every mile accounted for.
All receipts handed in.
As was everyone's out of pocket expenses in the NHS.

You surprise me. Most such organisations allow a fixed allowance for
certain things like a meal, or overnight accommodation. And only require a
receipt if you are forced to exceed this - and can give good reason for
having to do so.

--
*Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of cheques *

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

On 18/08/2015 23:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
I had expenses when working in the NHS.
Maybe £400/year mainly petrol/travel allowances.
Every mile accounted for.
All receipts handed in.
As was everyone's out of pocket expenses in the NHS.

You surprise me. Most such organisations allow a fixed allowance for
certain things like a meal, or overnight accommodation. And only require a
receipt if you are forced to exceed this - and can give good reason for
having to do so.

Never met one who did. Receipted expenses is normal IME. If you're
looking to reclaim the VAT (as an employer) you will need that.

There is a small fixed allowance an employer can provide without
worrying about tax - 5 quid a night I think.

https://www.gov.uk/expenses-benefits...s/whats-exempt

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/08/2015 23:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
I had expenses when working in the NHS.
Maybe £400/year mainly petrol/travel allowances.
Every mile accounted for.
All receipts handed in.
As was everyone's out of pocket expenses in the NHS.

You surprise me. Most such organisations allow a fixed allowance for
certain things like a meal, or overnight accommodation. And only require
a
receipt if you are forced to exceed this - and can give good reason for
having to do so.

Never met one who did.

I worked for one that did. Paid a flat rate per day and
you were free to stay with relos if you wanted to etc.

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
harry wrote:
I had expenses when working in the NHS.
Maybe £400/year mainly petrol/travel allowances.
Every mile accounted for.
All receipts handed in.
As was everyone's out of pocket expenses in the NHS.

You surprise me. Most such organisations allow a fixed allowance for
certain things like a meal, or overnight accommodation. And only require a
receipt if you are forced to exceed this - and can give good reason for
having to do so.


Where 'most such organisations' means the BBC and similarly privileged,
usually taxpayer-funded, sinecures. The system was grossly abused when
my wife worked in personnel there in the 1980s. Staff used to travel
sites just outside London, which entitled them to claim the fixed
overnight subsistence allowance; of course they always drove back home
the same evening. Never mind, it's only licence-payers' money.

--
Les

In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
harry wrote:
I had expenses when working in the NHS.
Maybe £400/year mainly petrol/travel allowances.
Every mile accounted for.
All receipts handed in.
As was everyone's out of pocket expenses in the NHS.

You surprise me. Most such organisations allow a fixed allowance for
certain things like a meal, or overnight accommodation. And only require a
receipt if you are forced to exceed this - and can give good reason for
having to do so.


Where 'most such organisations' means the BBC and similarly privileged,
usually taxpayer-funded, sinecures. The system was grossly abused when
my wife worked in personnel there in the 1980s. Staff used to travel
sites just outside London, which entitled them to claim the fixed
overnight subsistence allowance; of course they always drove back home
the same evening. Never mind, it's only licence-payers' money.

By the late 1980s, receipts had to be produced before any payments were
made.

--
Please note new email address:

On 18/08/15 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But, of course, the only important thing is profit.

Well, of course, absent of government interference, profit tends to
accrue to those who work hard to deliver something that people are
actually prepared to pay for.

Should we understand your dislike of profit as a desire to not work hard
and to not deliver services and goods that people are prepared to pay for?

I suppose that was pretty much the definition of any state monopoly in
the Soviet Union...Commisar Plowperson.

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/08/15 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But, of course, the only important thing is profit.

Well, of course, absent of government interference, profit tends to accrue to those who
work hard to deliver something that people are actually prepared to pay for.

The usual nonsense.

Profit actually tends to accrue to those corporations who can manage
to pay the lowest wages - by sourcing manufactures in say China, while
charging a premium on their goods not fully justified by any additional
cost.

Apple being a prime example followed closely by the likes of Nike etc.

While in many of the utilities profit tends to accrue to the biggest players who
still have a monopoly in providing essentials to the public at prices determined
by a wholly ineffective regulatory regime. The relationship between
changes in the wholesale gas prices and prices to the customer
being a prime example of this non regulation.

