"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:28:05 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:05:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:09:11 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Shockwave wrote:
how about taxing copper pipework?

****s like u who r too stupid to use 'speedfit' would be taxed;
those
that can read instructions and use a piper cutter would be
exempt.

Oi. Copper is not only cheaper, but makes a neater job. It requires
some
skill, but this is part of the fun.


You even have the opportunity to buy a pipecutter.

I think this Shockwave pillock works for Speedfit.

Well I don't know. When I think of 'pillock' and 'Speedfit' in the
same sentence, I am inevitably reminded of your hacksaw escapade.

Reminder: faulty fitting experience. Pipe cut brilliantly square. And you
put lots of Speeddfit in. Be afraid.

I've used quite a bit of lots of makes over the years, have followed
the instructions, used the right tools and never had any problems.

Speedfit? Be afraid. That ceiling may come crashing down.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:23:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:01:09 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Not at all, although I do object to paying tax to support an
arrangement that belongs in the 1940s.

Have people grown two heads since then?

Most people haven't but perhaps Zaphod Beeblebrox is an aquaintance of
yours.

The notion of universal state run healthcare, free at the point of
delivery is a nonsense in the 21st century.

Have people changed sonce the 20th century, grown another leg as well?

The mix of health issues has changed considerably over the last 60
years.

With
the technology we have today to reduce manpower and make matters more
efficient, it makes even more sense to care for the sick.

I didn't say that it doesn't. I simply don't believe that the
government needs to be involved in its delivery. Come to think of it,
the government doesn't need to be involved in very much at all.

Just providing a force of men to keep the status quo which means the rich
stay rich. How naive.

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Now look at the water industry. What a shambles. The service
levels are appalling. Every house should have 50 litres/min of
water at 4 bar. Do we get it like other countries? Not on your
Nelly. We spend a fortune on antiquated tank and cylinder systems
to cope with the appalling water supply. To have a shower in which
you don't have to run around in to get wet we have to install pumps.

I know of new houses which still only have 1/2" plastic mains pipes
fitted. Unbelievable.

So this means your continual recommendation to fit combis everywhere is
based, as I've always thought, on an argument made of straw?

Either the water supplies in this country are up to it or they're not.
You've said they're not, but still recommend combis which can't work as
well as a storage system. What a ******.

What a dork! My water supply can take about 5 combi's. Many others
are the same too.

So even two combis aren't enough now?

Sadly many supplies are not and feel sorry for these people as they are
being short changed.

Then why do you always recommend combis - regardless of whether they work
properly or not in the individual circumstances?

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

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

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:56:50 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:25:47 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

snip

Bureaucracy comes with size. I have come across large private companies
that are more bureaucratic than government agencies.

Of course, which is why I was not proposing replacing state run
megaliths with privately run megaliths.


But you are, when an organisation is larger than the British army how are
not going to have privately run megaliths, and don't just say split it up as
that would just increase the problems (both from an organisational PoV but
also for the patients).

Successive governments have allowed the NHS to grow like topsy into
the mess it is today.

Once you get past the assumption that one needs to have a centrally
run system, it all becomes much simpler.

Private sector healthcare providers would compete for the best medical
staff and the best but minimal administration. Natural selection
would result in the incompetent being left out of the equation.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:56:50 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:25:47 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

snip

Bureaucracy comes with size. I have come across large private
companies
that are more bureaucratic than government agencies.

Of course, which is why I was not proposing replacing state run
megaliths with privately run megaliths.


But you are, when an organisation is larger than the British army how are
not going to have privately run megaliths, and don't just say split it up
as
that would just increase the problems (both from an organisational PoV
but
also for the patients).

Successive governments have allowed the NHS to grow like topsy into
the mess it is today.

Once you get past the assumption that one needs to have a centrally
run system, it all becomes much simpler.

Private sector healthcare providers would compete for the best medical
staff and the best but minimal administration. Natural selection
would result in the incompetent being left out of the equation.


