On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 17:54:03 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
Nobody will "move" anywhere. The most that might happen is that some
banks will set up subsidiary offices in an EU member state that they
might not have done before.

That's quite naive. If they think they are going to get a good deal
they'll relocate.

They certainly will if the reason they chose London as a head office was
to give access to the EU.

That always seemed strange to me especailly as there was an EU brofre the UK joined. So why did they move in the first place ?.
I;m betting it was for individual and personl reasons whether or not those perks have gone now we've left the EU I don't know, perhaps because if they got diplomatic preferncies they never had to pay a parking fine or the congestion charge.
The only banker I've know moved from Belgium to new yuork in 1991, then to france 1993, then the UK 1994, then to australia in 1996 taking two cats at £5k each for quarentine.
Lets face it the majority bankers care **** all about any country, they are in it for themselves and that's it.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes



I really like horsemeat.

I've only knowingly had it once - but it was very nice.



--
Ian

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
They certainly will if the reason they chose London as a head office
was to give access to the EU.

no, it wasn't - only 15% of business of these banks is with the EU,
and when they came it was far less.

Right - so an increasing share of their business is to be thrown away?

It's not being "thrown away". It's being traded for a different set of
benefits

Care to say what those are? And hard facts rather than speculation. I'm
not really interested in only optimism.

What you would need to know is what percentage of their business comes
from being based in the UK, rather than the EU.

As the banks chose to base themselves in the UK, all of it

When the UK was part of the EU, it may well have made sense for an
international bank etc to base in the UK. But if it does less business in
the UK than EU, it would also make sense to move there. As appears to be
happening with some.



--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

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

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
tim... wrote:
They certainly will if the reason they chose London as a head office
was to give access to the EU.

no, it wasn't - only 15% of business of these banks is with the EU, and
when they came it was far less.

Right - so an increasing share of their business is to be thrown away?


No business will be thrown away. UK-based banks will continue to do
business with customers in EU member states.

Can you please point us to anything which guarantees they will be able to
trade with the EU on the same terms as at present, after we leave?

--
*I'm really easy to get along with once people learn to worship me

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
I think you miss the point. Chlorine kills bacteria and removes
smells. Like wearing hard hats or dust masks, it is far better to
remove the problem at source instead of taking precautions.

Hear that chaps? We don't actually need to wear hard hats, protective
glasses, or dust masks.

I'd hazard a guess not many would want to wear those when eating their
evening meal, though.

If chicken is produced in a clean hygenic environment, ...

Good luck with that.

And you think it ok to have to disinfect it afterwards before selling?

--
*Husbands should come with instructions

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

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


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
They certainly will if the reason they chose London as a head office
was to give access to the EU.

no, it wasn't - only 15% of business of these banks is with the EU,
and when they came it was far less.

Right - so an increasing share of their business is to be thrown away?

It's not being "thrown away". It's being traded for a different set of
benefits

Care to say what those are?

the right to negotiate out own trade deals

And hard facts rather than speculation. I'm
not really interested in only optimism.

What you would need to know is what percentage of their business comes
from being based in the UK, rather than the EU.

As the banks chose to base themselves in the UK, all of it

When the UK was part of the EU, it may well have made sense for an
international bank etc to base in the UK. But if it does less business in
the UK than EU, it would also make sense to move there.

but very few do

As appears to be
happening with some.

some small departments are moving. No complete banks are moving

tim

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
They certainly will if the reason they chose London as a head office
was to give access to the EU.

no, it wasn't - only 15% of business of these banks is with the EU,
and when they came it was far less.

Right - so an increasing share of their business is to be thrown away?

It's not being "thrown away". It's being traded for a different set of
benefits

Care to say what those are? And hard facts rather than speculation. I'm
not really interested in only optimism.

What you would need to know is what percentage of their business comes
from being based in the UK, rather than the EU.

As the banks chose to base themselves in the UK, all of it

When the UK was part of the EU, it may well have made sense for an
international bank etc to base in the UK. But if it does less business in
the UK than EU, it would also make sense to move there. As appears to be
happening with some.



