On Thursday, 22 June 2017 11:57:50 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 07:54:51 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

When peole leave employment either retiring or to go elsewhere you don't have to pay to leave. Why would you expect to pay to leave. ?

Of course yuo could ask the EU to show where it states that any country leaving must pay a leaving fee, if there's n o such thing does that still mean we have to pay.

Many legal contracts have exit fees and/or penalty clauses for
terminating the contract.

Then they should show it, put it on a website or something rather than tell us you owe us 50 billion, then 80 billion then 100 billion as a down payment.

Show the document and the signatures, simple isn't it.

Maybe they'll also say anyone called mark has to drop their trousers and take a Bratwurst up the arse, I guess you've got yourself ready for that too.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 17:28:59 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
When peole leave employment either retiring or to go elsewhere you
don't have to pay to leave. Why would you expect to pay to leave. ?

They would do if they had a loan from their employer. Or perhaps to
top up a pension fund.

Then show those signed documents.

Like the ones we signed when joining the EU? All the various ones we've
signed since?

If it;s a pension fund then we should be getting money back we paid in,
that's how pentions work.

But that's not how a pension works. If it did, you might as well just
stuff the money in a piggy bank.

But we know that germany has bigger pensions
problems than the UK and most of teh EU, it happened after unification,
the eastern block didn't have 'pensions' So what is the solution mass
immingration.


You don't really expect the EU to pay Farage's pension out of 'their'
pocket, do you?

That depends on what he and they have signed up for, if he has been
paying into a pention fund like I do, I expect to get that money back
and he should too.

So in your view, some contracts should be honoured, but not others? How do
you decide which?

But it seems the aim is for the UK to pay for German pensions.

You really should get out more.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

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

On Thursday, 22 June 2017 15:05:45 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 17:28:59 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
When peole leave employment either retiring or to go elsewhere you
don't have to pay to leave. Why would you expect to pay to leave. ?

They would do if they had a loan from their employer. Or perhaps to
top up a pension fund.

Then show those signed documents.

Like the ones we signed when joining the EU? All the various ones we've
signed since?

Yes they are the ones, difficult to find are they ?


If it;s a pension fund then we should be getting money back we paid in,
that's how pentions work.

But that's not how a pension works. If it did, you might as well just
stuff the money in a piggy bank.

So when paying into a pension yuo don;t expect to get the money back, so tell me which pension scheme the UK signed up for.
Is it really the one that says if you every leave we'll charged you for leaving
but not say how much.




You don't really expect the EU to pay Farage's pension out of 'their'
pocket, do you?

That depends on what he and they have signed up for, if he has been
paying into a pention fund like I do, I expect to get that money back
and he should too.

So in your view, some contracts should be honoured, but not others? How do
you decide which?

All contracts should be if tehy are legally obtained.
So where does this contract say that if a country every leaves the EU that country must pay anything that the EU asks for money, good, sex, whatever.


But it seems the aim is for the UK to pay for German pensions.

You really should get out more.

well it could be used to bail out the greeks but the Germans have some imminate problmes they need solving, pensiolns being one, they have imported lots of refugees hoping they'll be able to get jobs work hard pay taxes and by German cars, then migrate to elsewhere in the EU, mostly parts of the UK, English language is still the most spoken method of communication in the EU.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
When peole leave employment either retiring or to go elsewhere you
don't have to pay to leave. Why would you expect to pay to leave. ?

Of course yuo could ask the EU to show where it states that any
country leaving must pay a leaving fee, if there's n o such thing
does that still mean we have to pay.

Many legal contracts have exit fees and/or penalty clauses for
terminating the contract.

Then they should show it, put it on a website or something rather than
tell us you owe us 50 billion, then 80 billion then 100 billion as a
down payment.

Oddly, many have been asking May what her objectives are for Brexit. Some
sums like the above could prove useful too. But she prefers advertising
slogans to facts.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?

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

On Thursday, 22 June 2017 16:24:52 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
When peole leave employment either retiring or to go elsewhere you
don't have to pay to leave. Why would you expect to pay to leave. ?

Of course yuo could ask the EU to show where it states that any
country leaving must pay a leaving fee, if there's n o such thing
does that still mean we have to pay.

Many legal contracts have exit fees and/or penalty clauses for
terminating the contract.

Then they should show it, put it on a website or something rather than
tell us you owe us 50 billion, then 80 billion then 100 billion as a
down payment.

Oddly, many have been asking May what her objectives are for Brexit. Some
sums like the above could prove useful too. But she prefers advertising
slogans to facts.

Don't they all, and that includes most people in such jobs.
Had somemone here today worrying about security, as we keep a strong alkaline in the lab sondium hydroxide I think and they are worried about studetns breaking in. SO I explained that there's not much I can do about it as the scaffolders were in and want the top windows left open for teh next few weeks to secure the scaffold, "but there's no CCTV" yep I know I told them 15 years ago that we should have such a thing, so what did they do, spend £20K on CCTV in another building gave me 8 old cameras a PC running W98 and said I had £100 to set it up in the lab.

