In message , IMM writes

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:39:14 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

I completely agree provided that the product or service is worth
having and differentiated in other ways as well.

So, out of interest, what does anybody think of my website
www.cetltd.com ?

I would appreciate any constructive comments

Maxie. The opening is cluttered. I have tightened and smartened it up for
you. The itemised parts you services are now clear and in order and would
be better in bold to grab the readers eye. Alos he now knows that you have
the part and can have it the next day, or the same day if he visits your
place.

.... ...


Your pcbs and modules should state what boiler models they are applicable.
A customer seeing pcb number, 1234/abc, will not know that is for a say W-B
Junior. He only knows his boiler make and model. Or put in the models you
know it is applicable to, and say "amongst others", and when you learn of
other models insert them. Make it easy for them. You may do many parts,
but don't have a particular part in stock. This should be clear that you do
it, but an "out of stock contact us" should accompany the part description.

My whole database needs a major overhaul, it's grown up over the years
and yes there are a few things which need updating. Yes, there are a few
things in the T&Cs which could be better written

--
geoff

In message , Capitol
writes


raden wrote:

I would appreciate any constructive comments


Very nice. A simple map might be useful for people trying to
find you.

Yes


I found that the picture of this product


Stelrad - Pcb
Product Name : Stelrad Elan.
Description : 7A (60550)
Notes : 50550
GC Number : 319035


would not display more than the top 1" , when using Mozilla. Don't
know why. Hope this helps.

I've just installed firefox on the laptop, I'll take a look


Thanks to all who replied, comments have been taken on board (most of
them I knew, but just hadn't got around to addressing) and now have a
bit of a kick into action

Cheers

--
geoff

In article , Andy Hall
writes

The service offered by the NHS is a disgrace.

For you, maybe. I have always had superb service from the NHS (two
recent hospitalisations), aftercare, dental treatment, etc. And your
point about the NHS being free at the point of delivery is disingenuous
- there are prescription charges and dental charges, for instance.

Do you not think having a centralised service brings with it purchasing
power and the ability to negotiate prices down? It works for the
supermarkets, after all.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

In article , Owain
writes

And Americans pay about a third *more* for their health care for a similar
or worse level of service, because the private health companies take
*profit*.

And have you seen the cost of drugs in America? At least the NHS is
able to use its buying power to negotiate bulk prices.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

In article , Andy Hall
writes

It's perfectly simple. There is competition in the electricity and
gas supply industries which is achieved perfectly well without the
need for additional cable and pipework infrastucture.

The Tories thought privatisation and competition was the answer for
Britain's railways. Look at the state of them now.

Some services are best run by the state.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

In article , Andy Hall
writes

As far as the funding aspect is concerned, I don't think that it is
reasonable for those who are typically large contributors to the pot
to be additionally penalised with quadruple taxation in order to
access the level of service required.

But that's the nature of taxation, isn't it? I live alone and have no
children, nor any intention to have any. But much of the taxes I pay
subsidises the cost of child benefit and providing schools. I accept
this as a part of supporting my local community.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

In article , Andy Hall
writes

The "local loop" of course being the result of many decades of public
expenditure by the GPO/PO, which is expected to be effectively given
away to the private sector who don't want to get their hands dirty
with tasks such as planting poles in the ground, laying dirty cables
in holes in the road...

The GPO and PO are relics of the past along with other state owned
infrastructure.

You completely avoided Frank's point, which was that the local loop was
installed in subscriber (oops, used the Nasty Word) homes when BT was a
state monopoly (i.e. the GPO) and thus public money was responsible for
the initial investment in the phone network we have and enjoy today.

Consider the situation with the cable companies. They'll only dig up
roads and install new infrastructure when there is clearly a profit to
be made. That leaves swathes of the country without the service in
question.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

In article , Badger
writes

The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I
can't see it happening.

If you think the UK is a "tin pot" country, feel free to exercise your
right of choice as a consumer and move elsewhere. Bet you won't.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:56:35 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

The service offered by the NHS is a disgrace.