Followed by the usual misundertanding

Should we understand your dislike of profit as a desire to not work hard and to not
deliver services and goods that people are prepared to pay for?

Topped off by the customary slur.

I suppose that was pretty much the definition of any state monopoly in the Soviet
Union...Commisar Plowperson.


michael adams

....

In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
harry wrote:
I had expenses when working in the NHS.
Maybe £400/year mainly petrol/travel allowances.
Every mile accounted for.
All receipts handed in.
As was everyone's out of pocket expenses in the NHS.

You surprise me. Most such organisations allow a fixed allowance for
certain things like a meal, or overnight accommodation. And only
require a receipt if you are forced to exceed this - and can give good
reason for having to do so.


Where 'most such organisations' means the BBC and similarly privileged,
usually taxpayer-funded, sinecures. The system was grossly abused when
my wife worked in personnel there in the 1980s. Staff used to travel
sites just outside London, which entitled them to claim the fixed
overnight subsistence allowance; of course they always drove back home
the same evening. Never mind, it's only licence-payers' money.

If they had to travel back the same evening, they'd be paid travel time.
And possibly exceeding either their hours per day, week, or even the EU
directive on working hours.

So often cheaper for the firm to pay a fixed (and very basic) over night
allowance.

It is usually in a firm's interest to pay a fixed allowance for a meal or
whatever - always at the bottom end of what one would cost. Many will make
do with a sandwich etc and pocket the difference. If having to produce a
receipt,will likely go for a proper meal which will cost the firm more.

Of course if you're a Mail reader, you'd expect any public service
employee to work for free.

--
*Upon the advice of my attorney, my shirt bears no message at this time

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But, of course, the only important thing is profit.

Well, of course, absent of government interference, profit tends to
accrue to those who work hard to deliver something that people are
actually prepared to pay for.

Nice to know you approve of food makers using the very worst possible
ingredients to make the biggest profit.

But I'd expect nothing else from you. And if you eat such muck, it
explains a lot.

--
*I don't work here. I'm a consultant

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
You surprise me. Most such organisations allow a fixed allowance for
certain things like a meal, or overnight accommodation. And only
require a receipt if you are forced to exceed this - and can give good
reason for having to do so.

Where 'most such organisations' means the BBC and similarly privileged,
usually taxpayer-funded, sinecures. The system was grossly abused when
my wife worked in personnel there in the 1980s. Staff used to travel
sites just outside London, which entitled them to claim the fixed
overnight subsistence allowance; of course they always drove back home
the same evening. Never mind, it's only licence-payers' money.

If they had to travel back the same evening, they'd be paid travel time.

They didn't have to travel back the same day. They chose to, in order to
pocket their overnight allowance.

And possibly exceeding either their hours per day, week, or even the EU
directive on working hours.

That didn't worry them if there was bunce to be claimed in the form of
the overnight allowance.

So often cheaper for the firm to pay a fixed (and very basic) over night
allowance.

It is usually in a firm's interest to pay a fixed allowance for a meal or
whatever - always at the bottom end of what one would cost.

The competition among BBC staff for these assignments in the Home
Counties was very fierce. Somehow I don't think they did it to benefit
their employer.

--
Les

In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
You surprise me. Most such organisations allow a fixed allowance for
certain things like a meal, or overnight accommodation. And only
require a receipt if you are forced to exceed this - and can give
good reason for having to do so.

Where 'most such organisations' means the BBC and similarly
privileged, usually taxpayer-funded, sinecures. The system was
grossly abused when my wife worked in personnel there in the 1980s.
Staff used to travel sites just outside London, which entitled them
to claim the fixed overnight subsistence allowance; of course they
always drove back home the same evening. Never mind, it's only
licence-payers' money.

If they had to travel back the same evening, they'd be paid travel time.

They didn't have to travel back the same day. They chose to, in order to
pocket their overnight allowance.

I take it you didn't understand my statement above?

And possibly exceeding either their hours per day, week, or even the EU
directive on working hours.

