On 29/06/2016 17:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think people who would rather seen the country destroyed than be
wrong, are very sick sad people



I agree, you are.

By country do you mean England or the UK as you have said that Scotland
and N Ireland should go in previous posts.

dennis@home wrote:
On 29/06/2016 09:55, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 28-Jun-16 9:24 PM, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-far-safer-sta


ying-in-the-european-union-91537224.html

The BBC Reality Check has looked at what some of the Leave campaigners
were saying before the referendum and comparing it with what they are
saying now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36641390

Are they doing the same thing to the Remain campaigners, and if not,
why not?


Which claims from the remain camp do you think were untrue?
All of them!

dennis@home wrote:
On 29/06/2016 17:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think people who would rather seen the country destroyed than be
wrong, are very sick sad people



I agree, you are.

By country do you mean England or the UK as you have said that
Scotland and N Ireland should go in previous posts.
The sore loser again.

Nightjar wrote
Martin Barclay wrote
Nightjar wrote

The forecasts are still out there, for anybody to check what they said.

I wonder if this is the same lot that said we should have joined the Euro
when it was first introduced....

Some will be. Some will not. Despite the enduring myth, it was the
politicians who agreed about the Euro, not the economists.

BULL****

They were divided. This time around, the only division is about just how
bad things will get.

More of your lies.

Nightjar wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote
Nightjar wrote

The forecasts are still out there, for anybody to check what they
said.

For sure, so in 20 years time we can go back and say 'well those
forecasts were total lies weren't they' ...

I sincerely hope so, but I very much doubt it. Economists are rarely
so much in agreement as they are about the future of the UK after
Brexit.

They were on whether Britain should be in the eurozone
or not and were completely wrong about that....

The politicians agreed. The economists were divided.

BULL****.

This time, they only disagree about how bad things will be.

More of your lies.

And NOT ONE of them predicted the worst recession since
the great depression and ALL of them were actually stupid
enough to proclaim that the banks should be deregulated
and NOT ONE of them managed to work out what the
result of that would be when the **** inevitably hit the fan.

With a record like that, only a fool like you
takes any notice of what they predict now.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 29-Jun-16 4:35 PM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Jun-16 11:14 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/06/16 11:00, Nightjar wrote:
...
The forecasts are still out there, for anybody to check what they
said.


For sure, so in 20 years time we can go back and say 'well those
forecasts were total lies weren't they' ...

I sincerely hope so, but I very much doubt it. Economists are rarely
so much in agreement as they are about the future of the UK after
Brexit.


Well, for this week they are wrong.

They didn't predict what would happen this week. They predicted what will
happen over the next 5, 10 or 15 years, depending which report you are
looking at. Apart from a few things, like HSBC relocating 1,000 employees
to Paris, it will be a slow decline. Over the years, outside investors
will simply stop developing their presence in the UK and will expand their
operations in other countries instead.

How odd that they don’t do that with all of the USA, China, India,
Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Brazil etc etc etc.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 29-Jun-16 5:49 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/06/16 17:33, Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Jun-16 2:33 PM, Martin Barclay wrote:
On 29/06/16 11:00, Nightjar wrote:
....
The forecasts are still out there, for anybody to check what they
said.

I wonder if this is the same lot that said we should have joined the
Euro
when it was first introduced....

Some will be. Some will not. Despite the enduring myth, it was the
politicians who agreed about the Euro, not the economists. They were
divided. This time around, the only division is about just how bad
things will get.



I think people who would rather seen the country destroyed than be
wrong, are very sick sad people


It is leaving that will destroy the country.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Have fun explaining why not
being in the EU hasnt destroyed any of the USA, China, India, Korea,
Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, Canada, Australia, etc etc etc.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 29-Jun-16 6:47 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

[31 lines snipped]

I understand why. They are scared of any real democracy,

I am particularly amused by this argument. There is no more "real
democracy" in this country than in the EU.

Odd, could have sworn Britain has just had a couple of
referendums. Have fun listing any the EU itself has had.

dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote
dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a
****ty one at that. Insurance should never be compulsory.

I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I'm in Scotland, not Australia. Have you not seen me arguing with Rod?

I've seen rod arguing with rod.

More of your lies.

And no, we shouldn't have to have car insurance. Just make
everyone pay for the damage to their own car in an accident.

So buy third party insurance then.

No thanks. I prefer to pay for what damage I do.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 29/06/2016 09:55, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 28-Jun-16 9:24 PM, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-far-safer-sta

ying-in-the-european-union-91537224.html

The BBC Reality Check has looked at what some of the Leave campaigners
were saying before the referendum and comparing it with what they are
saying now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36641390

Are they doing the same thing to the Remain campaigners, and if not,
why not?


Which claims from the remain camp do you think were untrue?

That Britain would be destroyed if it left the EU.

That the economy would be worse outside the EU.