For you, maybe. I have always had superb service from the NHS (two
recent hospitalisations), aftercare, dental treatment, etc.

In the 21st century they still have shared wards in hospitals rather
than individual rooms and are unable to maintain adequate hygiene.
That is far from superb.

I wouldn't dream of using the NHS for dental care. The fees for
dentists are so low that they can't economically provide an adequate
standard of care. This is why most dentists do little or no NHS
work. When I switched to private dental care some years ago, the
difference is like chalk and cheese in terms of care taken and
materials used (equals time, equals money) .

And your
point about the NHS being free at the point of delivery is disingenuous
- there are prescription charges and dental charges, for instance.

I was talking about paying for the consulting time.


Do you not think having a centralised service brings with it purchasing
power and the ability to negotiate prices down?

No I don't because there are armies of bureaucrats to handle all of
this.

It works for the
supermarkets, after all.

Does it? I'm not sure about that.

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Badger
writes

The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I
can't see it happening.

If you think the UK is a "tin pot"
country, feel free to exercise your
right of choice as a consumer and
move elsewhere. Bet you won't.

Why should he leave? Because he is astute enough to recognise we are a
tin-pot country, I say more a banana republic, dorks like you who can't see
you are being ripped off, say leave. The reason Southern Ireland stayed
backwards for so long, not the case now because the EU forced various laws
on them, was that people left instead of staying and getting the place
right. Irish people abroad have been very successful, yet in Ireland they
would not have been because of the laws and attitudes they had.

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
writes

The service offered by the NHS is a disgrace.

For you, maybe. I have always had
superb service from the NHS

So have I.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:58:03 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Owain
writes

And Americans pay about a third *more* for their health care for a similar
or worse level of service, because the private health companies take
*profit*.

And have you seen the cost of drugs in America? At least the NHS is
able to use its buying power to negotiate bulk prices.

You have to understand how the system operates in the U.S.

The drugs appear to have high prices but these are list prices.

A typical health insurance arrangement is where the insurer pays X% of
the cost of treatment and the patient 100-X% or some amount. THis is
similar to an excess except that a percentage basis is more common.

Most schemes have different levels of premium according to the copay.

Health insurers pay a discounted price to medical equipment and drugs
suppliers. Taking an example - if the patient's deal is 10% co-pay
then on a drug priced at $100 he will pay $10. However, the
insurer's deal with the supplier may be 70% discount from list, so
that he will only pay $30.

The insurers, health maintenance organisations and others are well
able to negotiate deals with the vendors. It doesn't require the
largest bureaucracy in Europe to do it.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Capitol capitol@spamfre
e.freeserve.co.uk writes

I fear that my news reader has developed a terminal fault. whenever I
look at this thread, it shows, Subject "Speedfit Technique" sender
"IMM"! Any suggestions?

Killfiling dIMMbulb will do wonders for your hard disc space and sanity.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:00:12 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

It's perfectly simple. There is competition in the electricity and
gas supply industries which is achieved perfectly well without the
need for additional cable and pipework infrastucture.

The Tories thought privatisation and competition was the answer for
Britain's railways. Look at the state of them now.

They were always in a poor state and were likely to remain so because
of the poorly run state arrangements after nationalisation and lack of
investment. One cannot blame private ownership and operation with
such a poor legacy.



Some services are best run by the state.

A very small number such as defence, policing, judiciary and emergency
response, but not too many more.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Badger
writes

The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I
can't see it happening.

If you think the UK is a "tin pot"
country, feel free to exercise your
right of choice as a consumer and
move elsewhere. Bet you won't.

Why should he leave? Because he is astute enough to recognise we are a
tin-pot country, I say more a banana republic, dorks like you who can't
see
you are being ripped off, say leave. The reason Southern Ireland stayed
backwards for so long, not the case now because the EU forced various laws
on them, was that people left instead of staying and getting the place
right. Irish people abroad have been very successful, yet in Ireland they
would not have been because of the laws and attitudes they had.