Those that weren't already here came because of deregulation. Nothing to
do with being in the EU.
Also Euro are transacted in New York and Singapore which in case you
hadn't noticed are not in the EU.
--
bert

On 26/07/2017 17:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
They certainly will if the reason they chose London as a head office
was to give access to the EU.

no, it wasn't - only 15% of business of these banks is with the EU,
and when they came it was far less.

Right - so an increasing share of their business is to be thrown away?

It's not being "thrown away". It's being traded for a different set of
benefits

Care to say what those are? And hard facts rather than speculation. I'm
not really interested in only optimism.

What you would need to know is what percentage of their business comes
from being based in the UK, rather than the EU.

As the banks chose to base themselves in the UK, all of it

When the UK was part of the EU, it may well have made sense for an
international bank etc to base in the UK. But if it does less business in
the UK than EU, it would also make sense to move there. As appears to be
happening with some.




It is much easier to do banking within the EU if you have a banking
"passport". The UK has one as a member, there is no certainty that we
will have one after brexit so the banks are moving stuff to other EU
countries.

It means the UK will not make as much money out of EU banking as we did.

There are also little things like the transaction tax that the EU wants
but the UK has opposed that may well now make it onto the books and that
will further reduce profits.

On 26/07/2017 18:06, tim... wrote:


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


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
They certainly will if the reason they chose London as a head
office
was to give access to the EU.

no, it wasn't - only 15% of business of these banks is with the EU,
and when they came it was far less.

Right - so an increasing share of their business is to be thrown away?

It's not being "thrown away". It's being traded for a different set of
benefits

Care to say what those are?

the right to negotiate out own trade deals

And hard facts rather than speculation. I'm
not really interested in only optimism.

What you would need to know is what percentage of their business comes
from being based in the UK, rather than the EU.

As the banks chose to base themselves in the UK, all of it

When the UK was part of the EU, it may well have made sense for an
international bank etc to base in the UK. But if it does less business in
the UK than EU, it would also make sense to move there.

but very few do

They all have/are.


As appears to be
happening with some.

some small departments are moving. No complete banks are moving

tim




Well they want to continue to do business in the UK so they aren't going
to move everything. They may take some of the profits though.

On 26/07/2017 19:45, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
They certainly will if the reason they chose London as a head
office
was to give access to the EU.

no, it wasn't - only 15% of business of these banks is with the EU,
and when they came it was far less.

Right - so an increasing share of their business is to be thrown away?

It's not being "thrown away". It's being traded for a different set of
benefits

Care to say what those are? And hard facts rather than speculation. I'm
not really interested in only optimism.

What you would need to know is what percentage of their business comes
from being based in the UK, rather than the EU.

As the banks chose to base themselves in the UK, all of it

When the UK was part of the EU, it may well have made sense for an
international bank etc to base in the UK. But if it does less business in
the UK than EU, it would also make sense to move there. As appears to be
happening with some.



Those that weren't already here came because of deregulation. Nothing to
do with being in the EU.
Also Euro are transacted in New York and Singapore which in case you
hadn't noticed are not in the EU.

That is not the issue!

"Huge" wrote in message ...

On 2017-07-26, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes



I really like horsemeat.

I've only knowingly had it once - but it was very nice.

I've been trying to buy it since the Findus debacle, but so far have only
got appalled looks in every butcher/farm shop I've asked in.

Because you're a plonker, you'll only see this If someone posts a reply:
https://www.keziefoods.co.uk/Catalog...ats/Horse-Meat

YVW

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:44:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:54:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:09:09 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 21:11:50 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:04:58 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 06:49:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/07/17 23:46, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
Come Brexit, I'm going to say stuff the UK.

Why wait?

To maximise my cash in the UK

I am also modifying the property I live in to make it more
marketable
to tenants.

And when the pound has plummeted, yet before the regulatory system
changes to allow the Americans and every other cheapskate country
to
offload their toxic carcinigenic crud on the UK, I'll be gone.

