Hi,

Any self employed carpenters here who are contracted to a larger company? I'
ve always been employed "on the books" but been offered a new job as
self-employed for better money.

Could anyone point out the nasty (like no notice period / no paid holidays)
and the good (I don't know anything to put here :0( ).

The new position is work about 90 quid more a week but is self employed bad?

Any advice would be. well just dandy.

thanks

"Number 5" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Any self employed carpenters here who are contracted to a larger company?
I'
ve always been employed "on the books" but been offered a new job as
self-employed for better money.

Could anyone point out the nasty (like no notice period / no paid
holidays)
and the good (I don't know anything to put here :0( ).

The new position is work about 90 quid more a week but is self employed
bad?

Any advice would be. well just dandy.

thanks


You'll perhaps find more pro carpenters over at the appropriate section on
the Screwfix forums www.screwfix.com then click talk.

Alex

Number 5 wrote:

Could anyone point out the nasty (like no notice period / no paid holidays)
and the good (I don't know anything to put here :0( ).

The new position is work about 90 quid more a week but is self employed bad?

Any advice would be. well just dandy.

The good and bad will be much the same for any self employed profession.
On the plus side you have:

more freedom as to the type of work you do, and when / where
potential to earn greater income
opportunity to subcontract work to others (take on bigger jobs etc).
Hence you can build a business and a brand if you want.

On the down side you have no employment rights or benefits and a little
less security (although that only comes down to money in the bank in the
end!). You will need to cover all aspects of running a business
including sales and admin (i.e. paperwork). Having a good accountant is
a must. You will need to provide your own tools, insurance, pension etc.

Much of the choice will come down to you attitude to these things. You
also need to remember that there may be times when there is not enough
work and hence you need to save money to allow for these.

You also need to be wary of the "clients" who really want an employee
that they can exert a good degree of control over, but at the same time
want the freedom from employment legislation that goes with contracting
someone self employed. Hence you can end up with the worst of both worlds!

So in summary this should not be a decesion that you make lightly, but
one that you give a good deal of consideration to. I would not have
thought on the face of it, that an additional 90 / week would be enough
incentive on its own. Howerver only you can decide what direction will
better suit you and there may be other factors that are more important
to you.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
Number 5 wrote:
Any self employed carpenters here who are contracted to a larger
company? I' ve always been employed "on the books" but been offered a
new job as self-employed for better money.

Could anyone point out the nasty (like no notice period / no paid
holidays) and the good (I don't know anything to put here :0( ).

If you're being offered a job as 'self employed', you're still entitled to
sick and holiday pay.

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? *

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

"Number 5" wrote in message ...
Hi,

Any self employed carpenters here who are contracted to a larger company? I'
ve always been employed "on the books" but been offered a new job as
self-employed for better money.

Could anyone point out the nasty (like no notice period / no paid holidays)
and the good (I don't know anything to put here :0( ).

The new position is work about 90 quid more a week but is self employed bad?

Any advice would be. well just dandy.

thanks

surely the new pay will be whatever you manage to negotiate on a case
by case basis. And the employment will be as and when something is
available.

"John Rumm" wrote in message


Number 5 wrote:

Could anyone point out the nasty (like no notice period / no paid holidays)
and the good (I don't know anything to put here :0( ).

The new position is work about 90 quid more a week but is self employed bad?

Any advice would be. well just dandy.

The good and bad will be much the same for any self employed profession.
On the plus side you have:

more freedom as to the type of work you do, and when / where
potential to earn greater income
opportunity to subcontract work to others (take on bigger jobs etc).
Hence you can build a business and a brand if you want.

Much of the rest of the reply is pretty obvious. Have a good work ethic
not cutting too many corners. Go home proud of your work but finished
with it for the day when you go off site, same as before.

Don't work more than two weeks for someone who hasn't paid you.

Find out about agencies and which ones are the best, where they have
most work and that sort of thing.

Decide how far you are going to travel and stick to it in times of
plenty.

Don't let someone with cash flow problems cut your wages by messing you
around if you are on a price.

Keep asking around even when you are busy. Always expect to be the first
to have to find something else.

Don't take on too many small jobs on the side.

Be prepared to have tools stolen, stock up with spares.

Don't get caught drunk driving or even somewhat inebreinated in charge
of a vehicle. Drive carefully.

Don't let your bank account go below a realistic limit.

Don't work with thieves.

Keep your mouth shut until you know best. If you have to ask about the
job, ask the foreman.

