On 03/07/2016 00:14, Rod Speed wrote:


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

Black cabs are exported. Although not going to save the economy. And
of course are under a great deal of competition from foreign makers -
despite being designed for London specifically.

Aren't Manganese Bronze now Chinese owned?

You'd be very hard pushed to find any 'British' manufacturer who isn't.

BULL****. Try Rolls Royce Holdings for starters. And BAE too.

RR and BaE are both public listed companies so the shareholders can be
from any country and can choose to move the HQ anywhere they like as
they can with the manufacturing.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
Albeit a very hollow, tenuous and as yet unconfirmed, (till article 50
is actually filed) 'win', as '10's of thousands' of people rallying
against the bogus Brexit 'direction' in London today confirm.

So '10's of thousands' of people want to overturn a democratically
arrived-at result, and want to continue with what is also an
undemocratic system. Totalitarianism rules, OK.

Very true. Before worrying about 'the undemocratic EU' it would have made
more sense to sort out the undemocratic UK.

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

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

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 09:50:41 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 10:26:27 +0100, T i m wrote:

As an aside (and you seem to have a good handle on all this), I think I
understand because we have reciprocal relationships with the various EU
countries re health cover, if a UK person in say Spain needs medical
help, the cost of that is borne by the UK NHS and in turn, a Spaniard
requiring medical care here is charged back to Spain?

Yep, that's what the EHIC card's for.

However, I think I heard that our NHS is particularly slow at sending
out the invoices and hence we are 'owed' quite a bit of cash?

When did you last get asked for any proof of anything at A&E?

Luckily, I've not had to make much use of that (so far anyway) but
outside your name, them looking up the records and confirming things
like your address and DoB, no, not really? I don't think I've ever
been seen at any medical facility without some level of identity
checks, if for no other reason to make sure I was given the treatment
that was agreed / planned. ;-)

A british
accent's proof of nothing.

Quite.

You could have moved to the US and got
citizenship to make life easier over there.

Ok.

The NHS could recharge "health tourists". They choose not to. Given how
loudly the NHS always shouts about funding crises, this can really only
be because it's cheaper to lose out on that potential income stream, than
to put the eligibility-checking and recharging infrastructure in place.

Like the decision between 'accepting' retail shop theft's V spending
money on a CCTV system or security guard where neither may improve the
(financial) issue much.

There may also be political implications, when it comes to "free at the
point of delivery". But one thing's for sure - the NHS will have looked
into it.

Like the 'cost' of processing an invoice for less than £n.

Cheers, T i m

Dave ****ING BITCH-QUEEN! FAMILY JEWELS! KID! JIZZ QUEEN! BUNG!
Plowman (News) ****ING YO-YO-KNICKERS!
TOLL-HOLE! PECKERWOOD! BOWEL! wrote ARSE WORM! FAGGOT!
Rod Speed wrote

Given she has been Home Secretary for so long and already in charge
of non EU immigration, do you really thing she is the one to limit
immigration to the numbers wanted and voted for by the leavers?

No reason why she can't apply the same deal to EU citizens as
currently apply to non EU citizens with Britain outside the EU.

That will be just fine, then.

Yep, ****ING FLIRT-GIRL! CODGER! JOCKSTRAP! she gets to tell ****ING
BACK-ALLEY! BUM! ALIEN! DICKFACE! COLON CRUSADER! ASS CRACK! LOVE
MUFFINS! CURRY-MUNCHER! GIN JOCKEY! FELLATIO! FLATFOOT! CROTCH COWBOY!
SUCKER! BEAVER! the dregs of the ****ING COLON CRUSADER! BUGGERAGE! EU
that they aren't ****ING COCK! YID! BITCHERY! allowed to move to
****ING ARSE LICK! BUM BAG! Britain once Britain leaves ****ING FOOL!
BUMP AND GRIND! AMYL QUEEN! ALL-DAY SUCKER! the EU. Just like ****ING
BITCHVILLE! BONEHEAD! she currently does with ****ING ANAL ORIFICE!
ASS-BANDIT! the rest of the ****ING ASSECONS! world. YID! GONADS!
GASH! BUNGHOLE!

Approximately 1/2 of UK immigration comes from
outside the EU. And despite promises at pretty well
every election of the past few years continues to rise.