On 22/06/2017 15:54, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 15:05:45 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article
,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 17:28:59 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article
,
whisky-dave wrote:
When peole leave employment either retiring or to go
elsewhere you don't have to pay to leave. Why would you
expect to pay to leave. ?

They would do if they had a loan from their employer. Or
perhaps to top up a pension fund.

Then show those signed documents.

Like the ones we signed when joining the EU? All the various ones
we've signed since?

Yes they are the ones, difficult to find are they ?


If it;s a pension fund then we should be getting money back we
paid in, that's how pentions work.

But that's not how a pension works. If it did, you might as well
just stuff the money in a piggy bank.

So when paying into a pension yuo don;t expect to get the money back,

No you don't.
You expect to get an income for life, that income may be more or maybe
less than you paid in. You probably hope for more.

so tell me which pension scheme the UK signed up for. Is it really
the one that says if you every leave we'll charged you for leaving
but not say how much.

They keep whatever is left or pay some to you partner depending on the
terms.

charles wrote
bert wrote

And once one withdraws from a treaty all obligations cease.

treaties are rarely one sided.

Yes.

If one side withdraws, the other side might retalliate.

The EU doesn’t have any way of doing that. They are signatorys
to the WTO and wont be withdrawing from that, you watch.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

When peole leave employment either retiring or to go elsewhere you
don't have to pay to leave. Why would you expect to pay to leave. ?

They would do if they had a loan from their employer.

Britain never had that from the EU.

Or perhaps to top up a pension fund.

Ditto.

You don't really expect the EU to pay Farage's
pension out of 'their' pocket, do you?

No reason why not given that Britain has been a
net contributor to the EU budget for many years.

And they can just pull the plug on UKIP MEP pensions anyway given
that the UKIP MEPs always wanted out of the EU and get to wear the
consequences of Britain leaving the EU, just like everyone else.

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

[Snip]

And once one withdraws from a treaty all obligations cease.

treaties are rarely one sided. If one side withdraws, the other side
might retalliate.

With the level of EU bureaucracy, it would be odd
if such likely leaving costs weren't documented
somewhere. As a principle, rather than sum.

But that would have to be in the Treaty that Britain signed up
to to have any legal basis, and there is nothing like that in there.

There is JUST Article 50 which doesn’t even mention anything of the sort.

But just the sort of thing Brexiteers would keep very quiet about.

Nothing to stop you remoaners pointing to it.

On 22/06/2017 22:27, Rod Speed wrote:
charles wrote
bert wrote

And once one withdraws from a treaty all obligations cease.

treaties are rarely one sided.

Yes.

If one side withdraws, the other side might retalliate.

The EU doesn’t have any way of doing that. They are signatorys
to the WTO and wont be withdrawing from that, you watch.

Which WTO rule covers banking and finance and what does the UK do if the
EU takes the passport away?

On 21/06/2017 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 20:14:30 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
In message , michael
adams writes
Basically until the UK agrees to pay them what they think they're due,
regardless of whether anyone else thinks this is fair or not, they're
not going to negotiate on anything else.

This was the fait accompli which Davis was presented with on Monday
morning.

If you read the article some of the sums being mentioned as compo are
simply staggering i.e 100 billion

It's maybe no wonder a lot of people are trying to play this down.

So the EU position is "Pay us 100 billion or you have to stay in our
cartel (club or whatever)"?

But the 100 billion was just a down payment wasn;t it.
They are just like any other blackmailer.

We were the country which flounced out of the EU without checking on what
it might cost first. If the EU can calculate any monies owed after we
leave, so can we and query them if inaccurate.

There will be some things that we should pay our part of, but probably
only a small fraction of what they are currently demanding.

Of course the other side is we have a percentage interest in every EU
funded project built since we joined - airports, railways, roads,
buildings - we can also calulate that.

The latest is that they want the UK to pay for re-locating EU
institutions that are currently based in the UK into another EU country.
Surely it is their choice to relocate them? We have certainly said that
they can stay. If they want to move them, they should pay for it.

SteveW

On 21/06/2017 17:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
When peole leave employment either retiring or to go elsewhere you don't
have to pay to leave. Why would you expect to pay to leave. ?

They would do if they had a loan from their employer. Or perhaps to top up
a pension fund.

You don't really expect the EU to pay Farage's pension out of 'their'
pocket, do you?

No, but the simple and fair thing would be that any ex-UK MEPs and other
officials have their pension transferred to the UK government and the EU
pays the pensions of any non-UK ones.

SteveW

in 1602616 20170622 161524 "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
When peole leave employment either retiring or to go elsewhere you
don't have to pay to leave. Why would you expect to pay to leave. ?

Of course yuo could ask the EU to show where it states that any
country leaving must pay a leaving fee, if there's n o such thing
does that still mean we have to pay.

Many legal contracts have exit fees and/or penalty clauses for
terminating the contract.