IMM has again missed the point to which he is replying to... :~(

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes

I can't understand why the cable boys didn't use fibre

They do, to the dist boxes in the street. From there, it's coaxial
copper to the subscriber.

Just installed a Freeview box for
her and got a chance to play with it. Not nearly as good as off air.

Strange. I've just given in and bought a Daewoo Freeview STB for 39
quid so I have something to watch in the winter evenings. The picture
quality is astounding and the sound is so much better (even I can tell
the difference, and I wear a hearing aid. The TV has NICAM sound.)
Channel 5 is now watchable (no snow, and subtitles now work), and the
extra TV/radio channels are a bonus. There's no way I would put money
into Murdoch's pocket for another 200 channels of the absolute ****e
they show on Sky.

The Grauniad reported this week that 760,000 Freeview boxes have been
sold.

Suppose their modulators are cheap and cheerful too.

Try the SCART output. At first I was disappointed with the picture
quality from the STB, but the manual suggested trying the other SCART
input on your TV if it had two, which mine has (I think it's composite
video/YUV vs. RGB input.) The difference was like night and day.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:06:18 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

As far as the funding aspect is concerned, I don't think that it is
reasonable for those who are typically large contributors to the pot
to be additionally penalised with quadruple taxation in order to
access the level of service required.

But that's the nature of taxation, isn't it? I live alone and have no
children, nor any intention to have any. But much of the taxes I pay
subsidises the cost of child benefit and providing schools. I accept
this as a part of supporting my local community.


Taxation runs on a range of reasonable to outrageous.

I don't have a problem with paying tax to support the community
because that is a the right thing in a civilised society, although
frankly, the levels should be reduced in general by making the
mechanisms of the state smaller. The benefits of so-doing are
obvious in countries that operate lower tax environments and a smaller
state.

My objection is paying for outmoded, bureaucratic machinery in terms
of healthcare which I can't use because the standards are so poor and
access is not available when required. Education has much the same
issue - declining standards and 30+ kids to a class - unusable .

All that I have suggested is that users of healthcare and education
should receive a voucher or equivalent arrangement adequate to pay for
what they get today. Those who wish to spend it outside the state
offering should be able to do so and should be able to supplement it.
I haven't suggested reducing what people get.

As it is today, if I want to go for private healthcare I pay for the
state system and get nothing in return, and then pay tax and NIC ( as
does my employer) if he pays for the insurance. That is not
reasonable.

If I want to use private education, I have to do so out of taxed
income and still pay for the state system. Also unreasonable.

I'm not saying that I don't want to pay money to the state for these
things - I simply want the same return as everybody else and be able
to use and supplement it according to my choice and not based on the
maladministration of the state.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:58:03 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Owain
writes

And Americans pay about a third *more* for their health care for a
similar
or worse level of service, because the private health companies take
*profit*.

And have you seen the cost of drugs in America? At least the NHS is
able to use its buying power to negotiate bulk prices.

You have to understand how the system operates in the U.S.

Assuming there is health insurance, and if not the patient qualify for
Medicare...

snip

The insurers, health maintenance organisations and others are well
able to negotiate deals with the vendors. It doesn't require the
largest bureaucracy in Europe to do it.


Sorry but the private medical system in the US is a bureaucracy (although a
private one) and a cartel on top.

In article , Andy Hall
writes

It doesn't require the
largest bureaucracy in Europe to do it.

The bureaucracy involved in dealing with the American health system is
just as bad, if not worse. It's just moved further down the chain.
Take a look at the back issues of the consumer action pages of the St
Petersburg Times (http://www.sptimes.com/Action.shtml) and read some of
the horror stories from people caught between their health care insurer
and their provider, with many accounts going to collections before they
are resolved.

My point about the cost of drugs in the US isn't just related to
prescription drugs: look at the cost of off-the-shelf medication, for
example. It's horrendously expensive: much more than you would pay for
the same items here, with the exception of a very limited number of
common generic medications (Tylenol, etc., which I buy while there
because it is cheaper to buy in bulk.)