That Britain would rejoin the EU and so would end up
with worse detail like schengen and the euro if it leaves.

That Britain would end up with exactly the same freedom
of movement of EU citizens into Britain, pay the same to
the EU as it does now, and would have to implement all
EU policy like it does now, if it leaves the EU.

That Britain gets any say on EU policy if it stays in the EU.

Etc etc etc.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:51:36 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/06/2016 00:01, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:32:31 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 28/06/2016 22:23, James Wilkinson wrote:

The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a ****ty one
at
that. Insurance should never be compulsory.

I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I'm in Scotland, not Australia. Have you not seen me arguing with Rod?

I've seen rod arguing with rod.

Cite.

And no, we shouldn't have to have car insurance. Just make everyone pay
for the damage to their own car in an accident.

So buy third party insurance then.

No. That pays for the damage to the other person's car.

Nope, it pays for personal injury, nothing to do with the cars.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 29-Jun-16 6:47 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/06/16 18:33, Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Jun-16 5:49 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/06/16 17:33, Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Jun-16 2:33 PM, Martin Barclay wrote:
On 29/06/16 11:00, Nightjar wrote:
....
The forecasts are still out there, for anybody to check what they
said.

I wonder if this is the same lot that said we should have joined the
Euro
when it was first introduced....

Some will be. Some will not. Despite the enduring myth, it was the
politicians who agreed about the Euro, not the economists. They were
divided. This time around, the only division is about just how bad
things will get.



I think people who would rather seen the country destroyed than be
wrong, are very sick sad people


It is leaving that will destroy the country.

No, it is the people who support remaining that are trying to destroy
the country....

There is no need to *try* to destroy the country. The vote to leave is
already set to achieve that.

NOT ONE of your economists is actually stupid enough to say anything like
that.

I understand why. They are scared of any real democracy, and their jobs
depend on the EU. And they d9nt know how to exist withiout it.

The point of remaining is to be part of a greater whole, not a
reactionary, isolationist backwater.

Even more flagrantly dishonest than you usually manage.

But they shouldn't try to talk Britain down.

Britain will carry on much as it has so far,

Which is nothing even remotely like destroyed given that
it just happens to have one of the lowest unemployment
rates of the majors in europe and is doing so well that
hordes of EU citizens keep showing up in Britain because
it is doing much better than where they are coming from.

which is the main problem.

Some problem.

It needs to transform itself into a modern, productive, progressive nation
to succeed outside the EU.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

That is something that really is not particularly probable.

How odd that it just happens to have one of the lowest
unemployment rates of the majors in europe and is doing so
well that hordes of EU citizens keep showing up in Britain
because it is doing much better than where they are coming from.

You can't even claim that it is being propped up
by the EU either given that it is a massive net
contributor to the EU to the tune of billions a year.

AND the bulk of British trade isnt with the EU either.

AND even if the pound does sag by say 10%
permanently, all that means is that British
exports to the EU will still end up at about the
same price to consumers in the EU after say an
8% duty is paid on them to get into the EU.

They should move to an EU country

That would require free movement to stay in place.

Nope, you are free to move now before Britain leaves the EU.

And even you should have noticed that the EU is happy to
have non EU business move to the EU any time they like too.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:12:49 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:51:36 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 29/06/2016 00:01, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:32:31 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 28/06/2016 22:23, James Wilkinson wrote:

The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a ****ty one
at
that. Insurance should never be compulsory.

I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I'm in Scotland, not Australia. Have you not seen me arguing with Rod?

I've seen rod arguing with rod.

Cite.

And no, we shouldn't have to have car insurance. Just make everyone pay
for the damage to their own car in an accident.

So buy third party insurance then.

No. That pays for the damage to the other person's car.

Nope, it pays for personal injury, nothing to do with the cars.

It may mean something different over there, but my third party insurance pays to fix the other guy's car when I crash into it.

--
Please tell your pants it's not polite to point.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:06:22 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:

dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote
dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a
****ty one at that. Insurance should never be compulsory.

I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I'm in Scotland, not Australia. Have you not seen me arguing with Rod?

I've seen rod arguing with rod.

More of your lies.

And no, we shouldn't have to have car insurance. Just make
everyone pay for the damage to their own car in an accident.

So buy third party insurance then.

No thanks. I prefer to pay for what damage I do.

I'd like to do the same, but it's illegal in the UK.

--
Cindy once remarked to her dentist that she didn't know what would be worse - having a baby, or having a tooth pulled.
The Dentist replied, "Well make up your mind, Cindy - because I need to know which way to position the chair."

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 04:32:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 29/06/16 00:01, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:32:31 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 28/06/2016 22:23, James Wilkinson wrote:

The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a ****ty one at
that. Insurance should never be compulsory.

I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I'm in Scotland, not Australia. Have you not seen me arguing with Rod?

And no, we shouldn't have to have car insurance. Just make everyone pay
for the damage to their own car in an accident.