Then they should show it, put it on a website or something rather than
tell us you owe us 50 billion, then 80 billion then 100 billion as a
down payment.

Oddly, many have been asking May what her objectives are for Brexit. Some
sums like the above could prove useful too. But she prefers advertising
slogans to facts.

May is a perfect example of The Peter Principle,
probably applied when she was Home Sec.

in 1602773 20170623 003410 Steve Walker wrote:
On 21/06/2017 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 20:14:30 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
In message , michael
adams writes
Basically until the UK agrees to pay them what they think they're due,
regardless of whether anyone else thinks this is fair or not, they're
not going to negotiate on anything else.

This was the fait accompli which Davis was presented with on Monday
morning.

If you read the article some of the sums being mentioned as compo are
simply staggering i.e 100 billion

It's maybe no wonder a lot of people are trying to play this down.

So the EU position is "Pay us 100 billion or you have to stay in our
cartel (club or whatever)"?

But the 100 billion was just a down payment wasn;t it.
They are just like any other blackmailer.

We were the country which flounced out of the EU without checking on what
it might cost first. If the EU can calculate any monies owed after we
leave, so can we and query them if inaccurate.

There will be some things that we should pay our part of, but probably
only a small fraction of what they are currently demanding.

Of course the other side is we have a percentage interest in every EU
funded project built since we joined - airports, railways, roads,
buildings - we can also calulate that.

The latest is that they want the UK to pay for re-locating EU
institutions that are currently based in the UK into another EU country.
Surely it is their choice to relocate them? We have certainly said that
they can stay. If they want to move them, they should pay for it.

Is it unreasonable for all EU organisations to be based in the EU?
We wanted to leave the EU (the logically-challenged among us) so we
can't expect to keep the benefits.

Bob Martin posted
in 1602773 20170623 003410 Steve Walker wrote:

The latest is that they want the UK to pay for re-locating EU
institutions that are currently based in the UK into another EU country.
Surely it is their choice to relocate them? We have certainly said that
they can stay. If they want to move them, they should pay for it.

Is it unreasonable for all EU organisations to be based in the EU?

No. Nor is it unreasonable for some EU organisations to be based outside
the EU, if that happens to suit the parties concerned.

We wanted to leave the EU (the logically-challenged among us) so we
can't expect to keep the benefits.

Fine, but that doesn't imply that we have to pay to relocate them.

--
Jack

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
in 1602773 20170623 003410 Steve Walker wrote:
On 21/06/2017 14:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 20:14:30 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
In message ,
michael
adams writes
Basically until the UK agrees to pay them what they think they're
due,
regardless of whether anyone else thinks this is fair or not, they're
not going to negotiate on anything else.

This was the fait accompli which Davis was presented with on Monday
morning.

If you read the article some of the sums being mentioned as compo are
simply staggering i.e 100 billion

It's maybe no wonder a lot of people are trying to play this down.

So the EU position is "Pay us 100 billion or you have to stay in our
cartel (club or whatever)"?

But the 100 billion was just a down payment wasn;t it.
They are just like any other blackmailer.

We were the country which flounced out of the EU without checking on
what
it might cost first. If the EU can calculate any monies owed after we
leave, so can we and query them if inaccurate.

There will be some things that we should pay our part of, but probably
only a small fraction of what they are currently demanding.

Of course the other side is we have a percentage interest in every EU
funded project built since we joined - airports, railways, roads,
buildings - we can also calulate that.

The latest is that they want the UK to pay for re-locating EU
institutions that are currently based in the UK into another EU country.
Surely it is their choice to relocate them? We have certainly said that
they can stay. If they want to move them, they should pay for it.

Is it unreasonable for all EU organisations to be based in the EU?
We wanted to leave the EU (the logically-challenged among us)
so we can't expect to keep the benefits.

We arent discussing the benefits, we are discussing who gets to pay
to move them to the EU if the EU decides that it wants to do that.

Makes no sense for Britain to pay for that. Its just another EU ambit
claim and they should be told to go and **** themselves, again.

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:24:53 +0100, bert wrote:


Oh didn't realise you were that old, or are you like a lot of those
born in the immediate years after WW2 who exhibit a tendency possibly
brought on by passing bomb sites on the way to school to think that
they themselves took an active part

It's the same generation that grew up with the benefits of the new
NHS, and many of which have benefited from free further education,
relatively cheap housing some if it bought under the right to buy
council houses ,decent company pension schemes ,not a few getting
large redundancy packages along the way and are now retired with a bus
pass and winter fuel payments
But it was always down to bad management or the Unions never the fault
of them actually being selfish *******s who are now old selfish
****ers probably called Bert and wearing a Cardigan and still mentally
fighting the Germans like Daddy did.

