"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , Waimer
escribió:

**** off, Rod.

Go and **** yourself, Tomlinson.

On 08/03/16 00:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/03/16 18:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

No - but apparently we cannot VAT exempt a class of items as we wish
(eg like books, children's clothes other "essential" items used to be
zero VAT rated).

As a matter of interest, why should books be zero rated?

Because it was viewed as an education item and therefore essential (in a
wider sense).

So is a TV then.

Well yes. But I did say it's a bit arbitrary and someone had to draw a
line, and they drew a line at books.

IMO reading books is more likely to enrich than a TV as it helps reading
skills, spelling and vocabulary even if the reader only buys fiction. A
TV has a lesser guarantee of educational enrichment.

They are hardly
an essential item. And why children's clothes?

Are all parents necessarily
poorer than adults who buy clothes?

If an adult goes without that's up to them, but the idea was that
children should not - or at least not due to taxation pushing the price
up.

Children buy their own clothes from their own income?

It's irrelevant who buys the clothes - the simple fact is "cheaper =
more likely the kid will get new clothes when needed".

Remember that it started out as a luxury purchase tax - an ethos I agree
with, although defining "luxury" vs "essential" is hard as you just
pointed out.

VAT is not the same sort of tax as purchase tax. In that it's levied on
services too.

Certainly, IMO, things like food, water, electricity, gas and
educational items should be zero rated.

If you reduce the tax on one thing it will have to be raised in another
way. Something most here don't seem to grasp.

Yes of course I see that. Which is why I think the VAT bands was the
right way - you make "essential" (for some definition) zero VAT, add
more VAT onto things people can manage without.

And I'm really surprised all the right wingers here don't seem to like it,
as it is proportionally unfair to the poor, and benefits the rich.

On 08/03/16 00:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Waimer wrote:
and still have human drivers given that they are already experimenting
with computer driven cars.

Because the unions get any say on that and there is no one
with any balls like Maggie or Murdoch had to take them on.

Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast majority of
those who use them are against.


The driverless DLR works well, but there are 2 points:

1) It's not really driverless as there's a conductor who can drive on
board. They just pay him less and he does other jobs most of the time.

2) The DLR is entirely in a densely populated city so when it does
break, help can be got to it quickly by rail or road.

Who really thinks you could run a driverless train down to Hastings?
What happens when it gets stuck in the Mountfield tunnel (or just
outside, in the middle of nowhere as heppens not infrequently). Or the
train starts taking in smoke in the Sevenoaks tunnel (happened to one I
was on, it was following a steam engine).

There is no way driverless trains are going to be viable for the
regional trains, forever as far as I can see. And when you have a £500+k
(order of magnitude guess) train that pulls a couple of megawatts of
electricity on peak draw, who expensive is a driver in the overall
scheme of things anyway?

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
On 08/03/16 00:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Waimer wrote:
and still have human drivers given that they are already experimenting
with computer driven cars.

Because the unions get any say on that and there is no one
with any balls like Maggie or Murdoch had to take them on.

Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast majority
of
those who use them are against.


The driverless DLR works well, but there are 2 points:

1) It's not really driverless as there's a conductor who can drive on
board. They just pay him less and he does other jobs most of the time.

It's driverless in the sense that he doesn’t normally drive,
only drives when the driverless system has stopped working.

2) The DLR is entirely in a densely populated city so when it does break,
help can be got to it quickly by rail or road.

Just as true of the tube.

Who really thinks you could run a driverless train down to Hastings?

Perfectly possible with most of the tube.

What happens when it gets stuck in the Mountfield tunnel (or just outside,
in the middle of nowhere as heppens not infrequently).

You have a conductor that can do what needs to be done.

Or the train starts taking in smoke in the Sevenoaks tunnel (happened to
one I was on, it was following a steam engine).

It's designed to handle that itself.

There is no way driverless trains are going to be viable for the regional
trains, forever as far as I can see.

No reason why they can't do anything a train with a driver can do.
The worst that might happen is that it sits there doing nothing
with the doors open when the brown stuff hits the fan and the
sardines decide whether to stay in the train or leave it or get
told what to do remotely by someone in the control system etc.