Why do you think spammers find it necessary to blast out so much crap
about low-price "v1@gra" and "offshore Canadian pharmacies"? It's
because many people in the US simply cannot afford the cost of drugs
over the counter there.

I respect your point of view Andy, but do think the NHS (and state
medical provision in other European countries) is the jewel in our
crown. The Americans regard it with bitter envy. Sure, it's not
perfect, nothing on this scale is going to be, but your suggested
solution, abolition, smacks of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Best regards
Mike

--
..sigmonster on vacation

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:15:36 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

The "local loop" of course being the result of many decades of public
expenditure by the GPO/PO, which is expected to be effectively given
away to the private sector who don't want to get their hands dirty
with tasks such as planting poles in the ground, laying dirty cables
in holes in the road...

The GPO and PO are relics of the past along with other state owned
infrastructure.

You completely avoided Frank's point, which was that the local loop was
installed in subscriber (oops, used the Nasty Word) homes when BT was a
state monopoly (i.e. the GPO) and thus public money was responsible for
the initial investment in the phone network we have and enjoy today.

I did cover that. The point is that if the local loop was installed
with state money (in effect), then there is an argument that BT should
provide access to other operators through LLU.

The copper in the ground is only a part of the story. Investment in
exchange equipment, as it stands today is all post privatisation.


Consider the situation with the cable companies. They'll only dig up
roads and install new infrastructure when there is clearly a profit to
be made. That leaves swathes of the country without the service in
question.

Which service though? The cable operators are not providing
anything that can't be provided by other means even in densely
populated areas. TV can be obtained from satellite, internet
connectivity is not implemented well on cable modem infrastructure and
they have only brought fibre a bit closer to the end user than BT has.






--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:00:12 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

It's perfectly simple. There is competition in the electricity and
gas supply industries which is achieved perfectly well without the
need for additional cable and pipework infrastucture.

The Tories thought privatisation and competition was the answer for
Britain's railways. Look at the state of them now.

They were always in a poor state and were likely to remain so because
of the poorly run state arrangements after nationalisation and lack of
investment.

TOTAL ROLLOX !
You know less about the rail system and it's history than you do about why
the NHS has problems ! The biggest modernisation of the railways was carried
whilst under national control (1955 - 1968), not only that but you need to
understand that government money is still being spent to modernise the
system.

One cannot blame private ownership and operation with
such a poor legacy.


Yes we can, they knew what needed to be done, they have not done it. Now HMG
has had to give money to private companies so that modernisation is done -
something that could have been done under state ownership. By all means let
private companies run their own service, many companies were doing so before
privatisation, but they were not using public money to make a private
profit...



Some services are best run by the state.

A very small number such as defence, policing, judiciary and emergency
response, but not too many more.


Public transport is an essential service and should be under central
control, even more so if people are to be got out of their cars - the idea
should be to move people, not make a profit.

In article , Andy Hall
writes

[railways]

They were always in a poor state and were likely to remain so because
of the poorly run state arrangements after nationalisation and lack of
investment.

Now consider the amount of money thrown at consulting fees and lawyers
to carry out the privatisation; the enormous amount of state subsidy
that the private companies _still_ get, despite making record profits,
the patchy record of maintenance companies like Jarvis, the disasters
directly attributable to privatisation (Ladbroke Grove, Potters Bar,
Hatfield.)

Do you not think all that money and time and effort would have been
better spent on improving the basic infrastructure, rather than
fattening the wallets of consultants, shareholders, lawyers, and Richard
frigging Beardie?

Look at the French, Dutch, German and Swiss railways for examples of
what can be achieved with public investment in national infrastructure.

One cannot blame private ownership and operation with
such a poor legacy.

Had all that money spent since privatisation instead been spent on
improving the railway system, we'd now have one we could be justifiably
be proud of (okay, maybe that's a bit much. We'd probbaly be pleased
with it.) British Rail were getting there despite decaded of chronic
underinvestment when the Tories pulled the rug out from under their
feet. It'll take us many, many years to recover.