If you have to ask about money and such, do it quietly. Don't rely on
anybody. (By which I mean; rely on a concensus of the best you have.)


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Number 5 wrote:
Any self employed carpenters here who are contracted to a larger
company? I' ve always been employed "on the books" but been offered a
new job as self-employed for better money.

Could anyone point out the nasty (like no notice period / no paid
holidays) and the good (I don't know anything to put here :0( ).

If you're being offered a job as 'self employed', you're still entitled to
sick and holiday pay.


I don't think so.

In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:
If you're being offered a job as 'self employed', you're still
entitled to sick and holiday pay.


I don't think so.

Oh yes you are. If you work for the same firm or employer other than on a
genuinely casual basis - ie the odd day here and there - you're entitled
to the same benefits as 'staff'. This could even include profit sharing
etc if this is in force.

--
*All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand *

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

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:11:12 +0100, Farmer Giles wrote:

If you're being offered a job as 'self employed', you're still
entitled to sick and holiday pay.

I don't think so.

Holiday pay certainly, not so sure about sick.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:
If you're being offered a job as 'self employed', you're still
entitled to sick and holiday pay.


I don't think so.

Oh yes you are. If you work for the same firm or employer other than on a
genuinely casual basis - ie the odd day here and there - you're entitled
to the same benefits as 'staff'. This could even include profit sharing
etc if this is in force.


If you work for the same firm all the time your not actually self employed.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:01:45 +0100, Number 5 wrote:

Could anyone point out the nasty (like no notice period / no paid
holidays)

If you are defined as a "worker" you get holiday pay these days. Be
aware that many companies don't know this or if they do try and say
that the holiday pay element is included in the rate but the rate
hasn't changed since the law did...

The new position is work about 90 quid more a week but is self
employed bad?

Depends on how reliant you are on a regular pay cheque each month. Can
you drum up other work to keep the cash flowing?

Fairly sure this self employment/freelance tpoic has been dicussed
fairly recently in here try a google in the last 6 to 12 months. There
are many implications and knock ons that need to be taken into account
when becoming self employed.

If the self employed rate is not at least 15% higher than the employed
rate then you'll probably end up with less money in your back pocket.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:02:50 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On the down side you have no employment rights or benefits ...

Not strictly true, you have may have less rights but a lot will be
down to the contract you sign. Read it, slowly and carefully there are
some very sharp employers out there...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In article om, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:02:50 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On the down side you have no employment rights or benefits ...

Not strictly true, you have may have less rights but a lot will be
down to the contract you sign. Read it, slowly and carefully there are
some very sharp employers out there...


But hasn't IR35 IIRC put paid to this caper?....
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Number 5
writes
Hi,

Any self employed carpenters here who are contracted to a larger company? I'
ve always been employed "on the books" but been offered a new job as
self-employed for better money.

Could anyone point out the nasty (like no notice period / no paid holidays)
and the good (I don't know anything to put here :0( ).

The new position is work about 90 quid more a week but is self employed bad?

Any advice would be. well just dandy.

thanks




If you can cope with being your own boss and all of the downsides listed
by other contributors then go for it. But if you're going to do it the
only way you will do it is in yourself. Them that do work for themselves
them that don't know how to do it work for others..

If you get my drift..

Tell you what 'tho, of the some 50 odd of other "firms" we do some work
for, I don't know "Anyone" of 50 years plus who does not want to take
early retirement and get out it all.

As for me at 53 ,I still work a 7 day week and wish that there were more
hours in the day) Which must prove "something"?.

Perhaps nothing quite like being in charge of yourself???....

--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article om, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:02:50 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On the down side you have no employment rights or benefits ...

Not strictly true, you have may have less rights but a lot will be
down to the contract you sign. Read it, slowly and carefully there are
some very sharp employers out there...


But hasn't IR35 IIRC put paid to this caper?....


ROFLMAO!

what rights would those be then...


--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

tony sayer wrote:

On the down side you have no employment rights or benefits ...

Not strictly true, you have may have less rights but a lot will be
down to the contract you sign. Read it, slowly and carefully there are
some very sharp employers out there...



But hasn't IR35 IIRC put paid to this caper?....

IR35 has nothing to do with self employment or operating as a sole
trader (i.e. schedule D). It only kicks in when a "worker" is being
supplied by an "intermediary" (i.e. typically his own limited company).