They do, using insurance

No, insurance pays for the OTHER car.

--
Harry Carpenter at the Oxford-Cambridge boat race 1977 - "Ah, isn't that nice. The wife of the Cambridge President is kissing the Cox of the Oxford crew."

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 04:31:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 28/06/16 22:35, Steve Walker wrote:
On 28/06/2016 22:22, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:44:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 28/06/2016 21:30, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:24:21 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-91537224.html




The NHS is a drain on our taxes and should be closed down.

Are you going to fund all your health needs out of your own cash?

Are you going to buy an insurance policy that covers all your health
needs?

Whichever, have you any idea how much it will cost you in actual money
terms?

In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones. That's a lot less than my tax contributions to the NHS.
I would much rather have paid for the bones from my own pocket.

Except that you don't know what medical needs you may suddenly have and
which could be totally unaffordable. To protect against that you would
have to take out insurance. Some people with existing health conditions
wouldn't be able to afford insurance; some people would lose their jobs
and be unable to afford insurance; those on low incomes could afford
nothing; elderly people would have massively loaded premiums that they
could not afford.

Just think of the NHS as health insurance that does not load premiums
for exisitng conditions, any conditions that you may develop in the
future or your age; spreads the premiums across everyone's earnings on
an ability to pay basis and does not include an element of profit, so
doesn't need to charge even higher premiums.

If that were all it was, it would be great.

Unfortunately its state provided healthcare.

Ad as is usual in such cases it's monumentally inefficient and pricey,
and hamstrung in terms of ability to access capital.

The problem with unlimited insurance into PRIVATE hospitals of course os
that unscrupulous hospitals will *bump up* the 'treatment' you need.

They tried to get around that with dentistry, by having fixed prices per
'operation' The trouble with THAT though is that it leads to rushed
work, and cheap materials. And takes no account of local costs of living
for dentists.

No easy fix, sadly

Dunno what the story is with dentistry - semi funded by the NHS?

--
Australia - 2030 ?????
HEADLINES FROM THE YEAR 2030
Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Little India, formerly known as Australia.
White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Australia's third language.
Children from 2 parent heterosexual families bullied in schools for being 'different'. Tolerance urged.
Melbourne schoolgirl expelled for not wearing Burqa: Being a Christian is no excuse says school. Sharia law must be enforced.
After a 10-year, $75.8 billion study: Scientists prove Diet and exercise is the key to weight loss.
Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.
Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights. Victims to be held partly responsible for crime.
New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters, and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2035 as lethal weapons.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 04:26:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 28/06/16 22:23, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:44:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 28/06/2016 21:30, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:24:21 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-91537224.html



The NHS is a drain on our taxes and should be closed down.

Are you going to fund all your health needs out of your own cash?

Are you going to buy an insurance policy that covers all your health
needs?

Whichever, have you any idea how much it will cost you in actual money
terms?

The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a ****ty one at
that. Insurance should never be compulsory.

Actually I can make a case for saying that it should be compulsory to
have insurance, bit not where to spend it

THere is a public health issue here. I dont want people spreading
bubonic plague because they didn't pay te supremo...although come to
think of it...

You don't want bubonic plague, you pay for your immunisation.

--
The average speed of a boy's ejaculation is 28 miles (45.05 km) per hour.
The average speed of a city bus is 25 miles (40.22 km) per hour.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 04:24:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 28/06/16 22:22, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:44:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 28/06/2016 21:30, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:24:21 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-91537224.html



The NHS is a drain on our taxes and should be closed down.

Are you going to fund all your health needs out of your own cash?

Are you going to buy an insurance policy that covers all your health
needs?

Whichever, have you any idea how much it will cost you in actual money
terms?

In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones. That's a lot less than my tax contributions to the NHS.
I would much rather have paid for the bones from my own pocket.

Well so far a double hernia, testicular cancer and two heart operations,
I think I'm about evens ;-)

So basically I've paid for your testicle problems. You think that's right?!?

--
I imposed a declaration in opposition to your motion to modify the preliminary injunction in support of the cross motion to vacate the preliminary injunction. So noted by the Federal Court of Justice proceeding preliminary declaration.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 03:01:44 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:



"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 28/06/2016 22:23, James Wilkinson wrote:


The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a ****ty one at
that. Insurance should never be compulsory.


I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I choose not to insure my 10 year old car because it would
be completely trivial to replace it if it did need to be replaced.
Just wave the phone at the point of sale terminal even if I
did replace it with a brand new one.

I only insured it for a couple of years when it was new
because the insurance was so cheap, $100 a year, and
we have lots of illegal immigrants here and it would
have been a bit irritating to have it wiped out by one
of them and to have them **** off back where they
came from. The insurance company kept jacking up
the premium on every renewal, even tho I never made
any claim at all, so I gave them the finger and didn't
bother to renew.