Because ****ING HARD-BOILER! ASS-LICKING! GATOR BAIT! so many of
****ING PROSTITUTE! BITCH'S BLIND! COCK SUCKER! IMBECILE! them are in
****ING POMMY! DOPE! ARSE-MASTER! Britain already and ****ING GATOR
BAIT! DILDO! SCREW! many of them ****ING KIPPERS! BURRHEAD! get to
have ****ING CREAMSTICK! PIKER! **** FACE! APE CROTCH! PENIS HEAD!
TOWN-TRAMP! their new wives ****ING ANAL-JOYRIDER! BUTTOCK! BUMS AND
TITS! SLAG! and relos come ****ING SCHIZO! BACK EYE! too and because
****ING FLAT-FLOOSIE! Britain continues to ****ING ARSE UP! do much
better ****ING DICKSMACK! HOOKWORM! PLASTIC PADDY! DUDES! than where
they ****ING BOOB! **** OFF! are coming from ****ING ANUS! SEPTIC!
with most of ****ING ARSE-CRAWLER! ANAL-RAPE! ARSE-PACKER! them.
BUGGER-ARSED! ARSE-****! VAGINA! ABERRANT SEX!

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Andy Burns wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Black cabs are exported. Although not going to save the economy.
And of course are under a great deal of competition from foreign
makers - despite being designed for London specifically.

Aren't Manganese Bronze now Chinese owned?

You'd be very hard pushed to find any 'British' manufacturer who isn't.

BULL****. Try Rolls Royce Holdings for starters. And BAE too.

RR and BaE are both public listed companies

Yes, but clearly are British.

so the shareholders can be from any country

The major shareholders have to be announced.

and can choose to move the HQ anywhere
they like as they can with the manufacturing.

But when the major competitor of RRH is also outside
the EU, there isnt any point in moving that to the EU
when the EU isnt the major consumer of aircraft engines
and the EU has no alternative but to buy aircraft engines
from some country outside the EU.

T i m wrote:

As an aside (and you seem to have a good handle on all this), I think
I understand because we have reciprocal relationships with the various
EU countries re health cover

EHIC is also valid in EEA countries and Switzerland. Must admit I
didn't realise it wasn't valid in IoM, I've travelled there without
separate insurance.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Chris wrote:

Albeit a very hollow, tenuous and as yet unconfirmed, (till article 50
is actually filed) 'win', as '10's of thousands' of people rallying
against the bogus Brexit 'direction' in London today confirm.


So '10's of thousands' of people want to overturn a democratically
arrived-at result, and want to continue with what is also an
undemocratic system. Totalitarianism rules, OK.

Very true. Before worrying about 'the undemocratic EU' it would have made
more sense to sort out the undemocratic UK.



Agreed, PR would have given UKIP 60+ MPs!

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 11:19:44 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Black cabs are exported. Although not going to save the economy.
And of course are under a great deal of competition from foreign
makers - despite being designed for London specifically.

Aren't Manganese Bronze now Chinese owned?

You'd be very hard pushed to find any 'British' manufacturer who
isn't.

BULL****. Try Rolls Royce Holdings for starters. And BAE too.

RR and BaE are both public listed companies so the shareholders can be
from any country and can choose to move the HQ anywhere they like as
they can with the manufacturing.

Riiight. Under that logic, any quoted company anywhere in the world is
globally owned.

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 11:55:20 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

T i m wrote:

As an aside (and you seem to have a good handle on all this), I think
I understand because we have reciprocal relationships with the various
EU countries re health cover

EHIC is also valid in EEA countries and Switzerland.

Ok thanks.

Must admit I
didn't realise it wasn't valid in IoM, I've travelled there without
separate insurance.

I'm guessing the people traveling round it at speed on motorcycles
also have made sure they have the appropriate cover? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 03/07/16 12:21, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 11:19:44 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Black cabs are exported. Although not going to save the economy.
And of course are under a great deal of competition from foreign
makers - despite being designed for London specifically.

Aren't Manganese Bronze now Chinese owned?

You'd be very hard pushed to find any 'British' manufacturer who
isn't.

BULL****. Try Rolls Royce Holdings for starters. And BAE too.

RR and BaE are both public listed companies so the shareholders can be
from any country and can choose to move the HQ anywhere they like as
they can with the manufacturing.

Riiight. Under that logic, any quoted company anywhere in the world is
globally owned.

which isnt as illogical as it sounds.