When the gov originally "sold" the concept of IR35, they pitched it as
some form or "worker protection" type of legislation rather than just a
tax grab - pointing to unscrupulous employers sacking a worker, but then
getting said worker to incorporate, and then immediately re employing
them on a contractual basis. Hence side stepping many of their
responsibilities to said worker for employment rights. The reality once
implemented (as with so many bits of government legislation) was to not
prevent the above at all, and in many ways achieve encourage it! Since
IR35 pushes all of the responsibility for any additional taxation etc.
directly onto the worker, it gives the "employer" incentive to do just
that.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you're being offered a job as 'self employed', you're still entitled to
sick and holiday pay.

I think you are thinking of working as a "temp" which is yet another
class of worker.

If you are genuinely self employed, then I can't see how a client can be
responsible for sick or holiday pay. (You may still be able to claim
Statuatary Sick Pay however).


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:
If you're being offered a job as 'self employed', you're still
entitled to sick and holiday pay.


I don't think so.

Oh yes you are. If you work for the same firm or employer other than on a
genuinely casual basis - ie the odd day here and there - you're entitled
to the same benefits as 'staff'. This could even include profit sharing
etc if this is in force.


If you are a self-employed contractor - which is what the OP proposes to
be - you are entitled only to what you negotiate with the company to whom
you contract. You have no statutuary employment rights, and you cannot be
'employed' on a self-employed basis. I speak as someone who worked as a
self-employed contractor for many years. Also the OP will need to register
with the Inland Revenue and get himself a CIS card - the IR are fairly
strict about the issue of self-employed, you cannot simply declare yourself
such and carry on working for the company with whom you have worked on a
PAYE basis.

In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:
If you are a self-employed contractor - which is what the OP proposes to
be - you are entitled only to what you negotiate with the company to
whom you contract. You have no statutuary employment rights, and you
cannot be 'employed' on a self-employed basis. I speak as someone who
worked as a self-employed contractor for many years. Also the OP will
need to register with the Inland Revenue and get himself a CIS card -
the IR are fairly strict about the issue of self-employed, you cannot
simply declare yourself such and carry on working for the company with
whom you have worked on a PAYE basis.

Absolutely. And that sounds exactly what the OP has been offered - a full
time job as 'self employed'.

--
*The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:
If you are a self-employed contractor - which is what the OP proposes to
be - you are entitled only to what you negotiate with the company to
whom you contract. You have no statutuary employment rights, and you
cannot be 'employed' on a self-employed basis. I speak as someone who
worked as a self-employed contractor for many years. Also the OP will
need to register with the Inland Revenue and get himself a CIS card -
the IR are fairly strict about the issue of self-employed, you cannot
simply declare yourself such and carry on working for the company with
whom you have worked on a PAYE basis.

Absolutely. And that sounds exactly what the OP has been offered - a full
time job as 'self employed'.


Humm... The revenue don't like that(

--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Absolutely. And that sounds exactly what the OP has been offered - a
full time job as 'self employed'.


Humm... The revenue don't like that(

They won't mind provided he's on PAYE...

--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Absolutely. And that sounds exactly what the OP has been offered - a
full time job as 'self employed'.


Humm... The revenue don't like that(

They won't mind provided he's on PAYE...

Then he wouldn't be self-employed.

In article ,
Farmer Giles wrote:
Absolutely. And that sounds exactly what the OP has been offered - a
full time job as 'self employed'.


Humm... The revenue don't like that(

They won't mind provided he's on PAYE...

Then he wouldn't be self-employed.

It's a very grey area. Casual work often has PAYE deducted, but the
person paying it isn't classified as an employee.

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

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

Thanks for all the replies,

The job is pretty much full time as "self employed" - I guess it allows them
to to skip things like holiday pay, notice periods and they get to pretty
much to control contractors as full time staff etc. It seems alot of
builders around here are doing this.

Anyway thanks

In article ,
Number 5 wrote:
The job is pretty much full time as "self employed" -

That's what I guessed.

I guess it allows
them to to skip things like holiday pay, notice periods and they get to
pretty much to control contractors as full time staff etc. It seems alot
of builders around here are doing this.

Then they're breaking the law. If they employ someone on a 'rolling'
basis, they are entitled to holiday pay etc, and should be on PAYE.

If they are paying you gross, you might well have problems after you fill
in your next self assessment form. To be truly self employed, you need to
work for a number of 'employers' within the year to qualify for self
employment status from the IR.

--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *

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

Hi,

I've been looking at this and can't seem to find info on what you say
(mainly the DWP site) - I'd be interested to find out more if you could
point me to a link or something.