G.Harman
I was actually born before the NHS.
So you closely fit the bill of the type of person I was describing and
unless you are exceptionally old or have had health care provided
privately throughout your life you will have grown up taking the
benefit of it with a gaping maw like a fledgling accepting a worm from
its parent.
From that gaping maw you then despise the idea of socialist principles
today having benefited from one of the main ones.
Bait put out and swallowed , thanks for confirming that are what I
thought you are a full member of the Hypocritical generation
However my use of Bert was just as much influenced by it being one
of my Grand ads names and popular many years ago but now only common
amongst Coffin dodgers like yourself. Like many of that era he
believed everything written in the Paper was the truth as well.

What a bitter twisted little person you are but typical of the modern
generation who expect everything handed to them on a plate.

As I'm in my early 60's I'll take modern generation as a complement
thank you and having had a work ethic since I was strong enough to do
jobs was able to organize my life well enough to retire at 55 a few
years back. That has meant that a lot of people I see and talk to
during the day while doing voluntary work etc are those 10 to 15 years
older than myself as you must be (or older) and it is very interesting
the differences in attitude to things those few years make.
A lot like I said earlier seem to think that because they were around
during WW2 as Children or born just after when it was still a main
talking subject amongst the elders around them that puts them on par
with those who are entitled to campaign medals.
They then had a good start in the economic conditions of the 50's when
for those who desired they could do very well as there more job
vacancies than people and a roof over your head was easier to get than
today, it might not have been luxurious but at least it was likely to
be a home rather than an insecure bed sit that a youngster today is
faced with.
Calling that generation of which you are part Hypocrites doesn't make
me bitter and twisted it makes me a realist. You only have to look at
the recent election results to see how your lot suddenly squealed and
whined when it looked liked you may have to share some of the assets
built up so those younger won't be quite so burdened with your bills.

G. Harman

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 12:57:54 PM UTC+1, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:22:43 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

Though nobody would have guessed it, formal
Brexit negotiations started yesterday. With
an immediate climb-down by David Davis.

All from the Telegraph, this NG's newspaper of choice

I thought this NGs newspaper of choice was "The Sun" or "The Express".
The more intellectual may puruse the Mail, but they do struggle with
words of more than one syllable. ;-)

or paragrahs of mor than one sentence

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
We were the country which flounced out of the EU without checking on what
it might cost first. If the EU can calculate any monies owed after we
leave, so can we and query them if inaccurate.

There will be some things that we should pay our part of, but probably
only a small fraction of what they are currently demanding.

Of course it will be subject to negotiation. No point in having talks is
nothing can be changed.

Of course the other side is we have a percentage interest in every EU
funded project built since we joined - airports, railways, roads,
buildings - we can also calulate that.

Which means the EU would also partially own any projects in the UK which
they funded or part funded - of which there are many.

The latest is that they want the UK to pay for re-locating EU
institutions that are currently based in the UK into another EU country.
Surely it is their choice to relocate them? We have certainly said that
they can stay. If they want to move them, they should pay for it.

Why would the EU continue to have institutions etc here if the UK is going
to make it very difficult for EU citizens to work here? Rather the same as
with BMW etc.

At the moment, if there is a problem on say the Mini production line that
needs attention from head office in Germany, that person or people can
just hop on the first plane and come here. If you are going to 'take back
control of our borders,' such a thing is going to be very much more
difficult.

--
*WHY IS THERE AN EXPIRATION DATE ON SOUR CREAM?

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

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 3:08:52 PM UTC+1, Richard wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message ...

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:22:43 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

Though nobody would have guessed it, formal
Brexit negotiations started yesterday. With
an immediate climb-down by David Davis.

All from the Telegraph, this NG's newspaper of choice

I thought this NGs newspaper of choice was "The Sun" or "The Express".
The more intellectual may puruse the Mail, but they do struggle with
words of more than one syllable. ;-)

Indeed.
The literacy standards are poor. Some struggle with simple spellings.
Perchance they attempt to feign superior intellectual abilities, they blast
the **** out of their foot by being unable to correctly spell "peruse".
However, the observation about words exceeding single syllable complexity
is proven to be totally accurate in the aforementioned example.
So, which do you read, Mark?

I wouldn't assume spelling mistakes are down to ignorance. Could be bad typing (thats me) or a mis-used spell checker
Its the malapropisms I enjoy

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
Bob Martin posted
in 1602773 20170623 003410 Steve Walker wrote:

The latest is that they want the UK to pay for re-locating EU
institutions that are currently based in the UK into another EU country.
Surely it is their choice to relocate them? We have certainly said that
they can stay. If they want to move them, they should pay for it.

Is it unreasonable for all EU organisations to be based in the EU?

No. Nor is it unreasonable for some EU organisations to be based outside
the EU, if that happens to suit the parties concerned.

We wanted to leave the EU (the logically-challenged among us) so we
can't expect to keep the benefits.

Fine, but that doesn't imply that we have to pay to relocate them.

Sounds like you have the sort of logic many apply to divorces. But not
lawyers.

--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

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

In article ,
wrote:
Calling that generation of which you are part Hypocrites doesn't make
me bitter and twisted it makes me a realist. You only have to look at
the recent election results to see how your lot suddenly squealed and
whined when it looked liked you may have to share some of the assets
built up so those younger won't be quite so burdened with your bills.