Like it does (not) in the USA you mean....

As I've said, go and find out the fact, or even half the facts before
spouting your far right-wing clap.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip

*crew yourself, not the ill.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:23:21 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:36:08 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:17:16 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

This situation is changing with local loop unbundling.

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.

BT haven't exactly rushed into providing LLU, but have rightly been
dragged into it kicking and screaming by Oftel. It's far from being
free.


And why should they give up their infrastructure (that was given to them,
but that's another issue)

That's precisely *the* issue. The investment in copper was largely
made when it was a public corporation, so it is reasonable that other
companies should have access to it for reasonable price levels.

Well that argument would hold up if it was still the GPO and not a private
company that has modernised using there own funds....


The other companies still have to provide the switching and routing
infrastructure and that is far from cheap. They also have to satisfy
the customer.


But not the expensive cable networks...

As I said, they tried to provide their own networks but the cost was to
great, now they are trying to sponge off BT via Oftel.

In article ,
IMM wrote:
That was a serious consideration until a £1000 thermal store came along
for buttons. Then I used that.

Fell off the back of your van? What did the boss say?

--
*I didn't drive my husband crazy -- I flew him there -- it was faster

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

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:14:29 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Reminder: faulty fitting experience. Pipe cut brilliantly square. And you
put lots of Speeddfit in. Be afraid.

I've used quite a bit of lots of makes over the years, have followed
the instructions, used the right tools and never had any problems.

Speedfit? Be afraid. That ceiling may come crashing down.


That would be impossible.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:52:15 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


But you are, when an organisation is larger than the British army how are
not going to have privately run megaliths, and don't just say split it up
as
that would just increase the problems (both from an organisational PoV
but
also for the patients).

Successive governments have allowed the NHS to grow like topsy into
the mess it is today.

Once you get past the assumption that one needs to have a centrally
run system, it all becomes much simpler.

Private sector healthcare providers would compete for the best medical
staff and the best but minimal administration. Natural selection
would result in the incompetent being left out of the equation.


Like it does (not) in the USA you mean....

No I don't mean.


As I've said, go and find out the fact, or even half the facts before
spouting your far right-wing clap.

It is certainly not far right wing - simply thinking outside the
preconceived notion that the state should deliver health care.
The only need is the financial provision.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:00:47 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

snip

*crew yourself, not the ill.


Could you explain that in English?




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:05:03 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:



And why should they give up their infrastructure (that was given to them,
but that's another issue)

That's precisely *the* issue. The investment in copper was largely
made when it was a public corporation, so it is reasonable that other
companies should have access to it for reasonable price levels.

Well that argument would hold up if it was still the GPO and not a private
company that has modernised using there own funds....

You didn't read what I said. Most of the copper infrastructure was in
the ground prior to privatisation of BT. Post privatisation
investment has largely been in active infrastructure such as telephone
switches which LLU doesn't use.



The other companies still have to provide the switching and routing
infrastructure and that is far from cheap. They also have to satisfy
the customer.


But not the expensive cable networks...

As I said, they tried to provide their own networks but the cost was to
great, now they are trying to sponge off BT via Oftel.


You are confused about the business dynamic of the industry.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:21:37 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
IMM wrote:
That was a serious consideration until a £1000 thermal store came along
for buttons. Then I used that.

Fell off the back of your van? What did the boss say?

Two extra bales of hay for Dobbin to keep quiet I should think ;-)




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Frank Erskine wrote:
This situation is changing with local loop unbundling.


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...

And until someone comes up with a 'value add' that gets a big buy in to
finance it it will continue to be by slow copper with the accountants
wringing the last pennies of profit from it. The cost of fibre to the
home is x2 too expensive at the moment, and has been so for some time.
The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I
can't see it happening....Any ideas a what might trigger it?

Niel.

Can you use a 5A socket? Just a thought, or an IEC socket.