I'm not against privatisation for the sake of it; despite some well-
publicised disasters, I do think PFI has a role to play. It's a matter
of making a sane and reasoned judgement as to which entities are
suitable for privatisation, rather than the dogmatic application of it
to every State-provided or State-sponsored activity.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
news
In article , Capitol capitol@spamfre
e.freeserve.co.uk writes

I fear that my news reader has developed a terminal fault. whenever I
look at this thread, it shows, Subject "Speedfit Technique" sender
"IMM"! Any suggestions?

Please killfile me.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Badger
writes

The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I
can't see it happening.

If you think the UK is a "tin pot"
country, feel free to exercise your
right of choice as a consumer and
move elsewhere. Bet you won't.

Why should he leave? Because he is astute enough to recognise we are a
tin-pot country, I say more a banana republic, dorks like you who can't
see
you are being ripped off, say leave. The reason Southern Ireland stayed
backwards for so long, not the case now because the EU forced various
laws
on them, was that people left instead of staying and getting the place
right. Irish people abroad have been very successful, yet in Ireland
they
would not have been because of the laws and attitudes they had.


IMM has again missed the point to which he is replying to... :~(

You have to read the post. Duh!

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:24:48 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

It doesn't require the
largest bureaucracy in Europe to do it.

The bureaucracy involved in dealing with the American health system is
just as bad, if not worse. It's just moved further down the chain.
Take a look at the back issues of the consumer action pages of the St
Petersburg Times (http://www.sptimes.com/Action.shtml) and read some of
the horror stories from people caught between their health care insurer
and their provider, with many accounts going to collections before they
are resolved.

The main issue is not that but the cost of malpractice insurance for
the clinicians. I know several in the U.S and it is not uncommon to
pay up to 30-40% of gross earnings in insurance. Obviously that is
reflected in fees and insurance costs. The situation is starting
to reigned in with legislation on frivolous law suits and
inappropriately large compensation payments.


My point about the cost of drugs in the US isn't just related to
prescription drugs: look at the cost of off-the-shelf medication, for
example. It's horrendously expensive:

I haven't found it so at all.

much more than you would pay for
the same items here, with the exception of a very limited number of
common generic medications (Tylenol, etc., which I buy while there
because it is cheaper to buy in bulk.)

Why do you think spammers find it necessary to blast out so much crap
about low-price "v1@gra" and "offshore Canadian pharmacies"? It's
because many people in the US simply cannot afford the cost of drugs
over the counter there.

Those are prescription drugs and I already explained the list price
issue.


I respect your point of view Andy, but do think the NHS (and state
medical provision in other European countries) is the jewel in our
crown.

It's a very tarnished crown, and I am afraid that the so called jewel
is paste. The sooner that people realise that they are being had
and the whole thing is scaled down the better.

The Americans regard it with bitter envy.

They don't you know. I have a broad range of friends and
contacts of every socio-economic group and political persuasion.

There are some who like the HMO idea, which is basically systemised
private healthcare (e.g. Kaiser Permanente); but none would want the
government to be operating it.

Most are very happy with their private healthcare arrangements and
standard of care.

Sure, it's not
perfect, nothing on this scale is going to be, but your suggested
solution, abolition, smacks of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The scale is the main issue. It's simply not possible to operate this
kind of thing effectively on that scale.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Andy Hall
writes
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:33:53 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Most regard email as a distraction and some warn employees if they receive
email from outside.

I don't know where you get that from.

The same place dIMMbulb gets all his ideas from: Cloud 9. I think he's
on drugs; nothing else could explain his complete dissociation from
reality.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote
| The Tories thought privatisation and competition was the
| answer for Britain's railways. Look at the state of them now.

Yes, they're so much better. Cleaner, more frequent, trains, new stations
and lines being opened, and staff with some understanding that keeping their
job depends on them doing it.

| Some services are best run by the state.