That didn't worry them if there was bunce to be claimed in the form of
the overnight allowance.

What they do in their own time - like driving - doesn't get paid for by
the employer.

So often cheaper for the firm to pay a fixed (and very basic) over night
allowance.

It is usually in a firm's interest to pay a fixed allowance for a meal or
whatever - always at the bottom end of what one would cost.

The competition among BBC staff for these assignments in the Home
Counties was very fierce.

Hmm. When I worked for the BBC as a technician, I had no choice in the
matter. If I were rostered to work anywhere in the UK, I did.

What this sounds like is a case of bitter grapes from some oik working in
an office.


Somehow I don't think they did it to benefit
their employer.

Mutual benefit. I've given you the reasons.

--
*I don't feel old. I don't feel anything until noon. Then it's time for my nap.

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

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 23:47:23 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
I had expenses when working in the NHS.
Maybe £400/year mainly petrol/travel allowances.
Every mile accounted for.
All receipts handed in.
As was everyone's out of pocket expenses in the NHS.

You surprise me. Most such organisations allow a fixed allowance for
certain things like a meal, or overnight accommodation. And only require a
receipt if you are forced to exceed this - and can give good reason for
having to do so.

Here we always require a receipt, I had to when getting the tube train to central London so I could claim the fare back. Couldn;t be bothered the last 2 times as I used my travel card I didn;t get a receipt, I could have logged on to my oystcard and printed that out but couldn't be bothered will all the form filling for a couple of quid.

On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 10:21:09 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 18/08/15 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But, of course, the only important thing is profit.

Well, of course, absent of government interference, profit tends to accrue to those who
work hard to deliver something that people are actually prepared to pay for.

The usual nonsense.

Profit actually tends to accrue to those corporations who can manage
to pay the lowest wages - by sourcing manufactures in say China, while
charging a premium on their goods not fully justified by any additional
cost.

Which is why there's so many deaths building the football staduims in Qatar
and how the country can afford to buy so many prime locations in London it all comes from profit.
You can get a lot of profit from slavery too.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
snip

Of course if you're a Mail reader,

I suggest you seek psychiatric help for this obsessive hatred for the Mail.
FFS, the article in the OP was from the Express.
Like I said before, learn how to read.

In article ,
Richard wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
snip

Of course if you're a Mail reader,

I suggest you seek psychiatric help for this obsessive hatred for the
Mail. FFS, the article in the OP was from the Express.

Don't have an obsessive hatred of either. Just pity for those who believe
every word they read in them - and insist on posting their stupid views
everywhere they can.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? *

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

On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 14:55:41 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Richard wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
snip

Of course if you're a Mail reader,

I suggest you seek psychiatric help for this obsessive hatred for the
Mail. FFS, the article in the OP was from the Express.

Don't have an obsessive hatred of either. Just pity for those who believe
every word they read in them - and insist on posting their stupid views
everywhere they can.

I believed some of what it said about Jimmy saville pity others didn;t too.
Havign more than one source helps.

Anyone else heard of this is it realy true that we sent a probe to pluto and beyond. Didn't see it mentioned in ferret lovers weekily. ;-p so if it's in the mail it can't be true is that it ?

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
harry wrote:
I had expenses when working in the NHS.
Maybe £400/year mainly petrol/travel allowances.
Every mile accounted for.
All receipts handed in.
As was everyone's out of pocket expenses in the NHS.

You surprise me. Most such organisations allow a fixed allowance for
certain things like a meal, or overnight accommodation. And only
require a receipt if you are forced to exceed this - and can give good
reason for having to do so.


Where 'most such organisations' means the BBC and similarly privileged,
usually taxpayer-funded, sinecures. The system was grossly abused when
my wife worked in personnel there in the 1980s. Staff used to travel
sites just outside London, which entitled them to claim the fixed
overnight subsistence allowance; of course they always drove back home
the same evening. Never mind, it's only licence-payers' money.

If they had to travel back the same evening, they'd be paid travel time.
And possibly exceeding either their hours per day, week, or even the EU
directive on working hours.

So often cheaper for the firm to pay a fixed (and very basic) over night
allowance.