So in Aus you can drive around with no insurance? What if you right off another car? Who pays for that other car?

--
What is the difference between a 69 and driving in the fog?
When driving in the fog, you can't see the asshole in front of you.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 04:24:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 28/06/16 22:22, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:44:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 28/06/2016 21:30, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:24:21 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-91537224.html



The NHS is a drain on our taxes and should be closed down.

Are you going to fund all your health needs out of your own cash?

Are you going to buy an insurance policy that covers all your health
needs?

Whichever, have you any idea how much it will cost you in actual money
terms?

In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones. That's a lot less than my tax contributions to the NHS.
I would much rather have paid for the bones from my own pocket.

Well so far a double hernia, testicular cancer and two heart operations,
I think I'm about evens ;-)

So basically I've paid for your testicle problems. You think that's
right?!?

What goes around comes around. It'll be the rest of us who have to pay for
you to see a shrink and that's gonna be a really big job/bill.
Prick.
Go play with the Aussie ****, your hero/mentor.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:39:33 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 22:22:30 +0100, James Wilkinson wrote:

In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones.

So you didn't get the arm full of childhood vaccinations?

A hell of a lot of parents think those do more harm than good. And those who want their kids to have them should pay for them. I don't have kids and don't want to pay for other kids' vaccinations.

You've not been abroad and had vaccinations for the common nasties
out there? (Though some are not available on the NHS, Rabies springs
to mind).

I've been abroad and am not pathetically paranoid. So I didn't get any vaccinations.

You have never had any NHS prescriptions from a GP, Out patient, In
patient?

Not any that did me any good, no.

You are not registered with a GP? Presumably if you want routine
medical treatment/advice you see a GP as a private patient?

Routine?!? You see a GP routinely?!?

If you need scrapping up off the road which private A&E department
via which private ambulance service are you going to use?

I'll pay for that IF I need it. I don't want to pay for others' misfortune.

All that for less than £2.80/week

Ah the classic of reducing the timescale to make it look smaller. Sky TV do that and tell you what you pay per day.

Class 2 Self Employed (+ Class 4 on
any profits) or £14.10/week Class 3 Voluntary(*). Only a proportion
of those amounts goes to the NHS, Class 2 provides Basic and New
State Pension, Contribution based Employment and Support Allowance,
Maternity Allowance and Bereavement benefits. Class 3 doesn't have
the ESA or Maternity Allwances.

(*) Except that Class 2 at least has been abolished and included in
the Class 4 contributions. The actual cost of the NHS to the
individual is not that much.

Please speak in English.

--
A juggler, driving to his next performance, is stopped by the police. "What are these matches and lighter fluid doing in your car?" asks the cop.
"I'm a juggler and I juggle flaming torches in my act."
"Oh yeah?" says the doubtful cop. "Lets see you do it." The juggler gets out and starts juggling the blazing torches masterfully.
A couple driving by slows down to watch. "Wow," says the driver to his wife. "I'm glad I quit drinking. Look at the test they're giving now!"

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:39:33 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 22:22:30 +0100, James Wilkinson wrote:

In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones.

So you didn't get the arm full of childhood vaccinations?

A hell of a lot of parents think those do more harm than good. And those who want their kids to have them should pay for them. I don't have kids and don't want to pay for other kids' vaccinations.

You've not been abroad and had vaccinations for the common nasties
out there? (Though some are not available on the NHS, Rabies springs
to mind).

I've been abroad and am not pathetically paranoid. So I didn't get any vaccinations.

You have never had any NHS prescriptions from a GP, Out patient, In
patient?

Not any that did me any good, no.

You are not registered with a GP? Presumably if you want routine
medical treatment/advice you see a GP as a private patient?

Routine?!? You see a GP routinely?!?

If you need scrapping up off the road which private A&E department
via which private ambulance service are you going to use?

I'll pay for that IF I need it. I don't want to pay for others' misfortune.

All that for less than £2.80/week

Ah the classic of reducing the timescale to make it look smaller. Sky TV do that and tell you what you pay per day.

Class 2 Self Employed (+ Class 4 on
any profits) or £14.10/week Class 3 Voluntary(*). Only a proportion
of those amounts goes to the NHS, Class 2 provides Basic and New
State Pension, Contribution based Employment and Support Allowance,
Maternity Allowance and Bereavement benefits. Class 3 doesn't have
the ESA or Maternity Allwances.

(*) Except that Class 2 at least has been abolished and included in
the Class 4 contributions. The actual cost of the NHS to the
individual is not that much.

Please speak in English.

--
A juggler, driving to his next performance, is stopped by the police. "What are these matches and lighter fluid doing in your car?" asks the cop.
"I'm a juggler and I juggle flaming torches in my act."
"Oh yeah?" says the doubtful cop. "Lets see you do it." The juggler gets out and starts juggling the blazing torches masterfully.
A couple driving by slows down to watch. "Wow," says the driver to his wife. "I'm glad I quit drinking. Look at the test they're giving now!"