Rather obviously, the majority of my closest friends are of my own
gemeration. Ie OAPs. And although, of course, we make fun of the young in
the same way as they make fun of the old, most do realise just how much we
got from the welfare state and the principle of fair doos for everyone
that once was the case.

Then along came Thatcher, and not only made greed fashionable but
downright essential.

--
*Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control

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

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

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
We were the country which flounced out of the EU without checking on
what
it might cost first. If the EU can calculate any monies owed after we
leave, so can we and query them if inaccurate.

There will be some things that we should pay our part of, but probably
only a small fraction of what they are currently demanding.

Of course it will be subject to negotiation. No point in having talks is
nothing can be changed.

Of course the other side is we have a percentage interest in every EU
funded project built since we joined - airports, railways, roads,
buildings - we can also calulate that.

Which means the EU would also partially own any projects in the UK which
they funded or part funded - of which there are many.

The latest is that they want the UK to pay for re-locating EU
institutions that are currently based in the UK into another EU country.
Surely it is their choice to relocate them? We have certainly said that
they can stay. If they want to move them, they should pay for it.

Why would the EU continue to have institutions etc here if the UK is going
to make it very difficult for EU citizens to work here? Rather the same as
with BMW etc.

At the moment, if there is a problem on say the Mini production line that
needs attention from head office in Germany, that person or people can
just hop on the first plane and come here. If you are going to 'take back
control of our borders,' such a thing is going to be very much more
difficult.

Only to small-minded people. So you think that someone has to physically be
there in 2017? Remember, the Germans are very green-minded and will be
averse to unnecessary air travel. CO2 and all that.

On 23/06/2017 07:04, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1602616 20170622 161524 "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
When peole leave employment either retiring or to go elsewhere you
don't have to pay to leave. Why would you expect to pay to leave. ?

Of course yuo could ask the EU to show where it states that any
country leaving must pay a leaving fee, if there's n o such thing
does that still mean we have to pay.

Many legal contracts have exit fees and/or penalty clauses for
terminating the contract.

Then they should show it, put it on a website or something rather than
tell us you owe us 50 billion, then 80 billion then 100 billion as a
down payment.

Oddly, many have been asking May what her objectives are for Brexit. Some
sums like the above could prove useful too. But she prefers advertising
slogans to facts.

May is a perfect example of The Peter Principle,


I wonder how that works for JC considering that he has never in his life
held ant position of responsibility (apart from being the unofficial
spokesperson for various terrorist organisations)?

On 23/06/2017 11:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Calling that generation of which you are part Hypocrites doesn't make
me bitter and twisted it makes me a realist. You only have to look at
the recent election results to see how your lot suddenly squealed and
whined when it looked liked you may have to share some of the assets
built up so those younger won't be quite so burdened with your bills.

Rather obviously, the majority of my closest friends are of my own
gemeration. Ie OAPs. And although, of course, we make fun of the young in
the same way as they make fun of the old, most do realise just how much we
got from the welfare state and the principle of fair doos for everyone
that once was the case.

Then along came Thatcher, and not only made greed fashionable but
downright essential.


The unions weren't always making excessive wage demands before Thatcher
then?
The greed started when some of the workers wanted more than others and
had the union power to make it happen at the expense of other workers.

What do you think happened to the workers in the supply industry when
the car workers went on strike for yet more pay?
When did the car workers union say "we have much more than the supply
workers lets strike for them"?
The greed was there way before Thatcher was elected.

Maybe as one of the elite socialists you never experienced the real world.

On 23/06/2017 11:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
We were the country which flounced out of the EU without checking on what
it might cost first. If the EU can calculate any monies owed after we
leave, so can we and query them if inaccurate.

There will be some things that we should pay our part of, but probably
only a small fraction of what they are currently demanding.

Of course it will be subject to negotiation. No point in having talks is
nothing can be changed.

Of course the other side is we have a percentage interest in every EU
funded project built since we joined - airports, railways, roads,
buildings - we can also calulate that.

Which means the EU would also partially own any projects in the UK which
they funded or part funded - of which there are many.

Maybe Steve doesn't know that many of the projects are ongoing and that
the UK agreed to them. So we would have to continue paying for them
until the end of the contract.


Maybe the divorce payment is to end the contracts early?

In article ,
writes
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:24:53 +0100, bert wrote:


Oh didn't realise you were that old, or are you like a lot of those
born in the immediate years after WW2 who exhibit a tendency possibly
brought on by passing bomb sites on the way to school to think that
they themselves took an active part

It's the same generation that grew up with the benefits of the new
NHS, and many of which have benefited from free further education,
relatively cheap housing some if it bought under the right to buy
council houses ,decent company pension schemes ,not a few getting
large redundancy packages along the way and are now retired with a bus
pass and winter fuel payments
But it was always down to bad management or the Unions never the fault
of them actually being selfish *******s who are now old selfish
****ers probably called Bert and wearing a Cardigan and still mentally
fighting the Germans like Daddy did.