Cheers

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Number 5 wrote:
The job is pretty much full time as "self employed" -

That's what I guessed.

I guess it allows
them to to skip things like holiday pay, notice periods and they get to
pretty much to control contractors as full time staff etc. It seems alot
of builders around here are doing this.

Then they're breaking the law. If they employ someone on a 'rolling'
basis, they are entitled to holiday pay etc, and should be on PAYE.

If they are paying you gross, you might well have problems after you fill
in your next self assessment form. To be truly self employed, you need to
work for a number of 'employers' within the year to qualify for self
employment status from the IR.

--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Then they're breaking the law. If they employ someone on a 'rolling'
basis, they are entitled to holiday pay etc, and should be on PAYE.

They could set up a rolling contract which would be a legit way of
acquiring the services of a self employed person if they wanted -
however the contract would need to be carefully written to achieve this,
and it would need to reflect the actual working practices and the
intention of the client and worker. In this case however I suspect that
you are right and that does not sound like that is what they are trying
to do.

If they are paying you gross, you might well have problems after you fill
in your next self assessment form. To be truly self employed, you need to
work for a number of 'employers' within the year to qualify for self
employment status from the IR.

Alas there is no such thing as "self employed status" or indeed even a
right to be self employed enshrined in legislation. Hence even if you
request to be treated as a schedule D worker they can still attempt to
classify you any way the see fit, and it is up to you to argue the toss
with them if you disagree*

One advantage of working on contract as a sole trader (i.e. self
employed) is that IR35 does not apply, and hence if there is a
disagreement as to the true nature of the relationship it will be the
employer who is expected to stump up for PAYE and NI on the money paid
not the contractor.


* Assessing self employment status is a very complex process in this
country because nothing is laid down in statue. Much of the decision has
to be made based on case law which has been accumulated in the courts
over the last 100 years or so. You need not only look at the details of
each engagement (you can be simultaneously self employed and employed on
two concurrent engagements), but also the overall "big picture".

The courts have in the past based decisions on various aspects of
contractual agreements between parties like:-

- Is there a master servant relationship?

- Is there a requirement for the worker to carry out the work
personally, or can he select a substitute?

- Are you subject to "direction and control" as to how, why, when etc.
that the work is carried out?

- Are you operating (and do you appear to be) in business on your own
account?

- Do you provide your own tools, and training?

- Are you part and parcel of the employers/clients organisation?

- Is there the required minimum mutuality of obligation required to
create employment?

- What is the intention of the parties?

- Can you profit from sound management of your business?

and so on....

Each of these need to be assessed and weighted (on a scale that is not
legally defined anywhere!) to form a picture of pointers "to" and "away"
from employment. Very few can be considered a "knock-out" blow that will
force a decision in one way or the other.

Needless to say, the IR will attempt to interpret the "facts" in which
ever way is more profitable for them!

And finally, just to add insult to injury, you can end up being
construed as employed for legal purposes, but self employed for taxation
purposes and vice versa. Many of the same test apply to deciding both,
but there are subtle and incompatible overlaps. Hence proving one does
not prove the other.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Alas there is no such thing as "self employed status" or indeed even a
right to be self employed enshrined in legislation. Hence even if you
request to be treated as a schedule D worker they can still attempt to
classify you any way the see fit, and it is up to you to argue the toss
with them if you disagree*

They will, however, issue you with a letter giving your status if they are
satisfied you conform to the points you've given below. In my industry,
larger employers require to see this before paying gross - otherwise they
treat you as casual labour and deduct PAYE and NI.

One advantage of working on contract as a sole trader (i.e. self
employed) is that IR35 does not apply, and hence if there is a
disagreement as to the true nature of the relationship it will be the
employer who is expected to stump up for PAYE and NI on the money paid
not the contractor.

Hence the fact that many will deduct PAYE and NI if they're not certain.


* Assessing self employment status is a very complex process in this
country because nothing is laid down in statue. Much of the decision has
to be made based on case law which has been accumulated in the courts
over the last 100 years or so. You need not only look at the details of
each engagement (you can be simultaneously self employed and employed on
two concurrent engagements), but also the overall "big picture".

The courts have in the past based decisions on various aspects of
contractual agreements between parties like:-

- Is there a master servant relationship?

- Is there a requirement for the worker to carry out the work
personally, or can he select a substitute?

- Are you subject to "direction and control" as to how, why, when etc.
that the work is carried out?

- Are you operating (and do you appear to be) in business on your own
account?

- Do you provide your own tools, and training?