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news Please speak in English.

You just had the temerity to type ******** twice in the same thread.

Please **** off.
Go play with the Aussie ****.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:06:22 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote
dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a
****ty one at that. Insurance should never be compulsory.

I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I'm in Scotland, not Australia. Have you not seen me arguing with Rod?

I've seen rod arguing with rod.

More of your lies.

And no, we shouldn't have to have car insurance. Just make
everyone pay for the damage to their own car in an accident.

So buy third party insurance then.

No thanks. I prefer to pay for what damage I do.

I'd like to do the same, but it's illegal in the UK.

Our third party insurance is compulsory, but only pays for personal
injury, not damage to the cars or property they run into.

On 29/06/2016 22:07, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 29/06/2016 09:55, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 28-Jun-16 9:24 PM, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-far-safer-sta

ying-in-the-european-union-91537224.html

The BBC Reality Check has looked at what some of the Leave campaigners
were saying before the referendum and comparing it with what they are
saying now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36641390

Are they doing the same thing to the Remain campaigners, and if not,
why not?


Which claims from the remain camp do you think were untrue?

do look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...VQ&app=desktop


Boris: "Just got a text from David - 'You made this happen; you can
****ing deal with it'".

:-)

--
Cheers, Rob

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:06:22 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:

dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote
dennis@home wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a
****ty one at that. Insurance should never be compulsory.

I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I'm in Scotland, not Australia. Have you not seen me arguing with
Rod?

I've seen rod arguing with rod.

More of your lies.

And no, we shouldn't have to have car insurance. Just make
everyone pay for the damage to their own car in an accident.

So buy third party insurance then.

No thanks. I prefer to pay for what damage I do.

I'd like to do the same, but it's illegal in the UK.

Our third party insurance is compulsory, but only pays for personal
injury, not damage to the cars or property they run into.

Oh look, it's the chuckle brothers again.
LMFAO.

"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 03:01:44 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 28/06/2016 22:23, James Wilkinson wrote:


The NHS is basically a compulsory health insurance, and a ****ty one at
that. Insurance should never be compulsory.


I take that aussies don't need car insurance either, eh rod.

I choose not to insure my 10 year old car because it would
be completely trivial to replace it if it did need to be replaced.
Just wave the phone at the point of sale terminal even if I
did replace it with a brand new one.

I only insured it for a couple of years when it was new
because the insurance was so cheap, $100 a year, and
we have lots of illegal immigrants here and it would
have been a bit irritating to have it wiped out by one
of them and to have them **** off back where they
came from. The insurance company kept jacking up
the premium on every renewal, even tho I never made
any claim at all, so I gave them the finger and didn't
bother to renew.

So in Aus you can drive around with no insurance?

No, what we can third party is compulsory, that covers personal injury,
but not the cars involved or what they run into either with property.

What if you right off another car? Who pays for that other car?

The person who is at fault/caused the accident. If they both
did, they split the cost. If say one of them contributed 10%,
they pay 10% of the cost if the cars arent insured.

If the car that is written off has the voluntary what we call
comprehensive insurance, it pays for that car regardless of
whose fault it is and can in theory recover the cost from the
driver of the other car if that person caused the accident.
In practice they don't normally do any more than demand
that that driver pay for it and do nothing if they get an
obscene gesture from that driver.

James Wilkinson wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
James Wilkinson wrote

In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones.

So you didn't get the arm full of childhood vaccinations?

A hell of a lot of parents think those do more harm than good.

More fool them.

And those who want their kids to have them should pay for them. I don't
have kids and don't want to pay for other kids' vaccinations.

But I bet the state did pay for yours.

You've not been abroad and had vaccinations for the common nasties out
there? (Though some are not available on the NHS, Rabies springs to
mind).

I've been abroad and am not pathetically paranoid. So I didn't get any
vaccinations.

You have never had any NHS prescriptions from a GP, Out patient, In
patient?

Not any that did me any good, no.

You are not registered with a GP? Presumably if you want routine
medical treatment/advice you see a GP as a private patient?

Routine?!? You see a GP routinely?!?

If you need scrapping up off the road which private A&E department
via which private ambulance service are you going to use?

I'll pay for that IF I need it. I don't want to pay for others'
misfortune.

All that for less than £2.80/week

Ah the classic of reducing the timescale to make it look smaller. Sky TV
do that and tell you what you pay per day.

Class 2 Self Employed (+ Class 4 on
any profits) or £14.10/week Class 3 Voluntary(*). Only a proportion
of those amounts goes to the NHS, Class 2 provides Basic and New
State Pension, Contribution based Employment and Support Allowance,
Maternity Allowance and Bereavement benefits. Class 3 doesn't have
the ESA or Maternity Allwances.