And when you have a £500+k (order of magnitude guess) train that pulls a
couple of megawatts of electricity on peak draw, who expensive is a driver
in the overall scheme of things anyway?

It is actually one of the substantial running costs.

"Waimer" wrote in message ...

**** off rod

"76dr" wrote in message ...

**** off rod

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"Waimer" wrote in message ...

**** off rod

Go and **** yourself, gutless.

"Richard" wrote in message
...
"76dr" wrote in message ...

**** off rod

Go and **** yourself, gutless.

On 08/03/16 08:11, 76dr wrote:

1) It's not really driverless as there's a conductor who can drive on
board. They just pay him less and he does other jobs most of the time.

It's driverless in the sense that he doesn’t normally drive,
only drives when the driverless system has stopped working.

Well yes, but you still need him there so you have to a) pay him; b)
lack or staff or strike action still stops the DLR.

2) The DLR is entirely in a densely populated city so when it does
break, help can be got to it quickly by rail or road.

Just as true of the tube.

No - much of the tube is underground and far harder to get to if it breaks.


Who really thinks you could run a driverless train down to Hastings?

Perfectly possible with most of the tube.

No it's not.

What happens when it gets stuck in the Mountfield tunnel (or just
outside, in the middle of nowhere as heppens not infrequently).

You have a conductor that can do what needs to be done.

As above - still staffed - and what difference does 50k salary vs 30k
salary make in the grand scheme of things? I'm open to reviewing
operational costs if anyone has data, but I suspect 20k extra per train
is not a big cost in the over scheme of costs.

Or the train starts taking in smoke in the Sevenoaks tunnel (happened
to one I was on, it was following a steam engine).

It's designed to handle that itself.

******** it is.

1) You have concerned passengers who notice smoke (like me). The fact
the guard was able to explain to everyone what was happening prevented
panic.

2) He then went and turned the A/C off to reduce the amount of smoke
ingress. Class 375 Electrostars have no automated system for that.

There is no way driverless trains are going to be viable for the
regional trains, forever as far as I can see.

No reason why they can't do anything a train with a driver can do.
The worst that might happen is that it sits there doing nothing
with the doors open when the brown stuff hits the fan and the
sardines decide whether to stay in the train or leave it or get
told what to do remotely by someone in the control system etc.

Now I know you have no idea how a railway works. Have you every seen a
detraining operation? With disabled or frail passengers.

You are Wodney AICMFP

And when you have a £500+k (order of magnitude guess) train that pulls
a couple of megawatts of electricity on peak draw, who expensive is a
driver in the overall scheme of things anyway?

It is actually one of the substantial running costs.

Figures please?

On 08/03/16 09:16, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Waimer wrote:
and still have human drivers given that they are already
experimenting with computer driven cars.

Because the unions get any say on that and there is no one
with any balls like Maggie or Murdoch had to take them on.

Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast
majority of
those who use them are against.

Very funny Dave. Never been on the DLR, then? Driverless most of the
time.


But still staffed by a Train Captain who can drive - which is all of the
advantages of not having a driver done away with, except for a saving in
salary.

On Monday, 7 March 2016 17:24:10 UTC, Waimer wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/03/16 13:41, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/03/16 12:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

The media are partly to blame because even The Times is full of
journalistic errors (on reports concerning subject matter I know about)
- and the rest of the papers are generally tat.

Yet so many seem to believe the 'facts' they give about the EU.


I don;t like the EU, but that's because I see it as unaccountable (more
so than Westminster).

There are some good directives - Working Time and various other labour
laws would never have been initiated by the UK.


They would have, and its arguable that all they have done is drive people
to become subcontractors, not employees. Or reloafte their jobs somewhere
else outside the EU..

But there's plenty of stuff I don't like - inability to unilaterally
determine taxation (VAT notably) for one.

Frankly apart from Schengen - which isnt EU anyway,. there is nothing
about the EU I like.

What's not to like about no more wars in almost every
generation in between western european countries ?


That's down to NATO and the nuclear deterrent.
Nothing to do with the EUSSR which starts wars.

En el artículo , Tim Watts
escribió:

You are Wodney AICMFP

It is, couldn't you just tell him to **** off with his crap?

Figures please?