If you take publically listed companies out the vast majority of PRIVATE
businesses in the UK are in favour of brexit.


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 03/07/2016 08:21, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 22:55:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 02/07/16 22:27, Jacky Chance wrote:

Guilty until proven innocent, y'see.

Doesn’t work like that either.


Actually its does. Cf the Glyphosate. Its is assumed bye the infamous
and philosophically unsound 'precautionary principle' to be 'dangerous
unless proven safe'

Hence the ban on soft soap and ammonium sulphamate.


What ban on soft soap?

On 03/07/2016 10:50, Adrian wrote:


When did you last get asked for any proof of anything at A&E? A british
accent's proof of nothing. You could have moved to the US and got
citizenship to make life easier over there.

A&E always ask questions about nationality, etc.

Doctors surgeries require you to produce passports, proof of address,
etc. before they will register you.

A&E will treat emergencies even if there is no prospect of getting paid
and that is how it should be!

On 03/07/2016 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote:

They were protesting because they didn't like the result, which was
that they lost the vote. '10's of thousands' protesting is still a
small number compared with the 1.3 million majority in favour of
leaving.

It takes a lot to get thousands out on a march, especially one that
wasn't publicised much.

If the numbers were reversed and the 'Leave' campaign had won
by a similar majority, I'd have sighed, but I would have accepted it.

You might have but UKIP wouldn't have.

On 03/07/2016 12:21, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 11:19:44 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Black cabs are exported. Although not going to save the economy.
And of course are under a great deal of competition from foreign
makers - despite being designed for London specifically.

Aren't Manganese Bronze now Chinese owned?

You'd be very hard pushed to find any 'British' manufacturer who
isn't.

BULL****. Try Rolls Royce Holdings for starters. And BAE too.

RR and BaE are both public listed companies so the shareholders can be
from any country and can choose to move the HQ anywhere they like as
they can with the manufacturing.

Riiight. Under that logic, any quoted company anywhere in the world is
globally owned.


Correct, it may well be.
Hanson trust own a large amount of American and UK shares for example.

On 03/07/2016 12:14, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Chris wrote:

Albeit a very hollow, tenuous and as yet unconfirmed, (till article 50
is actually filed) 'win', as '10's of thousands' of people rallying
against the bogus Brexit 'direction' in London today confirm.


So '10's of thousands' of people want to overturn a democratically
arrived-at result, and want to continue with what is also an
undemocratic system. Totalitarianism rules, OK.

Very true. Before worrying about 'the undemocratic EU' it would have made
more sense to sort out the undemocratic UK.



Agreed, PR would have given UKIP 60+ MPs!

You assume that people would have voted the same if we had PR.
It wouldn't be true as people that were making a protest vote would
think about what might happen if they did vote UKIP or any other party.

On 03/07/16 13:32, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:59:10 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 03/07/2016 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote:

They were protesting because they didn't like the result, which was
that they lost the vote. '10's of thousands' protesting is still a
small number compared with the 1.3 million majority in favour of
leaving.

It takes a lot to get thousands out on a march, especially one that
wasn't publicised much.

It was reported as going viral on the web. That suggests pretty
extensive publicity to me.

IT was all over the rentalefty internet. And Glastonbury was over, so
what better chance to pick up a hot slut?


--
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.

dennis@home wrote:
On 03/07/2016 12:14, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Chris wrote:

Albeit a very hollow, tenuous and as yet unconfirmed, (till
article 50
is actually filed) 'win', as '10's of thousands' of people rallying
against the bogus Brexit 'direction' in London today confirm.


So '10's of thousands' of people want to overturn a democratically
arrived-at result, and want to continue with what is also an
undemocratic system. Totalitarianism rules, OK.

Very true. Before worrying about 'the undemocratic EU' it would have
made
more sense to sort out the undemocratic UK.



Agreed, PR would have given UKIP 60+ MPs!

You assume that people would have voted the same if we had PR.
It wouldn't be true as people that were making a protest vote would
think about what might happen if they did vote UKIP or any other party.


Yup, even more would have voted UKIP.

On 03/07/2016 13:36, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:47:08 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 03/07/2016 08:21, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 22:55:44 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 02/07/16 22:27, Jacky Chance wrote:

Guilty until proven innocent, y'see.

Doesn’t work like that either.