Regards
Capitol

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:44:03 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
strung together this:

IMM giving a practical
demonstration of his abilities.....

He has, none of us have seen anything whatsoever.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:52:15 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


But you are, when an organisation is larger than the British army how
are
not going to have privately run megaliths, and don't just say split it
up
as
that would just increase the problems (both from an organisational PoV
but
also for the patients).

Successive governments have allowed the NHS to grow like topsy into
the mess it is today.

Once you get past the assumption that one needs to have a centrally
run system, it all becomes much simpler.

Private sector healthcare providers would compete for the best medical
staff and the best but minimal administration. Natural selection
would result in the incompetent being left out of the equation.


Like it does (not) in the USA you mean....

No I don't mean.

Yes it is, as I said, find out the facts, you are in effect suggesting that
we go over to a system of medical insurance funded health care.



As I've said, go and find out the fact, or even half the facts before
spouting your far right-wing clap.

It is certainly not far right wing - simply thinking outside the
preconceived notion that the state should deliver health care.
The only need is the financial provision.


Well, suggesting the destruction of a working health system that treats on
need, rich or poor, is certainly the thinking of the far right - heck, even
Maggie blocked those suggestion, and they were thought about by some of her
(lets say) more nutty 'advisers'.

"Badger" wrote in message
...

snip

And until someone comes up with a 'value add' that gets a big buy in to
finance it it will continue to be by slow copper with the accountants
wringing the last pennies of profit from it. The cost of fibre to the
home is x2 too expensive at the moment, and has been so for some time.
The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I
can't see it happening....Any ideas a what might trigger it?


Taking telecom's back into public ownership and then funding it from
taxation.

The fact is, this country would never have had a national telecom's service
if it had been left to the 'venture capalists' of the day, at best large
towns or cities would have been invested in (like Hull was) and there would
have been the railways own telecom's system.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:51:34 GMT, Badger
wrote:



Frank Erskine wrote:
This situation is changing with local loop unbundling.


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...

And until someone comes up with a 'value add' that gets a big buy in to
finance it it will continue to be by slow copper with the accountants
wringing the last pennies of profit from it. The cost of fibre to the
home is x2 too expensive at the moment, and has been so for some time.
The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I
can't see it happening....Any ideas a what might trigger it?

Niel.

The marketeers at all of the service providers in the retail market
screwed themselves a couple of years ago by using the term 'broadband'
to describe any connectivity having a speed of greater than ISDN
speed. They also believed their own bull**** about the services it
could provide, such as entertainment quality video on demand.

The original definition of broadband related to cable TV technology
with RF spectrum split into multiple channels each able to deliver
entertainment quality video for the TV and in some cases to use spare
channels for data. Predominantly, the video was delivered in
analogue format and the technology was the basis of analogue CATV.

Other technologies such as DVB-C (digital transmission of more
channels of video in the analogue channels) and quality streaming of
video over IP have come along, so the original definition of it being
a pure RF medium have fallen by the wayside.

In effect, the correct definition of broadband, in terms of what the
service should be able to deliver have remained as the ability to
deliver entertainment quality video on TV to consumers as well as high
speed network connectivity.

During the dotcom boom, the vendors such as Real Networks and
Microsoft heavily promoted their originally crappy internet streaming
video running at 56k. This is an interesting toy, but not anywhere
near the league required for entertainment purposes. 2Mbits and
preferably 5 are needed for that on a large screen.

The 200k-odd streams are a world better than 56k, but still nowhere
near entertainment quality.

In the meantime, the marketeers, believing that 500k had the potential
to do this and likely the catchy 'broadband' name, sold the hell out
of it.

The result is that 500k is an interesting speed for internet access
for consumers but doesn't address the content applications to any
useful degree. In effect, the marketeers have screwed themselves.

In the meantime, Sky have come along and offer a scheduled movies "on
demand" with their Box Office product. They are doing pretty well
with subscriptions.