Oink, flap. He never provides figures to back up his claims. We're
meant to take everything he says as gospel when it's in fact complete
unmitigated ******** from his sun-baked and alcohol-fried brain.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
As a matter of interest, why should books be zero rated?

Because it was viewed as an education item and therefore essential
(in a wider sense).

So is a TV then.

Well yes. But I did say it's a bit arbitrary and someone had to draw a
line, and they drew a line at books.

IMO reading books is more likely to enrich than a TV as it helps reading
skills, spelling and vocabulary even if the reader only buys fiction. A
TV has a lesser guarantee of educational enrichment.

Make it a mobile phone, then. Kids who had no interest in reading etc,
soon realise they have to for SMS and so on.

I say it again. Whinging on about such things being 'essential' is
nonsense. Food is essential. Books ain't.

--
*Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs.

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

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast majority of
those who use them are against.


The driverless DLR works well, but there are 2 points:

1) It's not really driverless as there's a conductor who can drive on
board. They just pay him less and he does other jobs most of the time.

Yes. But those who go on and on about driverless trains want to eliminate
that job entirely - not just call it something else, or move the driver
from the cab to elsewhere.

It's standard fare. Eliminate all jobs where possible. Apart from those
who decide what jobs there will be, of course. And anyone in a job - that
job is always essential.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

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

In article ,
76dr wrote:
1) It's not really driverless as there's a conductor who can drive on
board. They just pay him less and he does other jobs most of the time.

It's driverless in the sense that he doesn’t normally drive,
only drives when the driverless system has stopped working.

Wodney is morphing at a rate of nots this week.

--
*I know a guy who's addicted to brake fluid. He says he can stop any time.*

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast majority
of those who use them are against.

Very funny Dave. Never been on the DLR, then? Driverless most of the
time.

I take it you've never been on it?

--
*The modem is the message *

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

On 08/03/16 12:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast
majority of
those who use them are against.


The driverless DLR works well, but there are 2 points:

1) It's not really driverless as there's a conductor who can drive on
board. They just pay him less and he does other jobs most of the time.

Yes. But those who go on and on about driverless trains want to eliminate
that job entirely - not just call it something else, or move the driver
from the cab to elsewhere.

It's standard fare. Eliminate all jobs where possible. Apart from those
who decide what jobs there will be, of course. And anyone in a job - that
job is always essential.

You'd go back to the old days then, would you? Y'know, 50 people
hand-reaping and threshing the corn, taking two days to do what the
combine does with one bloke in a couple of hours. That the story? And
you think that bread would still be about a quid a loaf under that
regime? Unless you want to pay the 50 people tuppence-ha'penny each.

But all Leftythinking wants us to return to a noble idealised
hunter-gatherer society where everybody is equal, all property is theft,
and even the stupid can pick a raspberry or club a bunny to death.


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 08/03/16 12:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast majority of
those who use them are against.


The driverless DLR works well, but there are 2 points:

1) It's not really driverless as there's a conductor who can drive on
board. They just pay him less and he does other jobs most of the time.

Yes. But those who go on and on about driverless trains want to eliminate
that job entirely - not just call it something else, or move the driver
from the cab to elsewhere.

Then they are misguided fools - you will never eliminate a staff
presence from trains with very rare exceptions (Gatwick terminal
monorail - that's short and there are a lot of staff and emergency
responders on site all the time).

It's standard fare. Eliminate all jobs where possible. Apart from those
who decide what jobs there will be, of course. And anyone in a job - that
job is always essential.


Of course ;-)

On 08/03/16 12:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
As a matter of interest, why should books be zero rated?

Because it was viewed as an education item and therefore essential
(in a wider sense).

So is a TV then.

Well yes. But I did say it's a bit arbitrary and someone had to draw a
line, and they drew a line at books.

IMO reading books is more likely to enrich than a TV as it helps reading
skills, spelling and vocabulary even if the reader only buys fiction. A
TV has a lesser guarantee of educational enrichment.

Make it a mobile phone, then. Kids who had no interest in reading etc,
soon realise they have to for SMS and so on.

I say it again. Whinging on about such things being 'essential' is
nonsense. Food is essential. Books ain't.


I'm not winging and mobile phones are rarely educational. Books usually
are in one way or another (Viz annual excepted unless Roger's
Profanisaurus counts!).