Actually its does. Cf the Glyphosate. Its is assumed bye the infamous
and philosophically unsound 'precautionary principle' to be 'dangerous
unless proven safe'

Hence the ban on soft soap and ammonium sulphamate.


What ban on soft soap?

Sigh From my post of yesterday:

Neither ammonium sulphamate nor soft soap have been explicitly banned
by the EU, but they've both fallen foul of a blanket ban due to
manufacturers not submitting data required by EU regulations to
demonstrate that they were safe to use in their particular
applications, simply because it didn't make commercial sense for the
manufacturers to pay for such testing, and not because either product
was intrinsically harmful. Both ammonium sulphamate and soft soap can
still be purchased, but not for use as a herbicide or insecticide,
respectively.


So they aren't banned then.

Who sells soft soap as a herbicide or insecticide to submit the data?

On 03/07/2016 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 03/07/2016 10:50, Adrian wrote:


When did you last get asked for any proof of anything at A&E? A british
accent's proof of nothing. You could have moved to the US and got
citizenship to make life easier over there.

A&E always ask questions about nationality, etc.

No they don't.


They do here!

On 03/07/2016 13:32, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:59:10 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 03/07/2016 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote:

They were protesting because they didn't like the result, which was
that they lost the vote. '10's of thousands' protesting is still a
small number compared with the 1.3 million majority in favour of
leaving.

It takes a lot to get thousands out on a march, especially one that
wasn't publicised much.

It was reported as going viral on the web. That suggests pretty
extensive publicity to me.


It wasn't that viral, I don't know anyone that knew about it before it
happened.

Chris Hogg posted
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 17:01:03 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:
Who sells soft soap as a herbicide or insecticide to submit the data?

Soft soap isn't a herbicide, but it is useful as an insecticide,
especially for things like greenfly. Soft soap is widely available for
a variety of purposes http://tinyurl.com/hd43ame . Most domestic soaps
are sodium salts of fatty acids. Soft soaps are potassium salts of
fatty acids. Whether there's any difference in insecticidal activity,
I don't know; maybe soft soap just dissolves more easily, and it
certainly existed long before modern liquid detergents came along.
Here's a link to an article in the Independent from 2014 describing
banning by the EU of the use of soft soap to kill greenfly and the use
of coffee grounds to deter slugs . http://tinyurl.com/za8l9qn

Largely ********. EU regulations do not in general forbid private
individuals from using anything they wish for whatever purpose they
choose. What they do typically forbid is the *marketing* of a particular
substance for a particular purpose, unless it is authorised for that
purpose.

Gardeners are at liberty to buy soft soap and use it to poison their
aphids. However, soft soap cannot be explicitly marketed for that
purpose.

--
Les

On 03/07/16 19:30, Big Les Wade wrote:
EU regulations do not in general forbid private individuals from using
anything they wish for whatever purpose they choose.
Often they do.


--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 01/07/2016 16:04, whisky-dave wrote:
even the underground trains aren't standardised are they.
You have specific ones for specific lines.

Central line, for example, definitely uses smaller rolling stock than
most (all?) other LU lines.

But on occasion mainline BR rolling stock has been run through some of
the LU system. One example was a track recorder coach which they ran in
the 1970s - apparently it only caused a tiny bit of damage (to itself or
to the tunnels).

--
Rod

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 03/07/2016 13:32, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:59:10 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 03/07/2016 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote:

They were protesting because they didn't like the result, which was
that they lost the vote. '10's of thousands' protesting is still a
small number compared with the 1.3 million majority in favour of
leaving.

It takes a lot to get thousands out on a march, especially one that
wasn't publicised much.

It was reported as going viral on the web. That suggests pretty
extensive publicity to me.


It wasn't that viral, I don't know anyone that knew about it before it
happened.

Clearly those who showed up did.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 03/07/16 19:30, Big Les Wade wrote:
EU regulations do not in general forbid private individuals from using
anything they wish for whatever purpose they choose.
Often they do.

Why would that be, given that you claim
it is forbidden unless explicitly allowed ?

The Natural Philosopher posted
On 03/07/16 19:30, Big Les Wade wrote:
EU regulations do not in general forbid private individuals from using
anything they wish for whatever purpose they choose.
Often they do.


Well, tell us then ...