(*) Except that Class 2 at least has been abolished and included in
the Class 4 contributions. The actual cost of the NHS to the
individual is not that much.

Please speak in English.

On 29-Jun-16 10:19 PM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Jun-16 4:35 PM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Jun-16 11:14 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/06/16 11:00, Nightjar wrote:
...
The forecasts are still out there, for anybody to check what they
said.


For sure, so in 20 years time we can go back and say 'well those
forecasts were total lies weren't they' ...

I sincerely hope so, but I very much doubt it. Economists are rarely
so much in agreement as they are about the future of the UK after
Brexit.


Well, for this week they are wrong.

They didn't predict what would happen this week. They predicted what
will happen over the next 5, 10 or 15 years, depending which report
you are looking at. Apart from a few things, like HSBC relocating
1,000 employees to Paris, it will be a slow decline. Over the years,
outside investors will simply stop developing their presence in the UK
and will expand their operations in other countries instead.

If people can't get 7 day forecasts right, they are very never
going to get a 5 year forecast correct!

What is happening now is market volatility. What will happen in the next
five years is far more predictable.

I am seeing in the London area
considerable investment going in on the basis of being able to recruit
world wide once again.

Nothing to stop anybody doing that while still in the EU. The only thing
that will change when we leave is that EU citizens might have to meet
the same rules on work permits as non-EU citizens.

Kellys ice cream are investing 2M in a new plant
in Cornwall.

A private limited company, incorporated in England, and they won't have
decided to do that in the past week.

Why are you so pessimistic?

Because we are no longer a gateway to the EU for foreign investors. In
future, if a foreign investor wants to start or expand their business
inside the EU, they won't be coming here to do it. A great deal of our
financial services involve passporting across the EU from bases in
London and those services are also likely to move to another EU country
unless the deal we make allows passporting to continue. However, any
deal that allows that is likely to include things that leaving was
supposed to end, such as the free movement of labour.

This is a great
opportunity.People are very optimistic on a future outside the EU and
it's regulations and getting more sales from Asia.

Germany seems to have done very well at expanding its markets outside
the EU, while remaining inside. If British companies have failed to do
that, they are not likely to do any better outside the EU and there is
no certainty that any existing regulations will be relaxed. Most of
those in the financial services, for example, reflect the perceived need
in the UK and are unlikely to change significantly. In any case, any
business that wants to deal with the EU will still have to meet EU
regulations.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 29/06/2016 22:30, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 29/06/2016 17:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think people who would rather seen the country destroyed than be
wrong, are very sick sad people



I agree, you are.

By country do you mean England or the UK as you have said that
Scotland and N Ireland should go in previous posts.
The sore loser again.

Nothing to do with sore loser I just want clarity on what his country is
as he keeps changing his mind.

On 30/06/16 01:33, James Wilkinson wrote:
They tried to get around that with dentistry, by having fixed prices per
'operation' The trouble with THAT though is that it leads to rushed
work, and cheap materials. And takes no account of local costs of living
for dentists.

No easy fix, sadly

Dunno what the story is with dentistry - semi funded by the NHS?

Yes. You can register with te NHS which will pay you as a dentist a
fixed price to do certain classes of work, essentially those that are
'health' rather than 'cosmetic'

But there is very little meat in there, so if it is pure NHS work its
rushed and done on the cheap.

According to my dentist niece, who worked in the NHS dentist for a while.


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 30/06/16 01:34, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 04:24:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 28/06/16 22:22, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:44:16 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 28/06/2016 21:30, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:24:21 +0100, dennis@home

wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-91537224.html




The NHS is a drain on our taxes and should be closed down.

Are you going to fund all your health needs out of your own cash?

Are you going to buy an insurance policy that covers all your health
needs?

Whichever, have you any idea how much it will cost you in actual money
terms?

In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple of
broken bones. That's a lot less than my tax contributions to the NHS.
I would much rather have paid for the bones from my own pocket.

Well so far a double hernia, testicular cancer and two heart operations,
I think I'm about evens ;-)

So basically I've paid for your testicle problems. You think that's
right?!?

You haven't, because I've paid three times over for all of that.


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 29/06/2016 22:10, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 29/06/2016 09:55, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 28-Jun-16 9:24 PM, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...is-far-safer-s

taying-in-the-european-union-91537224.html

The BBC Reality Check has looked at what some of the Leave campaigners
were saying before the referendum and comparing it with what they are
saying now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36641390

Are they doing the same thing to the Remain campaigners, and if not,
why not?

Which claims from the remain camp do you think were untrue?

The £4300/p.a. poorer claim was cock, claims that the markets would
tank are proving to be cock.

Which figures are you suing to show that the £4k3 is untrue?
What timescale did they say the markets would tank over.
How long do you think it will take for companies to plan a move out of
the UK into the EU before these things start to bite?