It is usually in a firm's interest to pay a fixed allowance for a meal or
whatever - always at the bottom end of what one would cost. Many will make
do with a sandwich etc and pocket the difference. If having to produce a
receipt,will likely go for a proper meal which will cost the firm more.

as I remember it, the lunch allowance (or evening meal) allowance was not
intended to give you a free meal. It was to refund you for the extra cost
you incurred by not having that meal at home or in the canteen.

Of course if you're a Mail reader, you'd expect any public service
employee to work for free.

--
Please note new email address:

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Richard wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
snip

Of course if you're a Mail reader,

I suggest you seek psychiatric help for this obsessive hatred for the
Mail. FFS, the article in the OP was from the Express.

Don't have an obsessive hatred of either. Just pity for those who believe
every word they read in them - and insist on posting their stupid views
everywhere they can.

Every word you read in a newspaper is absolutely true - apart from the
story of which you have first hand knowledge

--
Please note new email address:

On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 15:55:43 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
harry wrote:
I had expenses when working in the NHS.
Maybe £400/year mainly petrol/travel allowances.
Every mile accounted for.
All receipts handed in.
As was everyone's out of pocket expenses in the NHS.

You surprise me. Most such organisations allow a fixed allowance for
certain things like a meal, or overnight accommodation. And only
require a receipt if you are forced to exceed this - and can give good
reason for having to do so.


Where 'most such organisations' means the BBC and similarly privileged,
usually taxpayer-funded, sinecures. The system was grossly abused when
my wife worked in personnel there in the 1980s. Staff used to travel
sites just outside London, which entitled them to claim the fixed
overnight subsistence allowance; of course they always drove back home
the same evening. Never mind, it's only licence-payers' money.

If they had to travel back the same evening, they'd be paid travel time..
And possibly exceeding either their hours per day, week, or even the EU
directive on working hours.

So often cheaper for the firm to pay a fixed (and very basic) over night
allowance.

It is usually in a firm's interest to pay a fixed allowance for a meal or
whatever - always at the bottom end of what one would cost. Many will make
do with a sandwich etc and pocket the difference. If having to produce a
receipt,will likely go for a proper meal which will cost the firm more.

as I remember it, the lunch allowance (or evening meal) allowance was not
intended to give you a free meal. It was to refund you for the extra cost
you incurred by not having that meal at home or in the canteen.

That is a little more difficult to do as we found out here when they set
£10 for breakfast allowence Now I don;t have breakfast but the point was that in cities like London, new york and tokyo you can't get a breakfast for £10.
So I think setting a reasonable level is OK but what is that level.

What wines should the tax payer be expected to pay for a fiver tenner or
just go for the £100+ quid a bottle stuff.

Couldn't really careless if Apple employees are drinking £1,000 bottles of wine
as I assume it comes from their more than ample profits, but I wouldn't want MP MEPs expecting it at tax payers expense, sure let them buy it themselves just like I do at lunchtime if I want something special.

On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 14:55:41 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Richard wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
snip

Of course if you're a Mail reader,

I suggest you seek psychiatric help for this obsessive hatred for the
Mail. FFS, the article in the OP was from the Express.

Don't have an obsessive hatred of either. Just pity for those who believe
every word they read in them - and insist on posting their stupid views
everywhere they can.

Lefties hate the truth.
ie that socialism in all it's forms is long outdated and discredited.
I suppose the read the "Beano".
Is it stillpublished?

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
as I remember it, the lunch allowance (or evening meal) allowance was
not intended to give you a free meal. It was to refund you for the
extra cost you incurred by not having that meal at home or in the
canteen.

That is a little more difficult to do as we found out here when they set
£10 for breakfast allowence Now I don;t have breakfast but the point
was that in cities like London, new york and tokyo you can't get a
breakfast for £10. So I think setting a reasonable level is OK but what
is that level.

Of course you can get what most would consider a full English breakfast
for under a tenner in London. My local cafe charges 6.20 for sausage,
bacon egg and beans. Two slices of toast and coffee. All well cooked.
But you might have to search a bit in the West End.

--
*I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public

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