I can't think of many. Even private prisons run by Group 4 got better
reports from the Prisons Inspectorate than Prison Service-run ones.

Scottish customers pay more for their water and sewerage from the
nationalised Scottish Water than customers of the private sector down south.

But health is not an item that can be supplied on a metered, commodity
basis.

Owain

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:06:18 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

As far as the funding aspect is concerned, I don't think that it is
reasonable for those who are typically large contributors to the pot
to be additionally penalised with quadruple taxation in order to
access the level of service required.

But that's the nature of taxation, isn't it? I live alone and have no
children, nor any intention to have any. But much of the taxes I pay
subsidises the cost of child benefit and providing schools. I accept
this as a part of supporting my local community.


Taxation runs on a range of reasonable to outrageous.

I don't have a problem with paying tax to support the community
because that is a the right thing in a civilised society, although

Although you see no need to pay for the health care of the less wealthy
members of society, how long before your voucher scheme gets reduced to a
bare minimum and only those on basic (keep you alive) benefit are the ones
to receive them ?...

frankly, the levels should be reduced in general by making the
mechanisms of the state smaller. The benefits of so-doing are
obvious in countries that operate lower tax environments and a smaller
state.

But they have just as big mechanisms and the costs can't be controlled - as
you say, market forces will prevail, and as a cartel end user costs will
rise.


My objection is paying for outmoded, bureaucratic machinery in terms
of healthcare which I can't use because the standards are so poor and
access is not available when required. Education has much the same
issue - declining standards and 30+ kids to a class - unusable .

That is an argument for increasing taxation then, just as much as it is for
lowering it and making people pay. Trouble is, some will be able to but many
won't, just as it was pre WW2...

snip

"I'm alright, f*ck those who aren't" seems to be your ideal model for
society. :~(

In article , Andy Hall
writes
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:49:09 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Most of those are tittle tattle, not real business communication.

Yours might fall into that category; but it isn't my observation at
all.

Nor mine. Email is a tremendous communication enabler; it's just a pity
about the spammers (note: not SPAMmers; SPAM is a trademark of Hormel
Foods.)

--
..sigmonster on vacation

In article , Andy Hall
writes

The Americans regard it with bitter envy.

They don't you know.

They do, I'm afraid.

I have a broad range of friends and
contacts of every socio-economic group and political persuasion.

Well, me too. I visit the USA at least 3 times a year. You and I must
meet very different people

--
..sigmonster on vacation

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
writes

[railways]

They were always in a poor state and were likely to remain so because
of the poorly run state arrangements after nationalisation and lack of
investment.

Now consider the amount of money thrown at consulting fees and lawyers
to carry out the privatisation; the enormous amount of state subsidy
that the private companies _still_ get, despite making record profits,
the patchy record of maintenance companies like Jarvis, the disasters
directly attributable to privatisation (Ladbroke Grove, Potters Bar,
Hatfield.)

Do you not think all that money and time and effort would have been
better spent on improving the basic infrastructure, rather than
fattening the wallets of consultants, shareholders, lawyers, and Richard
frigging Beardie?

No he doesn't think like that. His brainwashing makes him prepared to see
people killed to ensure that the rich remain rich. Sad but true. Common
sense and reality do not come into it.

In article , Huge
writes
Just love the ones that pop up saying 'this site is best viewed on IE
whatever' Would RS Components be best pleased if their site had a pop up
saying 'you'd be better off buying from CPS'?

Hear, hear!

m3 t00.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:37:20 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:00:12 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

It's perfectly simple. There is competition in the electricity and
gas supply industries which is achieved perfectly well without the
need for additional cable and pipework infrastucture.

The Tories thought privatisation and competition was the answer for
Britain's railways. Look at the state of them now.

They were always in a poor state and were likely to remain so because
of the poorly run state arrangements after nationalisation and lack of
investment.

TOTAL ROLLOX !
You know less about the rail system and it's history than you do about why
the NHS has problems !