There certainly is a market for video on demand services in the home,
but the quality will have to be high and the bandwidth there to match.

Most of the other applications that have been discussed fall into this
category as well. THe technology has been overhyped and people's
expectations have been set that they can get a lot for a little.










--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

The fact is, this country would never have had a national telecom's service
if it had been left to the 'venture capalists' of the day,

Hmm, I wonder if the USA knows about this?

Regards
Capitol

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:14:56 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Badger" wrote in message
...

snip

And until someone comes up with a 'value add' that gets a big buy in to
finance it it will continue to be by slow copper with the accountants
wringing the last pennies of profit from it. The cost of fibre to the
home is x2 too expensive at the moment, and has been so for some time.
The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I
can't see it happening....Any ideas a what might trigger it?


Taking telecom's back into public ownership and then funding it from
taxation.

Oh good grief. What utter communist bull****.



The fact is, this country would never have had a national telecom's service
if it had been left to the 'venture capalists' of the day, at best large
towns or cities would have been invested in (like Hull was) and there would
have been the railways own telecom's system.


If you look at the former state run telcos across Europe, they fall
into several bands.

- Those who were privatised completely early on such as BT have been
the most successful in the market.

- Those who were privatised later, but where the government retained
share control (i.e. arms length influence) have done reasonably well
but mostly on a regional or national basis only

- Those who were privatised late and have struggled as a result, even
in their home market.

The reason is startlingly obvious. Governments do not run businesses
well.

Even the former large communist states have privatised telecoms, so
only a total idiot would suggest a reversal into state ownership.

Only the diehards like North Korea and Cuba promote this nonsense and
they are hardly shining examples of anything.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...


snip far right-wing bull****

Oh just **** off you right wing moaning ****.

You wouldn't know the real world if it came along and shoved your silver
spoon so far down your throat you ended up sitting on it. One day you might
just start thinking about those less fortunate than yourself, but I doubt
it, you to much in love with your wallet.

"I'm alright so **** the rest of you", sums you up very nicely.

In article ,
Badger wrote:
And until someone comes up with a 'value add' that gets a big buy in to
finance it it will continue to be by slow copper with the accountants
wringing the last pennies of profit from it. The cost of fibre to the
home is x2 too expensive at the moment, and has been so for some time.
The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I
can't see it happening....Any ideas a what might trigger it?

I can't understand why the cable boys didn't use fibre - I can't see it
would have been that much more. Rumour has it the feeds to each area are
anyway.

I've not got it, but my neighbour has. Just installed a Freeview box for
her and got a chance to play with it. Not nearly as good as off air.
Suppose their modulators are cheap and cheerful too.

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

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

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:39:08 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:



Oh just **** off you right wing moaning ****.

There's no need to be rude.


You wouldn't know the real world if it came along and shoved your silver
spoon so far down your throat you ended up sitting on it. One day you might
just start thinking about those less fortunate than yourself, but I doubt
it, you to much in love with your wallet.

"I'm alright so **** the rest of you", sums you up very nicely.


You don't seem to be capable of reading what is actually said and
having an intelligent discussion about it, but prefer to come to
completely incorrect conclusions based on your prejudices.

Had you taken the trouble to read what I clearly said on the issue of
public services, I went to a great deal of trouble to suggest
alternatives to the current wasteful approaches that were completely
inclusive of the less fortunate and would actually benefit them.

If I were being selfish, I would have suggested that everybody should
make their own arrangements with no public funding. I didn't do that.

It's a great shame when people are blinkered by their prejudices to
the extent that they find it necessary to use obscenity to make their
point.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
IMM wrote:
Now look at the water industry. What a shambles. The service
levels are appalling. Every house should have 50 litres/min of
water at 4 bar. Do we get it like other countries? Not on your
Nelly. We spend a fortune on antiquated tank and cylinder systems
to cope with the appalling water supply. To have a shower in which
you don't have to run around in to get wet we have to install pumps.