--
Les

Chris Hogg posted
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 19:30:02 +0100, Big Les Wade
wrote:

Largely ********. EU regulations do not in general forbid private
individuals from using anything they wish for whatever purpose they
choose. What they do typically forbid is the *marketing* of a particular
substance for a particular purpose, unless it is authorised for that
purpose.

Gardeners are at liberty to buy soft soap and use it to poison their
aphids. However, soft soap cannot be explicitly marketed for that
purpose.

So both the principal scientist for plant health at the RHS and Bob
Flowerdew are talking 'largely ********', are they?

The Independent article is largely ********. If indeed Andrew Halstead
and Bob Flowerdew stated that it is illegal for private individuals to
use soft soap as an insecticide, they too would have been talking
********.

I don't think so.
Of course, most gardeners simply ignore the regulations, and will
continue to do so until found out, which is very unlikely.

To quote from The Independent article I linked to earlier
http://tinyurl.com/za8l9qn .

"Andrew Halstead, principal scientist for plant health at the RHS,
which is the leading source of advice for UK gardeners, told The
Independent on Sunday that it was easier for the EU to include
chemicals that have been tested and approved as pesticides on a list,
and impose a blanket ban on everything else, rather than produce a
longer list of ingredients that are potentially dangerous.

Well that's true, but that's not the point at issue.


Dr Halstead said: "All chemicals being used to control or deter
animals are classed as pesticides in the UK and EU, and must be
registered and approved for this purpose by our own government and the
EU. Legislation requires potential pesticides to be extensively tested
for effectiveness, environmental safety, operator safety and safety of
breakdown products before they can be sold and used.

Not true. They have to be licensed before they can be *sold* for that
purpose. They can be used for that purpose by private individuals even
if unlicensed.

Anything that has
not been through the system is illegal to use as a pesticide, however
safe that chemical is perceived to be.

Not true for private individuals.

Heavy fines can be imposed for
breaches of the laws relating to pesticide use;

That's true. However, it is not against the law for private individuals
to use non-approved chemicals as pesticides.

however, the chances
of being prosecuted for scattering coffee grounds in a garden are, I
suspect, remote.

"If you were to use coffee grounds around plants with the intention of
providing some organic matter in the form of a mulch, rather than as a
slug control/deterrent, then the regulations relating to pesticides
would not apply. This may all sound rather daft, but the intention of
the pesticides legislation is to prevent people from applying untested
dangerous chemicals."

Bob Flowerdew, a regular on Radio 4's Gardeners' Question Time and the
author of books on organic gardening, said: "Regulations are an ass,
but they haven't led to prosecutions. I cannot recommend that anyone
breaks the law, but I can point out that, in other countries, people
do use coffee grounds."

Mr Flowerdew pointed out that gardeners used soft soap on plants to
kill aphids, although this would also be technically illegal under EU
rules. "

Not true.


--
Les

On 03/07/2016 18:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:

On 03/07/2016 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 03/07/2016 10:50, Adrian wrote:


When did you last get asked for any proof of anything at A&E? A
british
accent's proof of nothing. You could have moved to the US and got
citizenship to make life easier over there.

A&E always ask questions about nationality, etc.

No they don't.


They do here!

What they do where you are is a matter of indifference to me.


The question was as quoted above "when did you last get asked..." so the
answer is what I said. If you don't want the answer don't ask the question.

On 03/07/2016 18:44, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 17:03:47 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 03/07/2016 13:32, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:59:10 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 03/07/2016 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote:

They were protesting because they didn't like the result, which was
that they lost the vote. '10's of thousands' protesting is still a
small number compared with the 1.3 million majority in favour of
leaving.

It takes a lot to get thousands out on a march, especially one that
wasn't publicised much.

It was reported as going viral on the web. That suggests pretty
extensive publicity to me.


It wasn't that viral, I don't know anyone that knew about it before it
happened.

Just because neither you nor your circle of acquaintances didn't know
about it means nothing. There were plenty on Facebook who did:
http://tinyurl.com/hpvy9lb


So how do you find out how many people saw that page?

On 03/07/2016 21:34, Chris Hogg wrote:

So how do you find out how many people saw that page?

I don't 'do' Facebook, but I would imagine reading the numbers given
on that page would be a start.


Well if those figures are the total number of people that knew about it
then its not very many and it doesn't say what country they were in either.
Did 28k attend or are the figures rubbish?