The banks had to do the planning in case it happened so they have
started, other companies have a bit more time to plan as the impact is
immediate.


And why are you asking me? You should be asking the BBC.


The BBC don't know any lies to quote so I am asking for anyone that does
have some to say what they are. You can tell the BBC if you have actual
lies.

On 29/06/2016 22:28, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 29/06/2016 09:55, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 28-Jun-16 9:24 PM, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-far-safer-sta


ying-in-the-european-union-91537224.html

The BBC Reality Check has looked at what some of the Leave campaigners
were saying before the referendum and comparing it with what they are
saying now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36641390

Are they doing the same thing to the Remain campaigners, and if not,
why not?


Which claims from the remain camp do you think were untrue?
All of them!

You need to be explicit as all the experts think there were none.
Are you back to the conspiracy theories again?

On 30/06/2016 00:10, Rod Speed wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 29/06/2016 09:55, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 28-Jun-16 9:24 PM, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-far-safer-sta


ying-in-the-european-union-91537224.html

The BBC Reality Check has looked at what some of the Leave campaigners
were saying before the referendum and comparing it with what they are
saying now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36641390

Are they doing the same thing to the Remain campaigners, and if not,
why not?


Which claims from the remain camp do you think were untrue?

That Britain would be destroyed if it left the EU.

Nobody has said that.


That the economy would be worse outside the EU.

This is true.


That Britain would rejoin the EU and so would end up
with worse detail like schengen and the euro if it leaves.

This is true.


That Britain would end up with exactly the same freedom
of movement of EU citizens into Britain, pay the same to
the EU as it does now, and would have to implement all
EU policy like it does now, if it leaves the EU.

If we want free trade it is probably true.


That Britain gets any say on EU policy if it stays in the EU.

They get a lot more say than they do now.


Etc etc etc.

Some actual lies would be a good start.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 29-Jun-16 10:19 PM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Jun-16 4:35 PM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Jun-16 11:14 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/06/16 11:00, Nightjar wrote:
...
The forecasts are still out there, for anybody to check what they
said.


For sure, so in 20 years time we can go back and say 'well those
forecasts were total lies weren't they' ...

I sincerely hope so, but I very much doubt it. Economists are rarely
so much in agreement as they are about the future of the UK after
Brexit.


Well, for this week they are wrong.

They didn't predict what would happen this week. They predicted what
will happen over the next 5, 10 or 15 years, depending which report
you are looking at. Apart from a few things, like HSBC relocating
1,000 employees to Paris, it will be a slow decline. Over the years,
outside investors will simply stop developing their presence in the UK
and will expand their operations in other countries instead.

If people can't get 7 day forecasts right, they are very never
going to get a 5 year forecast correct!

What is happening now is market volatility. What will happen in the next
five years is far more predictable.

I am seeing in the London area
considerable investment going in on the basis of being able to recruit
world wide once again.

Nothing to stop anybody doing that while still in the EU. The only thing
that will change when we leave is that EU citizens might have to meet the
same rules on work permits as non-EU citizens.

Kellys ice cream are investing 2M in a new plant
in Cornwall.

A private limited company, incorporated in England, and they won't have
decided to do that in the past week.

Why are you so pessimistic?

Because we are no longer a gateway to the EU for foreign investors. In
future, if a foreign investor wants to start or expand their business
inside the EU, they won't be coming here to do it. A great deal of our
financial services involve passporting across the EU from bases in London
and those services are also likely to move to another EU country unless
the deal we make allows passporting to continue. However, any deal that
allows that is likely to include things that leaving was supposed to end,
such as the free movement of labour.

This is a great
opportunity.People are very optimistic on a future outside the EU and
it's regulations and getting more sales from Asia.

Germany seems to have done very well at expanding its markets outside the
EU, while remaining inside. If British companies have failed to do that,

They haven't, most obviously with aircraft engines, TV
docos and drama. Britain has in fact done rather better
with aircraft engines alone than Germany has with cars.

In spades with financial services. Britain wasn’t actually
stupid enough to pour billions into Greece to see those
billions ****ed against the wall by the Greeks.

they are not likely to do any better outside the EU and there is no
certainty that any existing regulations will be relaxed.

None of them can be imposed by the EU anymore.

Most of those in the financial services, for example, reflect the
perceived need in the UK and are unlikely to change significantly.

Yes, but that is only a tiny subset of the regulations.

In any case, any business that wants to deal with the EU will still have
to meet EU regulations.

And those that also deal with the rest of the world are
free to ignore EU regulations completely with those.

And free to ignore what the EU proclaims
must happen in their own country too.

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dennis@home wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Nightjar wrote
dennis@home wrote

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...-far-safer-sta

ying-in-the-european-union-91537224.html

The BBC Reality Check has looked at what some of the Leave campaigners
were saying before the referendum and comparing it with what they are
saying now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36641390

Are they doing the same thing to the Remain campaigners, and if not,
why not?