The idea was "education" was considered an essential item back in the day.

On 08/03/16 12:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast majority
of those who use them are against.

Very funny Dave. Never been on the DLR, then? Driverless most of the
time.

I take it you've never been on it?

I've been on it quite often. Driverless most of the time.


And who was the bloke in uniform who was walking up and down and
pressing the door-close/train-start button at every stop?

On 08/03/2016 00:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Waimer wrote:
and still have human drivers given that they are already experimenting
with computer driven cars.

Because the unions get any say on that and there is no one
with any balls like Maggie or Murdoch had to take them on.

Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast majority of
those who use them are against.


Yet they still use docklands.

En el artículo , Tim Watts
escribió:

(Viz annual excepted unless Roger's
Profanisaurus counts!).

Great fun that. I should use it more often, especially when referring
to Wodney.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It's standard fare. Eliminate all jobs where possible. Apart from those
who decide what jobs there will be, of course. And anyone in a job - that
job is always essential.

You'd go back to the old days then, would you? Y'know, 50 people
hand-reaping and threshing the corn, taking two days to do what the
combine does with one bloke in a couple of hours. That the story? And
you think that bread would still be about a quid a loaf under that
regime? Unless you want to pay the 50 people tuppence-ha'penny each.

Absolutely not. I'm all in favour of progress, but not for progress sake.
That tends to be the difference.

I'd ask what makes more sense. Staff on a tube station or train who give
the paying passengers a sense of security. Or a few more peers for the
House of Lords. Think you'll get my drift.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried *

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But all Leftythinking wants us to return to a noble idealised
hunter-gatherer society where everybody is equal, all property is theft,
and even the stupid can pick a raspberry or club a bunny to death.

A hunter gatherer society is exactly what right wing ******s like you
want. Winner takes all. Which is odd, because if it was one, you'd be long
since gone.

--
*Forget the Joneses, I keep us up with the Simpsons.

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

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I'm not winging and mobile phones are rarely educational. Books usually
are

yes - I learned quite a bit from 50 shades of grey. ;-)

--
*Young at heart -- slightly older in other places

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

On 08/03/16 13:57, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2016 00:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Waimer wrote:
and still have human drivers given that they are already experimenting
with computer driven cars.

Because the unions get any say on that and there is no one
with any balls like Maggie or Murdoch had to take them on.

Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast
majority of
those who use them are against.


Yet they still use docklands.

Which are not "driverless". They are automated with a train captain on
board who issues the door close/train start sequence - just like the
Victoria Line.

What these people mean is "without staff" which is never going to happen
because the public don't want it too (except on strike days when it
suits them).

On 08/03/16 14:33, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/03/16 13:57, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2016 00:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Waimer wrote:
and still have human drivers given that they are already experimenting
with computer driven cars.

Because the unions get any say on that and there is no one
with any balls like Maggie or Murdoch had to take them on.

Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast
majority of
those who use them are against.


Yet they still use docklands.

Which are not "driverless". They are automated with a train captain on
board who issues the door close/train start sequence - just like the
Victoria Line.

What these people mean is "without staff" which is never going to happen
because the public don't want it too (except on strike days when it
suits them).

I miss those elevator captains dont you?

The feeling of power when you said '3rd floor, please' and the sexy
attendant in his smart uniform told you where to get off.

These self service buttons will never really catch on.

--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 12:32:45 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
76dr wrote:
1) It's not really driverless as there's a conductor who can drive on
board. They just pay him less and he does other jobs most of the
time.

It's driverless in the sense that he doesnÂ’t normally drive,
only drives when the driverless system has stopped working.

Wodney is morphing at a rate of nots this week.

It's *knots*, not "nots"! Just like it's "champing" *not* "chomping" (at
the bit)...[1] :-)

[1] Brownie points to anyone recognising the reference. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

On 08/03/16 14:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/03/16 14:33, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/03/16 13:57, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2016 00:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Waimer wrote:
and still have human drivers given that they are already
experimenting
with computer driven cars.

Because the unions get any say on that and there is no one
with any balls like Maggie or Murdoch had to take them on.

Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast
majority of
those who use them are against.


Yet they still use docklands.