Er, why would the regulatory system change to do that? And which
"toxic
carcinogenic crud" did you have in mind?

The whole lot will change. The fishermen are getting geared up for
sales of the "accidental" By catch.

Maybe it didn't make the BBC, but Fox is drumming up business in the
US.

Hmm, I see you're suffering from verbal diarrhoea. Have you been to
the
doctor about it?

Chlorinated chicken isn't a good idea, but that's what we'll be
buying
into.

As has been pointed out, you get many times more chlorine from
drinking
water than you'll ever get from eating imported US chickens.

Water shouldn't contain organic material.

But does anyway if it come from a ****ing river.

If it did, no water utility would dose chlorine into it.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you
usually manage and that's saying something.

The organics are ALL removed prior to dosing.

Not even possible if it comes from a river.


Do you have any kind of clue what you are talking about?

Yep,, unlike you. It just isnt economically feasible to get rid
of all organic matter from water that comes from the sort of
river that can be used as a source of water in place like Britain.

Idiot!

****wit!!

And even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should have noticed
that its even more completely impossible to get rid of any organics
in swimming pools and that once you have drunk the water out of
the ****ing tap, it might just be in contact with lots of organics.
Same with when you take a ****ing shower or bath.

Not even warm.

Once again you are not thinking things through. Swimming pools are
always being cleared of organic matter. A lot of organics are removed
when the owner of the pool climbs out.

You aren't very good with logic are you Rodders?


AB
Food apart, I couldn't even chlorinate final effluent due to the
contamination of the organic matter.

Final effluent isn't a foodstuff. Rancid American chicken portions
are.

It isn't rancid. D'ye need a dictionary?

Of course deregulation is a wonderful tool for business, it brought
us
mad cow, salmonella, antibiotic resistance, E coli.

Anyone got one of those white jackets with the long sleeves?

The Conservatives are great at deregulation, they will play a blinder
for the US business, they have a tremendous track record.

Many years back, Maggie was warned what happens when you feed dead
herbivores to live ones. As usual it was just red tape holding
business back. The only good that ever came of it was the episode
where Gummer was shown up by his daughter to be the inane useless
pillock that he was.

You think that a herbivore never ingested animal matter before then?

Not on a commercial scale, no.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you
usually manage and that's saying something.

On 26/07/17 20:07, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
You aren't very good with logic are you Rodders?
roflmfaomfa

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
I think you miss the point. Chlorine kills bacteria and removes
smells. Like wearing hard hats or dust masks, it is far better to
remove the problem at source instead of taking precautions.

Hear that chaps? We don't actually need to wear hard hats, protective
glasses, or dust masks.

I'd hazard a guess not many would want to wear those when eating their
evening meal, though.

If chicken is produced in a clean hygenic environment, ...

Good luck with that.

And you think it ok to have to disinfect it afterwards before selling?


I've eaten US chicken for the last 20 years and never noticed a
chlorine taste or smell. Contrarily, I've eaten scampi in the uk which
has a distinct disinfectant taste. US beef is far superior to eat than
the EU product, also pork. You don't have to buy the product unless you
decide to do so.

Huge wrote:
On 2017-07-26, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes



I really like horsemeat.

I've only knowingly had it once - but it was very nice.

I've been trying to buy it since the Findus debacle, but so far have only
got appalled looks in every butcher/farm shop I've asked in.



I've wanted to try kangaroo.

On Wednesday, 26 July 2017 17:16:44 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
tim... wrote:
They certainly will if the reason they chose London as a head office
was to give access to the EU.

no, it wasn't - only 15% of business of these banks is with the EU, and
when they came it was far less.

Right - so an increasing share of their business is to be thrown away?


No business will be thrown away. UK-based banks will continue to do
business with customers in EU member states.

Can you please point us to anything which guarantees they will be able to
trade with the EU on the same terms as at present, after we leave?

Why does this have to be a condition ? What's wrong with differnt terms.