Which claims from the remain camp do you think were untrue?

That Britain would be destroyed if it left the EU.

Nobody has said that.

Bignell has said just that, in here.

That the economy would be worse outside the EU.

This is true.

We'll see...

That Britain would rejoin the EU and so would end up
with worse detail like schengen and the euro if it leaves.

This is true.

Britain isnt going to rejoin the EU unless it implodes
completely and is completely different to what it is
now and is JUST a free trade area with no massive
totally undemocratic totally unaccountable bureaucracy.

That Britain would end up with exactly the same freedom
of movement of EU citizens into Britain, pay the same to
the EU as it does now, and would have to implement all
EU policy like it does now, if it leaves the EU.

If we want free trade it is probably true.

Britain doesnt want it badly enough to be that stupid, you watch.

That Britain gets any say on EU policy if it stays in the EU.

They get a lot more say than they do now.

Britain gets no say what so ever now.

Etc etc etc.

Some actual lies would be a good start.

You got them.

Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Jun-16 10:19 PM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Jun-16 4:35 PM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Jun-16 11:14 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/06/16 11:00, Nightjar wrote:
...
The forecasts are still out there, for anybody to check what they
said.


For sure, so in 20 years time we can go back and say 'well those
forecasts were total lies weren't they' ...

I sincerely hope so, but I very much doubt it. Economists are rarely
so much in agreement as they are about the future of the UK after
Brexit.


Well, for this week they are wrong.

They didn't predict what would happen this week. They predicted what
will happen over the next 5, 10 or 15 years, depending which report
you are looking at. Apart from a few things, like HSBC relocating
1,000 employees to Paris, it will be a slow decline. Over the years,
outside investors will simply stop developing their presence in the UK
and will expand their operations in other countries instead.

If people can't get 7 day forecasts right, they are very never
going to get a 5 year forecast correct!

What is happening now is market volatility. What will happen in the
next five years is far more predictable.

I am seeing in the London area
considerable investment going in on the basis of being able to recruit
world wide once again.

Nothing to stop anybody doing that while still in the EU. The only
thing that will change when we leave is that EU citizens might have to
meet the same rules on work permits as non-EU citizens.

Kellys ice cream are investing 2M in a new plant
in Cornwall.

A private limited company, incorporated in England, and they won't
have decided to do that in the past week.

Why are you so pessimistic?

Because we are no longer a gateway to the EU for foreign investors. In
future, if a foreign investor wants to start or expand their business
inside the EU, they won't be coming here to do it. A great deal of our
financial services involve passporting across the EU from bases in
London and those services are also likely to move to another EU
country unless the deal we make allows passporting to continue.
However, any deal that allows that is likely to include things that
leaving was supposed to end, such as the free movement of labour.

This is a great
opportunity.People are very optimistic on a future outside the EU and
it's regulations and getting more sales from Asia.

Germany seems to have done very well at expanding its markets outside
the EU, while remaining inside. If British companies have failed to do
that, they are not likely to do any better outside the EU and there is
no certainty that any existing regulations will be relaxed. Most of
those in the financial services, for example, reflect the perceived
need in the UK and are unlikely to change significantly. In any case,
any business that wants to deal with the EU will still have to meet EU
regulations.


The FT has written that the bulk of the city's derivative Euro
business will stay in the city for the foreseeable future. British
companies are doing very well in overseas markets. The EU export trade
is dropping as the EU people have no money and massive unemployment.
Some one else has written that they expect to see immigration into
Ireland increase by 3M people in the next five years and that they will
leave the EU as a result of the economic and social problems produced. I
repeat, 5 year forecasts are worthless, the modern world is too fast.

You only meet EU regulations for exports to the EU. They are not
god given. I repeat that you wish to be governed by Brussels and have no
interest in working for the success of your own country. Dover is still
open!

dennis@home wrote:
On 29/06/2016 22:10, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 29/06/2016 09:55, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 28-Jun-16 9:24 PM, dennis@home wrote:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2016/...is-far-safer-s


taying-in-the-european-union-91537224.html

The BBC Reality Check has looked at what some of the Leave
campaigners
were saying before the referendum and comparing it with what they are
saying now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36641390

Are they doing the same thing to the Remain campaigners, and if not,
why not?

Which claims from the remain camp do you think were untrue?

The £4300/p.a. poorer claim was cock, claims that the markets would
tank are proving to be cock.

Which figures are you suing to show that the £4k3 is untrue?
What timescale did they say the markets would tank over.
How long do you think it will take for companies to plan a move out of
the UK into the EU before these things start to bite?

The banks had to do the planning in case it happened so they have
started, other companies have a bit more time to plan as the impact is
immediate.


And why are you asking me? You should be asking the BBC.


The BBC don't know any lies to quote so I am asking for anyone that
does have some to say what they are. You can tell the BBC if you have
actual lies.

Loser!