Which are not "driverless". They are automated with a train captain on
board who issues the door close/train start sequence - just like the
Victoria Line.

What these people mean is "without staff" which is never going to happen
because the public don't want it too (except on strike days when it
suits them).

I miss those elevator captains dont you?

The feeling of power when you said '3rd floor, please' and the sexy
attendant in his smart uniform told you where to get off.

These self service buttons will never really catch on.


And that is similar to a train in what particular way?

On 08/03/16 16:34, Tim Streater wrote:

Well, there's Sid the Sexist and the two Fat Slags.


If you want to see what the Fat Slags look like in real life, go to
Micklegate (road) in York on a Saturday afternoon.

I used to think Viz did an extreme caricature, but no, these creatures
really exist!

(Saturday lunchtime onwards, the more reprobate members of the north
east descend on York for stag and hen parties, or a general all day
****up. Micklegate is the closest road into the city centre with the
most pubs/etc. Hence they rarely get as far as the actual city centre.
Often found at the station at 2am wondering when the next train to
Newcastle is.)

It's a new thing - never happened much in 1986 - I think they used to go
abroad more (Majorca et al). Now austerity means they can't get further
than York and I suspect Edinburgh is less of an option as the locals
would kick the **** out of them once they started becoming a nuisance.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I miss those elevator captains dont you?

Them **** off back to the US. Your pal Trump needs you.

The feeling of power when you said '3rd floor, please' and the sexy
attendant in his smart uniform told you where to get off.

Only lift attendant I can remember was a one armed ex serviceman. In the
Corps of Commissionaires.

These self service buttons will never really catch on.

--
*OK, so what's the speed of dark? *

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

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I miss those elevator captains dont you?

The feeling of power when you said '3rd floor, please' and the sexy
attendant in his smart uniform told you where to get off.

These self service buttons will never really catch on.


And that is similar to a train in what particular way?

Anything that moves without an operator or driver is the same to
Rees-Turnip.

--
*The older you get, the better you realize you were.

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

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 08/03/16 08:11, 76dr wrote:

1) It's not really driverless as there's a conductor who can drive on
board. They just pay him less and he does other jobs most of the time.

It's driverless in the sense that he doesn’t normally drive,
only drives when the driverless system has stopped working.

Well yes, but you still need him there

No you don't, that is just one way of doing things.
We don’t have anything like that with lifts now that
they are almost all driverless now.

so you have to a) pay him;

Much less than a normal train driver is paid.

b) lack or staff or strike action still stops the DLR.

Only because they have chosen to do it that way.

2) The DLR is entirely in a densely populated city so when it does
break, help can be got to it quickly by rail or road.

Just as true of the tube.

No - much of the tube is underground and far harder to get to if it
breaks.

Still perfectly possible, just takes a little longer.

Who really thinks you could run a driverless train down to Hastings?

Perfectly possible with most of the tube.

No it's not.

Yes it is. That's how the driverless systems outside Britain do it.

What happens when it gets stuck in the Mountfield tunnel (or just
outside, in the middle of nowhere as heppens not infrequently).

You have a conductor that can do what needs to be done.

As above - still staffed - and what difference does 50k salary vs 30k
salary make in the grand scheme of things? I'm open to reviewing
operational costs if anyone has data, but I suspect 20k extra per train is
not a big cost in the over scheme of costs.

You don’t have to have any staff on the train at all.

Or the train starts taking in smoke in the Sevenoaks tunnel (happened
to one I was on, it was following a steam engine).

It's designed to handle that itself.

******** it is.

I meant it can be.

1) You have concerned passengers who notice smoke (like me). The fact the
guard was able to explain to everyone what was happening prevented panic.

No reason why that can't be done remotely using the announcement system.

2) He then went and turned the A/C off to reduce the amount of smoke
ingress. Class 375 Electrostars have no automated system for that.

But perfectly possible to add that when making it driverless.

There is no way driverless trains are going to be viable for the
regional trains, forever as far as I can see.

No reason why they can't do anything a train with a driver can do.
The worst that might happen is that it sits there doing nothing
with the doors open when the brown stuff hits the fan and the
sardines decide whether to stay in the train or leave it or get
told what to do remotely by someone in the control system etc.