Things change with time do you have the same delivery terms from suppliers that you had in the 1970s, or the 80s or the 90s.

On Thursday, 27 July 2017 10:12:15 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2017-07-26, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes



I really like horsemeat.

I've only knowingly had it once - but it was very nice.

I've been trying to buy it since the Findus debacle, but so far have only
got appalled looks in every butcher/farm shop I've asked in.



I've wanted to try kangaroo.

Jump to it then.


http://groceries.iceland.co.uk/kezie...s-220g/p/57591

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Can you please point us to anything which guarantees they will be able
to trade with the EU on the same terms as at present, after we leave?

Why does this have to be a condition ? What's wrong with differnt terms.

How do you buy things like insurance? Most take price into account, if the
terms are the same.

Things change with time do you have the same delivery terms from
suppliers that you had in the 1970s, or the 80s or the 90s.

But they have a level playing field.

--
*Until I was thirteen, I thought my name was SHUT UP .

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

On Thursday, 27 July 2017 11:22:48 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Can you please point us to anything which guarantees they will be able
to trade with the EU on the same terms as at present, after we leave?

Why does this have to be a condition ? What's wrong with differnt terms.

How do you buy things like insurance? Most take price into account, if the
terms are the same.

People took out insurances before we joined the EU. I rememeber the pru bloke knocking at the door and my dad and my dad paying 1d a week for his mothers pension.

This is why negoitaitors are used between countries, when you have another country negotiating for you.


Things change with time do you have the same delivery terms from
suppliers that you had in the 1970s, or the 80s or the 90s.

But they have a level playing field.

Who's they ?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Can you please point us to anything which guarantees they will be able
to trade with the EU on the same terms as at present, after we leave?

Why does this have to be a condition ? What's wrong with differnt terms.

How do you buy things like insurance? Most take price into account, if the
terms are the same.

not sure what you are saying here

but the introduction of comparison sites has made price king. Terms and
conditions are often not the same (either one to another or to 20 years
ago), but finding so from the small print is often impossible

tim

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:06:31 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



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


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
They certainly will if the reason they chose London as a head office
was to give access to the EU.

no, it wasn't - only 15% of business of these banks is with the EU,
and when they came it was far less.

Right - so an increasing share of their business is to be thrown away?

It's not being "thrown away". It's being traded for a different set of
benefits

Care to say what those are?

the right to negotiate out own trade deals

And hard facts rather than speculation. I'm
not really interested in only optimism.

What you would need to know is what percentage of their business comes
from being based in the UK, rather than the EU.

As the banks chose to base themselves in the UK, all of it

When the UK was part of the EU, it may well have made sense for an
international bank etc to base in the UK. But if it does less business in
the UK than EU, it would also make sense to move there.

but very few do

As appears to be
happening with some.

some small departments are moving. No complete banks are moving

We haven't actually left the EU yet.

On 27/07/2017 13:11, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:06:31 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:

....

some small departments are moving. No complete banks are moving

We haven't actually left the EU yet.

AIUI the banks are preparing, understandably, for the worst case
scenario. And I am glad they are. It takes pressure off the UK's
negotiators.


--
James Harris

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Why does this have to be a condition ? What's wrong with differnt
terms.

How do you buy things like insurance? Most take price into account, if
the terms are the same.

People took out insurances before we joined the EU. I rememeber the pru
bloke knocking at the door and my dad and my dad paying 1d a week for
his mothers pension.

From a company based out of the UK?

Work out what I mean by a level playing field.

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. *

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

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Can you please point us to anything which guarantees they will be
able to trade with the EU on the same terms as at present, after we
leave?

Why does this have to be a condition ? What's wrong with differnt
terms.

How do you buy things like insurance? Most take price into account, if
the terms are the same.

not sure what you are saying here

Financial services have preferential terms to trade within the EU. A sort
of free trade area for those too.

but the introduction of comparison sites has made price king. Terms and
conditions are often not the same (either one to another or to 20 years
ago), but finding so from the small print is often impossible

--
*You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive *

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

In article ,
Mark wrote:
some small departments are moving. No complete banks are moving

We haven't actually left the EU yet.