I know precisely why both have problems.


The biggest modernisation of the railways was carried
whilst under national control (1955 - 1968),

So poor investment and modernisation after that?

not only that but you need to
understand that government money is still being spent to modernise the
system.

... as it should have been before being privatised.




One cannot blame private ownership and operation with
such a poor legacy.


Yes we can, they knew what needed to be done, they have not done it. Now HMG
has had to give money to private companies so that modernisation is done -
something that could have been done under state ownership.

It should have been done under state ownership before privatisation
and wasn't. That is the actual issue.


By all means let
private companies run their own service, many companies were doing so before
privatisation, but they were not using public money to make a private
profit...

So they were doing it for love?


Public transport is an essential service

It's not *essential* at all. There are plenty of ways to get from A
to B, assuming it's necessary to do so at all.

and should be under central
control, even more so if people are to be got out of their cars - the idea
should be to move people, not make a profit.

Why is there the notion of "getting people out of their cars"? This
is the nonsense spouted by Llivingstone, Prescott and the others who
get the press to film them on the Tube and then implement silly
schemes like congestion charges which do nothing.

Public transport such as trains and buses are to a significant extent,
flawed - there are too many obvious shortcomings:

- Don't operate between the places that people want to go

- Don't operate when required

- Involve too many changes and time wasted, so total journey time too
long.

- Impossible to carry many things.

There are cases where public transport can be useful - e.g. people
commuting in and out of major cities each day; but that's about it.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
writes
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:33:53 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Most regard email as a distraction and some warn employees if they
receive
email from outside.

I don't know where you get that from.

snip foolish tripe

Sad but true.

In article , Andy Hall
writes
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:18:15 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


Yep. Private monopolies should not be. If a service is nationwide then it
should be ruin by the gov.

It almost always is........

Classic. DIMM inserts foot in keyboard again :-)

--
..sigmonster on vacation

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:15:36 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

The "local loop" of course being the result of many decades of public
expenditure by the GPO/PO, which is expected to be effectively given
away to the private sector who don't want to get their hands dirty
with tasks such as planting poles in the ground, laying dirty cables
in holes in the road...

The GPO and PO are relics of the past along with other state owned
infrastructure.

You completely avoided Frank's point, which was that the local loop was
installed in subscriber (oops, used the Nasty Word) homes when BT was a
state monopoly (i.e. the GPO) and thus public money was responsible for
the initial investment in the phone network we have and enjoy today.

I did cover that. The point is that if the local loop was installed
with state money (in effect), then there is an argument that BT should
provide access to other operators through LLU.

No, there isn't, right or wrong BT was sold to private investors, why should
any private company be forced to allow their competitors to use their
networks (that they have modernised since privatisation) - no one would
dream of making Ford allow Rover Group to use their R&D departments or the
production lines for little or no payment if at all.


The copper in the ground is only a part of the story. Investment in
exchange equipment, as it stands today is all post privatisation.


Exactly, which is why competitors shouldn't have access to those exchanges
and modernised cable networks.


Consider the situation with the cable companies. They'll only dig up
roads and install new infrastructure when there is clearly a profit to
be made. That leaves swathes of the country without the service in
question.

Which service though? The cable operators are not providing
anything that can't be provided by other means even in densely
populated areas. TV can be obtained from satellite, internet
connectivity is not implemented well on cable modem infrastructure and
they have only brought fibre a bit closer to the end user than BT has.


So why do they want to use the BT networks then...

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:23:54 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


You have to understand how the system operates in the U.S.

Assuming there is health insurance, and if not the patient qualify for
Medicare...


????



snip

The insurers, health maintenance organisations and others are well
able to negotiate deals with the vendors. It doesn't require the
largest bureaucracy in Europe to do it.


Sorry but the private medical system in the US is a bureaucracy (although a
private one) and a cartel on top.