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 12:56:07 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

A&E will treat emergencies even if there is no prospect of getting paid
and that is how it should be!

Pity it's not like that for British tourists in your wonderful EU. If you
don't have private health insurance, you're ****ed.

On 03/07/2016 22:27, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 12:56:07 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

A&E will treat emergencies even if there is no prospect of getting paid
and that is how it should be!

Pity it's not like that for British tourists in your wonderful EU. If you
don't have private health insurance, you're ****ed.


Or a european health card that gets you free treatment.

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 20:12:40 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 19:30:02 +0100, Big Les Wade
wrote:

Largely ********. EU regulations do not in general forbid private
individuals from using anything they wish for whatever purpose they
choose. What they do typically forbid is the *marketing* of a particular
substance for a particular purpose, unless it is authorised for that
purpose.


The link here is relevant http://tinyurl.com/ztvvvjk
It says, near the bottom "Before any PPP can be placed on the market
or used, it must be authorised in the Member State(s) concerned."

Note the inclusion of the word 'used'. So any PPP (plant protection
product) not authorised must not only not be sold, but it must not be
used. Gardeners are not excluded.

Sorry? If you want to try and interpret text, try this:-


'PPPs (also referred to as 'pesticides') are products in the form in which
they are supplied to the user, consisting of, or containing active
substances, safeners or synergists, and intended for one of the following
uses:'

Says nothing about using products not supplied or intended for that
purpose.

--
*If God dropped acid, would he see people?

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

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 19:27:59 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...

And on the EU being big brother 'forcing' anyone to do anything ...

As Bill Wright posted:

"GLYPHOSATE
THE CURRENT POSITION

In fact the EU extended the glyphosate licence for another
18 months on Tuesday

So I'm off to buy some more roundup :-)

On Monday, 4 July 2016 08:52:29 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/07/2016 22:27, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 12:56:07 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

A&E will treat emergencies even if there is no prospect of getting paid
and that is how it should be!

Pity it's not like that for British tourists in your wonderful EU. If you
don't have private health insurance, you're ****ed.


Or a european health card that gets you free treatment.

Who pays for the free treatment ?

On 04/07/2016 12:57, Chris Hogg wrote:

IOW, what you appear to be saying is that what it's sold as or for is
neither here nor there. It's what you yourself *use* it for that
counts.

That is the interpretation put on the regulations by those who advise
gardeners and horticulturists. If DP and BLW interpret those regs
differently, they are in a minority, possibly a minority of two. Not
that it makes a lot of difference in reality; AFAIK no one has been
prosecuted for contravening those regs, and of course they have to
catch you doing it in the first place.


I think you can safely ignore any such advice until someone is
prosecuted for it.

No law actually means anything until tested.

On 04/07/2016 12:43, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 4 July 2016 08:52:29 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 03/07/2016 22:27, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 12:56:07 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

A&E will treat emergencies even if there is no prospect of getting paid
and that is how it should be!

Pity it's not like that for British tourists in your wonderful EU. If you
don't have private health insurance, you're ****ed.


Or a european health card that gets you free treatment.

Who pays for the free treatment ?


Who cares if its an emergency?

Chris Hogg posted
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 12:41:02 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

IOW, what you appear to be saying is that what it's sold as or for is
neither here nor there. It's what you yourself *use* it for that
counts.

That is the interpretation put on the regulations by those who advise
gardeners and horticulturists. If DP and BLW interpret those regs
differently, they are in a minority, possibly a minority of two.

Well I guess we have to bow to the unerring authority of a regular on
Radio 4's Gardeners' Question Time. Don't know why we bother having
Usenet at all, we should just do what our betters tell us.

--
Les

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

That's why all these clowns are so sad at leaving the EU. Their betters
told them what to do and they didn't have to think for themselves.


Irony can be a very dangerous weapon in the wrong hands, Timmy.

A double edged sword in fact.

Perhaps you should ask one of your friend Turnips heroes*,
Dr, Jonathan Swift, about that one.

michael adams

....

* "When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this
sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." Turnip 2016

On 05/07/2016 09:28, Tim Streater wrote:

That's why all these clowns are so sad at leaving the EU. Their betters
told them what to do and they didn't have to think for themselves.


Some of us think for ourselves and don't do what UKIP say.
But then some of us don't think UKIP are our betters.

You only have to look at Nige, TNP and harry to know UKIP are not a
party you want to support.