And it's not that difficult a job to relocate a bank etc with so many EU
countries now offering the facilities to do just this.

--
*If you ate pasta and anti-pasta, would you still be hungry?

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

On Thursday, 27 July 2017 13:59:06 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Why does this have to be a condition ? What's wrong with differnt
terms.

How do you buy things like insurance? Most take price into account, if
the terms are the same.

People took out insurances before we joined the EU. I rememeber the pru
bloke knocking at the door and my dad and my dad paying 1d a week for
his mothers pension.

From a company based out of the UK?

Not that I know off.
http://www.prudential.co.uk/

If you want to be insred by a French or German company perhaps you should find one see what's on offer.

Work out what I mean by a level playing field.

Can't as I've no idea what you mean by one.

If it were a level field then every compnay would change the same for the same cover.

On Thursday, 27 July 2017 13:59:07 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Can you please point us to anything which guarantees they will be
able to trade with the EU on the same terms as at present, after we
leave?

Why does this have to be a condition ? What's wrong with differnt
terms.

How do you buy things like insurance? Most take price into account, if
the terms are the same.

not sure what you are saying here

Financial services have preferential terms to trade within the EU. A sort
of free trade area for those too.

Is this what you mean by a level playing field ?

On 27/07/2017 13:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
some small departments are moving. No complete banks are moving

We haven't actually left the EU yet.

And it's not that difficult a job to relocate a bank etc with so many EU
countries now offering the facilities to do just this.

Yes, "many" countries. A good thing for London's ongoing dominance is
that the banks are not all setting up EU27 offices in the same place.
They are spreading themselves around. There is no clear competitor to
London.


--
James Harris

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes



Chlorinated chicken isn't a good idea, but that's what we'll be buying
into.

Although I'm a Remainer, I can see little problem with chlorinated
chicken. Presumably it's effective at killing the bugs, and I guess
there'll be very little chlorine in it by the time you come to eat it.

Odd then there hasn't been a need to do it that way in the UK?

Think we all know that chicken is a meat that needs to be cooked properly
before eating. And one that tends to smell pretty quickly even if
refrigerated. Why would we want now to add chemicals to change this?

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

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

On 23/07/2017 23:46, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
while the NHS staff get paid peanuts.

I can *really* assure you that NHS staff do not get paid
'peanuts'. 13 years of NuLab saw the NHS budget leap from
£38 Billion to £115 Billion and most of that increase was
down to increased staff costs. The headcount went from 960,000
in 1997 to 1,350,000 by 2007.

And remember, up to 2011 they only paid 6% superannuation
towards their 40/80'ths final salary pension (plus one-off
3x 1st years pension as a tax-free lump sum.).

None of the huge numbers of baby boomers in the NHS ever got made
redundant in their 50's like they would in the private sector, and
being within 10 years of retirement, most are exempt from the 2011
pension reforms. This means they still retire at 60, many with close
to the maximum 40 years service and by now at the top of their
incremental scales, and heads of department too. Many jumped aboard
the 'manager jobs' bonanza that Hewitt and Dobson created in 2001/2.

There are huge numbers in this situation, now all retiring, and few are
earning less than £40K to £50K. Do the maths on the cost of their
unfunded NHS pensions !.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:45:27 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 23/07/2017 23:46, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
while the NHS staff get paid peanuts.

I can *really* assure you that NHS staff do not get paid
'peanuts'. 13 years of NuLab saw the NHS budget leap from
£38 Billion to £115 Billion and most of that increase was
down to increased staff costs. The headcount went from 960,000
in 1997 to 1,350,000 by 2007.

And remember, up to 2011 they only paid 6% superannuation
towards their 40/80'ths final salary pension (plus one-off
3x 1st years pension as a tax-free lump sum.).

So why does the NHS struggle to recruit qualified staff?