G.Harman
I was actually born before the NHS.
So you closely fit the bill of the type of person I was describing and
unless you are exceptionally old or have had health care provided
privately throughout your life you will have grown up taking the
benefit of it with a gaping maw like a fledgling accepting a worm from
its parent.
Wrongs again! Can't remember when I last went to a GP. Am not on any
medication. Given the amount of tax I paid, especially when I sold my
business the NHS is probably a few quid up.
From that gaping maw you then despise the idea of socialist principles
today having benefited from one of the main ones.
Bait put out and swallowed , thanks for confirming that are what I
thought you are a full member of the Hypocritical generation
However my use of Bert was just as much influenced by it being one
of my Grand ads names and popular many years ago but now only common
amongst Coffin dodgers like yourself. Like many of that era he
believed everything written in the Paper was the truth as well.

Actually Albert is making a comeback. But what's a "Grand ad"
What a bitter twisted little person you are but typical of the modern
generation who expect everything handed to them on a plate.

As I'm in my early 60's I'll take modern generation as a complement
thank you and having had a work ethic since I was strong enough to do
jobs was able to organize my life well enough to retire at 55 a few
years back.
Well funnily enough so did I.
That has meant that a lot of people I see and talk to
during the day while doing voluntary work etc are those 10 to 15 years
older than myself as you must be (or older) and it is very interesting
the differences in attitude to things those few years make.
Well so do I.

A lot like I said earlier seem to think that because they were around
during WW2 as Children or born just after when it was still a main
talking subject amongst the elders around them that puts them on par
with those who are entitled to campaign medals.
Only in your twisted little mind. Most people don't talk about the
actual detail.
We lived in a valley with a reservoir a the head and my mother did once
tell me that she and others fled to higher ground one night as the
Germans were attempting to bomb it - but that was before I was born so
doesn't count in your eyes.
They then had a good start in the economic conditions of the 50's when
for those who desired they could do very well as there more job
vacancies than people and a roof over your head was easier to get than
today, it might not have been luxurious but at least it was likely to
be a home rather than an insecure bed sit that a youngster today is
faced with.
I can remember rationing, having to take your coupons with you to buy a
bag of sweets.
I can remember people living in "temporary" concrete prefabs for decades
I can remember you had to queue for a mortgage and you couldn't even
join the queue if you didn't have a savings record with the building
society
I can remember that the maximum house price for a mortgage was 3 time
mans salary and wife's earnings could not be taken into account.
I can remember tenants had absolutely no rights whatsoever and this was
exploited by people like Rachmann.
I can remember you stood no chance of getting a council house unless you
knew someone.
I can remember there was no such thing as consumer rights, so if you
were fortunate enough to be buying a used car check for sawdust in the
gearbox and check there were no wooden pistons. Caveat Emptor ruled.
I can remember a song "yes we have no bananas" which was a comment on
the black market in food in the post war era.
I can remember living under the constant threat of nuclear war.

You're too young to remember any of this.
Calling that generation of which you are part Hypocrites doesn't make
me bitter and twisted it makes me a realist.
You've been reading all that crap from Willetts.
You only have to look at
the recent election results to see how your lot suddenly squealed and
whined when it looked liked you may have to share some of the assets
built up so those younger won't be quite so burdened with your bills.

Blame the labour party for promising to give everything free. After all
the students voted for free tuition - worth c£40k -and who can blame
them? I don't. But then I accept democracy, warts and all.
G. Harman
And the alternative is? - oh yes pass on the assets to the young along
with the tens of billions already transferred in the form of
ridiculously low interest rates and the £60bn contribution to the
economy form older people.
The issues in our society are nothing to do with age.
--
bert

In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes
On 23/06/2017 11:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Calling that generation of which you are part Hypocrites doesn't make
me bitter and twisted it makes me a realist. You only have to look at
the recent election results to see how your lot suddenly squealed and
whined when it looked liked you may have to share some of the assets
built up so those younger won't be quite so burdened with your bills.
Rather obviously, the majority of my closest friends are of my own
gemeration. Ie OAPs. And although, of course, we make fun of the young in
the same way as they make fun of the old, most do realise just how much we
got from the welfare state and the principle of fair doos for everyone
that once was the case.
Then along came Thatcher, and not only made greed fashionable but
downright essential.


The unions weren't always making excessive wage demands before Thatcher
then?
The greed started when some of the workers wanted more than others and
had the union power to make it happen at the expense of other workers.

What do you think happened to the workers in the supply industry when
the car workers went on strike for yet more pay?
When did the car workers union say "we have much more than the supply
workers lets strike for them"?
The greed was there way before Thatcher was elected.

Quite. They also bullied female workers into accepting lower pay to
"maintain their differentials.
Maybe as one of the elite socialists you never experienced the real world.