Now I know you have no idea how a railway works.

We'll see...

Have you every seen a detraining operation? With disabled or frail
passengers.

The passengers can do anything train staff can do.

And when you have a £500+k (order of magnitude guess) train that pulls
a couple of megawatts of electricity on peak draw, who expensive is a
driver in the overall scheme of things anyway?

It is actually one of the substantial running costs.

Figures please?

Your train driver wage is all you need for that.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 7 March 2016 17:24:10 UTC, Waimer wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/03/16 13:41, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/03/16 12:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

The media are partly to blame because even The Times is full of
journalistic errors (on reports concerning subject matter I know
about)
- and the rest of the papers are generally tat.

Yet so many seem to believe the 'facts' they give about the EU.


I don;t like the EU, but that's because I see it as unaccountable
(more
so than Westminster).

There are some good directives - Working Time and various other labour
laws would never have been initiated by the UK.


They would have, and its arguable that all they have done is drive
people
to become subcontractors, not employees. Or reloafte their jobs
somewhere
else outside the EU..

But there's plenty of stuff I don't like - inability to unilaterally
determine taxation (VAT notably) for one.

Frankly apart from Schengen - which isnt EU anyway,. there is nothing
about the EU I like.

What's not to like about no more wars in almost every
generation in between western european countries ?


That's down to NATO

No, NATO was there to stop the USSR doing anything it wanted.

and the nuclear deterrent. Nothing to do with the EUSSR

Everything to do with the mentality that produced the EEC and EU.

which starts wars.

Not in western europe it didn't and it wasn't the EU that
started any way either, it was ****wits like Blair that did that.

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I miss those elevator captains dont you?

Them **** off back to the US. Your pal Trump needs you.

The feeling of power when you said '3rd floor, please' and the sexy
attendant in his smart uniform told you where to get off.

Only lift attendant I can remember was a one armed ex serviceman. In the
Corps of Commissionaires.

Poor thing. Obviously never been in posh establishments in the past.


These self service buttons will never really catch on.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message ...

On 08/03/16 14:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/03/16 14:33, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/03/16 13:57, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2016 00:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Waimer wrote:
and still have human drivers given that they are already
experimenting
with computer driven cars.

Because the unions get any say on that and there is no one
with any balls like Maggie or Murdoch had to take them on.

Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast
majority of
those who use them are against.


Yet they still use docklands.

Which are not "driverless". They are automated with a train captain on
board who issues the door close/train start sequence - just like the
Victoria Line.

What these people mean is "without staff" which is never going to happen
because the public don't want it too (except on strike days when it
suits them).

I miss those elevator captains dont you?

The feeling of power when you said '3rd floor, please' and the sexy
attendant in his smart uniform told you where to get off.

These self service buttons will never really catch on.


And that is similar to a train in what particular way?

It moves people.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
As a matter of interest, why should books be zero rated?

Because it was viewed as an education item and therefore essential
(in a wider sense).

So is a TV then.

Well yes. But I did say it's a bit arbitrary and someone had to draw a
line, and they drew a line at books.

IMO reading books is more likely to enrich than a TV as it helps reading
skills, spelling and vocabulary even if the reader only buys fiction. A
TV has a lesser guarantee of educational enrichment.

Make it a mobile phone, then. Kids who had no interest in reading etc,
soon realise they have to for SMS and so on.

I say it again. Whinging on about such things being 'essential' is
nonsense. Food is essential. Books ain't.

It isnt just essential stuff that is vat zero rated.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Every time driverless trains or tubes are brought up, the vast majority
of
those who use them are against.


The driverless DLR works well, but there are 2 points:

1) It's not really driverless as there's a conductor who can drive on
board. They just pay him less and he does other jobs most of the time.

Yes. But those who go on and on about driverless trains want to eliminate
that job entirely - not just call it something else, or move the driver
from the cab to elsewhere.

It's standard fare. Eliminate all jobs where possible. Apart from those
who decide what jobs there will be, of course. And anyone in a job - that
job is always essential.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Those of us involved in designing
stuff continually eliminate work that we don’t want to have to do like
maintain stuff like with PCs etc. Much better if that never has to be done
and the owner can do it all themselves like with the best of the smartphone
designs.