Apart from the HMOs, it doesn't operate as a "system" and that is the
point. Customers have a choice both of financing organisation and
delivery organisation.
Here, most people have choice of neither and that is fundamentally
wrong as well as being inefficient.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:23:54 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


You have to understand how the system operates in the U.S.

Assuming there is health insurance, and if not the patient qualify for
Medicare...


????

There are many who can't afford medical insurance (for what ever reason) but
don't qualify for Medicare.




snip

The insurers, health maintenance organisations and others are well
able to negotiate deals with the vendors. It doesn't require the
largest bureaucracy in Europe to do it.


Sorry but the private medical system in the US is a bureaucracy (although
a
private one) and a cartel on top.

Apart from the HMOs, it doesn't operate as a "system" and that is the
point. Customers have a choice both of financing organisation and
delivery organisation.

True, but they have no choice in the cost, one company put the cost up and
the rest will follow [1] - human nature being what it is. I would love to
live in the same utopia that you inhabit but most of us live in the real
world !

[1] you only have to look as far as the UK motor insurance system to se
this.

Here, most people have choice of neither and that is fundamentally
wrong as well as being inefficient.


If they can't afford private medical care they have the full NHS service to
fall back on, those in the USA don't have such a service.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:37:29 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

[railways]

They were always in a poor state and were likely to remain so because
of the poorly run state arrangements after nationalisation and lack of
investment.

Now consider the amount of money thrown at consulting fees and lawyers
to carry out the privatisation; the enormous amount of state subsidy
that the private companies _still_ get, despite making record profits,

Completely reasonable since they should have been provided with
something of decent quality in the first place.


the patchy record of maintenance companies like Jarvis,

That is true, but IIRC British Rail used private contractors before.

the disasters
directly attributable to privatisation (Ladbroke Grove, Potters Bar,
Hatfield.)

That's an extrapolation



Do you not think all that money and time and effort would have been
better spent on improving the basic infrastructure, rather than
fattening the wallets of consultants, shareholders, lawyers, and Richard
frigging Beardie?

The infrastructure should have been delivered in a good quality
condition at privatisation rather than as a pup.

State operations use as much, if not more consultant time as
equivalent private enterprises. THe reason is the same either way
and is generally a backside protection exercise.

Shareholders are entitled to a return on their investment whether it
be directly, through savings schemes or for that matter state
ownership. At least if I own something directly or through a scheme
I have some control and can invest my money elsewhere.

Look at the French, Dutch, German and Swiss railways for examples of
what can be achieved with public investment in national infrastructure.

I have and the results are patchy. Out of the above, I'm only
impressed to a point with the German ICE. Dutch trains are filthy
and no longer run to good time as they used to do. In Switzerland
there are large numbers of private operators.




One cannot blame private ownership and operation with
such a poor legacy.

Had all that money spent since privatisation instead been spent on
improving the railway system, we'd now have one we could be justifiably
be proud of (okay, maybe that's a bit much. We'd probbaly be pleased
with it.)

It has been. The problem is a legacy from the years of state
control. You can't run something that badly for that length of time
and expect a few years of some investment of state and private money
to improve it that quickly.


British Rail were getting there

I don't know where "there" was apart from hell in a handbasket.

despite decaded of chronic
underinvestment when the Tories pulled the rug out from under their
feet. It'll take us many, many years to recover.

The best recovery would be lack of state involvement and realistic
prices charged to those who want to use the trains where they want to
use them.



I'm not against privatisation for the sake of it; despite some well-
publicised disasters, I do think PFI has a role to play. It's a matter
of making a sane and reasoned judgement as to which entities are
suitable for privatisation, rather than the dogmatic application of it
to every State-provided or State-sponsored activity.

If the state were esimply to supply the money and not the bureaucracy
it would be a far better situation. The problem is that the
incompetents in government departments can't resist meddling.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
writes

snip

I have a broad range of friends and
contacts of every socio-economic group and political persuasion.

Well, me too. I visit the USA at least 3 times a year. You and I must
meet very different people


And I bet neither of you meet those who are just above 'scraping the barrel'
classes....