--
bert

In article , Steve Walker
writes
On 21/06/2017 17:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
When peole leave employment either retiring or to go elsewhere you don't
have to pay to leave. Why would you expect to pay to leave. ?
They would do if they had a loan from their employer. Or perhaps to
top up
a pension fund.
You don't really expect the EU to pay Farage's pension out of
'their'
pocket, do you?

No, but the simple and fair thing would be that any ex-UK MEPs and
other officials have their pension transferred to the UK government and
the EU pays the pensions of any non-UK ones.

SteveW


Why the officials? They are employees of the EU not the UK government.
I agree about MEPs.
--
bert

In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes
On 23/06/2017 11:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
We were the country which flounced out of the EU without checking on what
it might cost first. If the EU can calculate any monies owed after we
leave, so can we and query them if inaccurate.

There will be some things that we should pay our part of, but
probably
only a small fraction of what they are currently demanding.
Of course it will be subject to negotiation. No point in having
talks is
nothing can be changed.

Of course the other side is we have a percentage interest in every

funded project built since we joined - airports, railways, roads,
buildings - we can also calulate that.
Which means the EU would also partially own any projects in the UK
which
they funded or part funded - of which there are many.

Maybe Steve doesn't know that many of the projects are ongoing and that
the UK agreed to them. So we would have to continue paying for them
until the end of the contract.

We are cancelling the contract.

Maybe the divorce payment is to end the contracts early?
Mostly soft contracts.
--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes
On 23/06/2017 11:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
We were the country which flounced out of the EU without checking on
what it might cost first. If the EU can calculate any monies owed
after we leave, so can we and query them if inaccurate.

There will be some things that we should pay our part of, but
probably
only a small fraction of what they are currently demanding.
Of course it will be subject to negotiation. No point in having
talks is
nothing can be changed.

Of course the other side is we have a percentage interest in every

funded project built since we joined - airports, railways, roads,
buildings - we can also calulate that.
Which means the EU would also partially own any projects in the UK
which
they funded or part funded - of which there are many.

Maybe Steve doesn't know that many of the projects are ongoing and that
the UK agreed to them. So we would have to continue paying for them
until the end of the contract.

We are cancelling the contract.

and, like any other cancelled contract, penalty paymenst will be due.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2017 11:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Calling that generation of which you are part Hypocrites doesn't make
me bitter and twisted it makes me a realist. You only have to look at
the recent election results to see how your lot suddenly squealed and
whined when it looked liked you may have to share some of the assets
built up so those younger won't be quite so burdened with your bills.

Rather obviously, the majority of my closest friends are of my own
gemeration. Ie OAPs. And although, of course, we make fun of the young in
the same way as they make fun of the old, most do realise just how much we
got from the welfare state and the principle of fair doos for everyone
that once was the case.

Then along came Thatcher, and not only made greed fashionable but
downright essential.


The unions weren't always making excessive wage demands before Thatcher
then?

Depends what you call excessive. I'll answer that for you. Any claim at
all.


The greed started when some of the workers wanted more than others and
had the union power to make it happen at the expense of other workers.

Ah right. You're in favour of everyone being paid the same? Didn't realise
you had communist leanings. But I'll give you a clue. That sort of ideal
doesn't work in practice.

What do you think happened to the workers in the supply industry when
the car workers went on strike for yet more pay?
When did the car workers union say "we have much more than the supply
workers lets strike for them"?

Right. You are a communist. Workers must look out *only* for others. Never
themselves.


The greed was there way before Thatcher was elected.

Greed is human nature. But so is the need to be accepted in society by
your peers. Which means tempering that greed to what society accepts as
the norm. Thatcher and her like changed that norm.

Maybe as one of the elite socialists you never experienced the real
world.

I've made the world I live in work as best I can for me. Which doesn't
also mean screwing my fellow man at the first opportunity as a principle.
But I'd not expect you to understand any of that.

--
*Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks *

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

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:24:53 +0100, bert wrote:


Oh didn't realise you were that old, or are you like a lot of those
born in the immediate years after WW2 who exhibit a tendency possibly
brought on by passing bomb sites on the way to school to think that
they themselves took an active part

It's the same generation that grew up with the benefits of the new
NHS, and many of which have benefited from free further education,
relatively cheap housing some if it bought under the right to buy
council houses ,decent company pension schemes ,not a few getting
large redundancy packages along the way and are now retired with a bus
pass and winter fuel payments
But it was always down to bad management or the Unions never the fault
of them actually being selfish *******s who are now old selfish
****ers probably called Bert and wearing a Cardigan and still mentally
fighting the Germans like Daddy did.