On Thursday, 27 July 2017 17:04:32 UTC+1, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:45:27 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 23/07/2017 23:46, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
while the NHS staff get paid peanuts.

I can *really* assure you that NHS staff do not get paid
'peanuts'. 13 years of NuLab saw the NHS budget leap from
£38 Billion to £115 Billion and most of that increase was
down to increased staff costs. The headcount went from 960,000
in 1997 to 1,350,000 by 2007.

And remember, up to 2011 they only paid 6% superannuation
towards their 40/80'ths final salary pension (plus one-off
3x 1st years pension as a tax-free lump sum.).

So why does the NHS struggle to recruit qualified staff?

If it;s like here I've been paying into a final salery scheme for over 30 years.
Last year April 2016 BEFORE BREXIT we got a latter saying teh final salery version is canceled/ended and now what we will get is the average salery version.
One of teh reasons we were told that university tecnical staff were paid 18% less (in about 1986) than the private industry or the medical profession equalalant was because we had a better pension scheme and longer holidays and had a final salery pension.

Mark posted
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:45:27 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 23/07/2017 23:46, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
while the NHS staff get paid peanuts.

I can *really* assure you that NHS staff do not get paid
'peanuts'.

Some do. Senior staff don't. As in all organisations.

13 years of NuLab saw the NHS budget leap from
£38 Billion to £115 Billion and most of that increase was
down to increased staff costs. The headcount went from 960,000
in 1997 to 1,350,000 by 2007.

And remember, up to 2011 they only paid 6% superannuation
towards their 40/80'ths final salary pension (plus one-off
3x 1st years pension as a tax-free lump sum.).

So why does the NHS struggle to recruit qualified staff?

It doesn't, except for the shortage of qualified doctors and allied
professions. And that is the fault of the higher education system, not
salaries.

--
Jack

In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
Mark posted
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:45:27 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 23/07/2017 23:46, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
while the NHS staff get paid peanuts.

I can *really* assure you that NHS staff do not get paid
'peanuts'.

Some do. Senior staff don't. As in all organisations.

13 years of NuLab saw the NHS budget leap from
£38 Billion to £115 Billion and most of that increase was
down to increased staff costs. The headcount went from 960,000
in 1997 to 1,350,000 by 2007.

And remember, up to 2011 they only paid 6% superannuation
towards their 40/80'ths final salary pension (plus one-off
3x 1st years pension as a tax-free lump sum.).

So why does the NHS struggle to recruit qualified staff?

It doesn't, except for the shortage of qualified doctors and allied
professions. And that is the fault of the higher education system, not
salaries.

It's not the fault of the "Higher eductation system" per se, it's the fault
of Government imposed limits on numbers that may be taught.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

charles posted
In article ,
Handsome Jack wrote:
Mark posted
So why does the NHS struggle to recruit qualified staff?

It doesn't, except for the shortage of qualified doctors and allied
professions. And that is the fault of the higher education system, not
salaries.

It's not the fault of the "Higher eductation system" per se, it's the fault
of Government imposed limits on numbers that may be taught.


OK. I was using the phrase inclusively

--
Jack

I really like horsemeat.

I've only knowingly had it once - but it was very nice.

I've been trying to buy it since the Findus debacle, but so far have only
got appalled looks in every butcher/farm shop I've asked in.



I've wanted to try kangaroo.

Lidl were selling it a few years back , might pay to keep an eye on
them.
I have seen it on sale at specialist butchers, such as one in Butchers
Row Barnstaple Devon who has it occasionally.
Don't think it is freshly caught in either case.

G.Harman

On 28/07/2017 09:05, wrote:
I really like horsemeat.

I've only knowingly had it once - but it was very nice.

I've been trying to buy it since the Findus debacle, but so far have only
got appalled looks in every butcher/farm shop I've asked in.

I've wanted to try kangaroo.

Lidl were selling it a few years back , might pay to keep an eye on
them.
I have seen it on sale at specialist butchers, such as one in Butchers
Row Barnstaple Devon who has it occasionally.
Don't think it is freshly caught in either case.