- Are you part and parcel of the employers/clients organisation?

- Is there the required minimum mutuality of obligation required to
create employment?

- What is the intention of the parties?

- Can you profit from sound management of your business?

and so on....

You've missed out perhaps the crucial one - that of having several
different employers within a set period. 6 or so in a year seems to suit
them.

Each of these need to be assessed and weighted (on a scale that is not
legally defined anywhere!) to form a picture of pointers "to" and "away"
from employment. Very few can be considered a "knock-out" blow that will
force a decision in one way or the other.

Yes - the whole thing is a minefield.

Needless to say, the IR will attempt to interpret the "facts" in which
ever way is more profitable for them!

My union - BECTU - has taken the IR to court in an attempt to clarify
things.

For example, very few in broadcasting genuinely set their own hours -
since it's a team effort everyone has to be there at the same time for
production. Same with tools of the trade. A cameraman on a location
production might well supply the required equipment - but not when working
in a studio. The above test case involved a vision mixer who always works
'indoors' so wouldn't even need protective clothing - and the only tool he
might be expected to supply is a pencil.

And finally, just to add insult to injury, you can end up being
construed as employed for legal purposes, but self employed for taxation
purposes and vice versa. Many of the same test apply to deciding both,
but there are subtle and incompatible overlaps. Hence proving one does
not prove the other.

Yup. Just try getting unemployment benefit for one thing. Even although
you're on PAYE...

--
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

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

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:50:05 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You've missed out perhaps the crucial one - that of having several
different employers within a set period. 6 or so in a year seems to
suit them.

The "weighting" on that doesn't seem as high as showing that you do
run a business and carry the risks of doing so. ie. you choose to
accept or decline work, negotiate the terms/pay levels, you are out of
pocket and have to use the courts if someone doesn't pay, pay your own
PL/PHI/Life insurances, make your own pension arrangements etc etc.

Yes - the whole thing is a minefield.

Quite I had a very nervous few weeks earlier in the year when the IR
wanted evidence of my self employed status. The 12 months they wanted
details for I'd only worked for 3 companies, two of them had a total
of 3 jobs out of 15 or so. "The Letter" did arrive I'm glad to say.

I'm not looking forward to the renewal, I've only worked for one
company since... I've had the odd offer from others but due to being
comitted elsewhere I've had to decline. I keep intending to ask them
for a letter saying they did offer work for such and such a date but
it was declined, I can then show invoices or other evidence of my
unavailabilty.

The above test case involved a vision mixer who always works
'indoors' so wouldn't even need protective clothing - and the only
tool he might be expected to supply is a pencil.

And note that no final ruling was ever made in that case, the IR gave
up pursuing it. AFAIK no precedent in law was set but at least some
changes to the rules appeared...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

They will, however, issue you with a letter giving your status if they are
satisfied you conform to the points you've given below. In my industry,

They will also reserve the right to change their mind later should the
decide that "new evidence has come to light"....

larger employers require to see this before paying gross - otherwise they
treat you as casual labour and deduct PAYE and NI.

yup - hence one of the attractions of incorporation to avoid all that...
well it used to be ;-)

Hence the fact that many will deduct PAYE and NI if they're not certain.

Or in my industry, simply avoid using you unless you are incorporated...

You've missed out perhaps the crucial one - that of having several
different employers within a set period. 6 or so in a year seems to suit
them.

Yup that helps - it's a pointer to being "in business on your own
account". The reverse situation (i.e. only one client) may or may not be
a pointer the other way depending on circumstances)

My union - BECTU - has taken the IR to court in an attempt to clarify
things.

The PCG (www.pcg.org.uk) has had a few bites at that cherry as well.
They never managed to win the knock out blow to kill IR 35 outright with
a judicial review at the start, but they have been very successful in
winning individual cases since then (not sure what the stats stand at
now, something like PCG 400, IR 2!)

For example, very few in broadcasting genuinely set their own hours -
since it's a team effort everyone has to be there at the same time for
production. Same with tools of the trade. A cameraman on a location
production might well supply the required equipment - but not when working
in a studio. The above test case involved a vision mixer who always works
'indoors' so wouldn't even need protective clothing - and the only tool he
might be expected to supply is a pencil.

That sounds like "Hall v Lorimer" - which is actually a very interesting
(and useful) case especially as it got as far as the court of appeal,
and can thus set legal precedent. (Cases that only get as far as the
commissioners don't set precedent in the way hight court or appellate
court decisions do).


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/