G.Harman
I was actually born before the NHS.
So you closely fit the bill of the type of person I was describing and
unless you are exceptionally old or have had health care provided
privately throughout your life you will have grown up taking the
benefit of it with a gaping maw like a fledgling accepting a worm from
its parent.
Wrongs again! Can't remember when I last went to a GP. Am not on any
medication. Given the amount of tax I paid, especially when I sold my
business the NHS is probably a few quid up.
From that gaping maw you then despise the idea of socialist principles
today having benefited from one of the main ones.
Bait put out and swallowed , thanks for confirming that are what I
thought you are a full member of the Hypocritical generation
However my use of Bert was just as much influenced by it being one
of my Grand ads names and popular many years ago but now only common
amongst Coffin dodgers like yourself. Like many of that era he
believed everything written in the Paper was the truth as well.

Actually Albert is making a comeback. But what's a "Grand ad"
What a bitter twisted little person you are but typical of the modern
generation who expect everything handed to them on a plate.

As I'm in my early 60's I'll take modern generation as a complement
thank you and having had a work ethic since I was strong enough to do
jobs was able to organize my life well enough to retire at 55 a few
years back.
Well funnily enough so did I.
That has meant that a lot of people I see and talk to
during the day while doing voluntary work etc are those 10 to 15 years
older than myself as you must be (or older) and it is very interesting
the differences in attitude to things those few years make.
Well so do I.

A lot like I said earlier seem to think that because they were around
during WW2 as Children or born just after when it was still a main
talking subject amongst the elders around them that puts them on par
with those who are entitled to campaign medals.
Only in your twisted little mind. Most people don't talk about the actual
detail.
We lived in a valley with a reservoir a the head and my mother did once
tell me that she and others fled to higher ground one night as the Germans
were attempting to bomb it - but that was before I was born so doesn't
count in your eyes.
They then had a good start in the economic conditions of the 50's when
for those who desired they could do very well as there more job
vacancies than people and a roof over your head was easier to get than
today, it might not have been luxurious but at least it was likely to
be a home rather than an insecure bed sit that a youngster today is
faced with.
I can remember rationing, having to take your coupons with you to buy a
bag of sweets.
I can remember people living in "temporary" concrete prefabs for decades
I can remember you had to queue for a mortgage and you couldn't even join
the queue if you didn't have a savings record with the building society
I can remember that the maximum house price for a mortgage was 3 time mans
salary and wife's earnings could not be taken into account.
I can remember tenants had absolutely no rights whatsoever and this was
exploited by people like Rachmann.
I can remember you stood no chance of getting a council house unless you
knew someone.
I can remember there was no such thing as consumer rights, so if you were
fortunate enough to be buying a used car check for sawdust in the gearbox
and check there were no wooden pistons. Caveat Emptor ruled.
I can remember a song "yes we have no bananas" which was a comment on the
black market in food in the post war era.
I can remember living under the constant threat of nuclear war.

You're too young to remember any of this.
Calling that generation of which you are part Hypocrites doesn't make
me bitter and twisted it makes me a realist.
You've been reading all that crap from Willetts.
You only have to look at
the recent election results to see how your lot suddenly squealed and
whined when it looked liked you may have to share some of the assets
built up so those younger won't be quite so burdened with your bills.

Blame the labour party for promising to give everything free. After all
the students voted for free tuition - worth c£40k -and who can blame them?
I don't. But then I accept democracy, warts and all.
G. Harman
And the alternative is? - oh yes pass on the assets to the young along
with the tens of billions already transferred in the form of ridiculously
low interest rates and the £60bn contribution to the economy form older
people.
The issues in our society are nothing to do with age.
bert

spot on bert in all respects .......quality

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:52:01 +0100, damduck-egg wrote:

Calling that generation of which you are part Hypocrites doesn't make me
bitter and twisted it makes me a realist. You only have to look at the
recent election results to see how your lot suddenly squealed and whined
when it looked liked you may have to share some of the assets built up
so those younger won't be quite so burdened with your bills.

I'll bet a pound to a penny you're a Radio 4 listener. Now even as little
as 20 years ago that would have been regarded by most as a compliment.
Today, it merely marks you as a brainwashed Lefty who's fallen hook, line
and sinker for the BBC's inter-generational hate-fest.

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:20:24 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Then along came Thatcher, and not only made greed fashionable but
downright essential.

Thatcher was the consequence of your Socialist antics, Dave. The only
answer to your nation-destroying ultra-militant trades unionist wreckers.

What is this to do with DIY - stop this off topic posting as per group
charter

"rick" wrote in message news

What is this to do with DIY - stop this off topic posting as per group
charter

Is that an ordinary high horse or a high sawhorse you're on?

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2017-06-25, rick wrote:
What is this to do with DIY - stop this off topic posting as per group
charter

*plonk*

One net cop plonks another. This could run and run.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread? *

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

"rick" wrote in message
news
What is this to do with DIY - stop this off topic posting as per group
charter

who cares

charles posted
In article ,
bert wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes
Maybe Steve doesn't know that many of the projects are ongoing and that
the UK agreed to them. So we would have to continue paying for them
until the end of the contract.

We are cancelling the contract.

and, like any other cancelled contract, penalty paymenst will be due.


Nope. Only cancelled contracts which state that penalty payments apply
on cancellation.

--
Jack