It's all from their regular culls. Apparently most Aussies don't like to
eat it as it's their "national symbol".

--
Max Demian

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
On 28/07/2017 09:05, wrote:
I really like horsemeat.

I've only knowingly had it once - but it was very nice.

I've been trying to buy it since the Findus debacle, but so far have
only
got appalled looks in every butcher/farm shop I've asked in.

I've wanted to try kangaroo.

Lidl were selling it a few years back , might pay to keep an eye on
them.
I have seen it on sale at specialist butchers, such as one in Butchers
Row Barnstaple Devon who has it occasionally.
Don't think it is freshly caught in either case.

It's all from their regular culls. Apparently most Aussies don't like to
eat it as it's their "national symbol".

Most dont eat it because it isnt that common in the supermarket
and its a very dry meat, tricky to cook properly and they arent
farmed, so its wild animals with the downsides those have.

We dont eat the emu either.

On 27/07/2017 17:04, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:45:27 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 23/07/2017 23:46, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
while the NHS staff get paid peanuts.

I can *really* assure you that NHS staff do not get paid
'peanuts'. 13 years of NuLab saw the NHS budget leap from
£38 Billion to £115 Billion and most of that increase was
down to increased staff costs. The headcount went from 960,000
in 1997 to 1,350,000 by 2007.

And remember, up to 2011 they only paid 6% superannuation
towards their 40/80'ths final salary pension (plus one-off
3x 1st years pension as a tax-free lump sum.).

So why does the NHS struggle to recruit qualified staff?


More to the point why are so many leaving early ?.

The answer is the pensions lifetime allowance limit.
G Brown brought this in, in 2006? with a limit of £1.8
million. Now it is £1 Million, which at current annuity
rates will buy an RPI-linked pension from age 60 of
about £30,000 without a lump sum. Many many NHS staff
are in this position (or better, Consultants earn up to
£150,000)

Anyone with a pension fund worth more than that has to pay
up to 55% tax on any excess when it was taken.(Or maybe
even before it is taken now).

this was introduced because people like Fred Goodwin were
being granted multi-million pound pension bungs to avoid
tax and NI.

Public servants were also ensnared but the value of their
pension was set at an arbitrary 20 times annual pension.
This was fine when annuity rates were 'normal', but not
when they had crashed.

As usual the law of unintended consequences kicked in and
before long all those massive pay rises that public servants
were enjoying up to 2008 plus a steady reduction in the limit
meant that all the high flyers like GPs, Consultants, heads
of departments suddenly found that they were going to be hit.

This is what is triggering the wave of 'early retirements'
followed immediately by re-engagement via an agency at
much higher gross income.

Also, NHS staff have discovered the 'trick' that computer
programmers and other IT staff used up to 2001 to work
as 'contractors' through a ltd co and agency.

This is why there are so many 'vacancies'. The jobs are
actually *filled* by the same people who left and came back
through an agency. many aren't 'vacant'.

And the governments attempts to make the employing
authority deduct PAYE and NI at source (IR35-style)
have been thwarted recently by threats of strike action.

So get used to paying for a very expensive NHS in years
to come.

In article , Capitol
writes
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
I think you miss the point. Chlorine kills bacteria and removes
smells. Like wearing hard hats or dust masks, it is far better to
remove the problem at source instead of taking precautions.

Hear that chaps? We don't actually need to wear hard hats, protective
glasses, or dust masks.

I'd hazard a guess not many would want to wear those when eating their
evening meal, though.

If chicken is produced in a clean hygenic environment, ...

Good luck with that.

And you think it ok to have to disinfect it afterwards before selling?


I've eaten US chicken for the last 20 years and never noticed a
chlorine taste or smell. Contrarily, I've eaten scampi in the uk which
has a distinct disinfectant taste. US beef is far superior to eat than
the EU product, also pork. You don't have to buy the product unless you
decide to do so.
EU olives are washed in caustic soda.
--
bert