I know of new houses which still only have 1/2" plastic mains pipes
fitted. Unbelievable.

So this means your continual recommendation to fit combis everywhere
is
based, as I've always thought, on an argument made of straw?

Either the water supplies in this country are up to it or they're not.
You've said they're not, but still recommend combis which can't work
as
well as a storage system. What a ******.

What a dork! My water supply can take about 5 combi's. Many others
are the same too.

So even two combis aren't enough now?

Two is fine for me. In other homes 5 is adequate.

Sadly many supplies are not and I feel
sorry for these people as they are
being short changed.

Then why do you always recommend
combis - regardless of whether they work
properly or not in the individual circumstances?

I recommend them when they are the ideal solution. They work well when I
recommend them. Not knowing anything you would not see this.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:56:50 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:25:47 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

snip

Bureaucracy comes with size. I have come across large private
companies
that are more bureaucratic than government agencies.

Of course, which is why I was not proposing replacing state run
megaliths with privately run megaliths.


But you are, when an organisation is larger than the British army how are
not going to have privately run megaliths, and don't just say split it up
as
that would just increase the problems (both from an organisational PoV
but
also for the patients).

Successive governments have allowed the NHS to grow like topsy into
the mess it is today.

There was nothing wrong with the NHS before your darling Thatcher got her
dirty mitts on it.

I recall one idiot Tory MP on TV slagging them because they didn't know the
cost of say an appendix operation. So they brought in tons of managers to
cost it all up. The costings were to prepare for privatisation as companies
only understand money figures. The NHS, quite rightly said we don't need to
know the cost. We provide the treatment and drugs and charge. Very simple
very effective.

snip disjointed babble

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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:56:50 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:25:47 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

snip

Bureaucracy comes with size. I have come across large private
companies
that are more bureaucratic than government agencies.

Of course, which is why I was not proposing replacing state run
megaliths with privately run megaliths.


But you are, when an organisation is larger than the British army how
are
not going to have privately run megaliths, and don't just say split it
up
as
that would just increase the problems (both from an organisational PoV
but
also for the patients).

Successive governments have allowed the NHS to grow like topsy into
the mess it is today.

Once you get past the assumption that one needs to have a centrally
run system, it all becomes much simpler.

Private sector healthcare providers would compete for the best medical
staff and the best but minimal administration. Natural selection
would result in the incompetent being left out of the equation.


Like it does (not) in the USA you mean....

As I've said, go and find out the fact, or even half the facts before
spouting your far right-wing clap.

Andy, the rambling thoughts of an obsessed mind.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
IMM wrote:
That was a serious consideration until a £1000 thermal store came along
for buttons. Then I used that.

Fell off the back of your van? What did the boss say?

I don't have a boss or a van. I use people like you to lift things.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:52:15 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


But you are, when an organisation is larger than the British army how
are
not going to have privately run megaliths, and don't just say split it
up
as
that would just increase the problems (both from an organisational PoV
but
also for the patients).

Successive governments have allowed the NHS to grow like topsy into
the mess it is today.

Once you get past the assumption that one needs to have a centrally
run system, it all becomes much simpler.

Private sector healthcare providers would compete for the best medical
staff and the best but minimal administration. Natural selection
would result in the incompetent being left out of the equation.


Like it does (not) in the USA you mean....

No I don't mean.

Of couse you don't. You actulay do bweklive the disjointed obessed babble
you prattle. sad but true.

It is certainly not far right wing

It is and your are a brainwashed far righter. Not that that sort of
government would make your life better, as it will not. It is just that you
don't know that.

How much have you given to the rich today?


- simply
thinking outside the preconceived notion
that the state should deliver health care.
The only need is the financial provision.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:14:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Andy, the rambling thoughts of an obsessed mind.

Not exactly making this point from a position of strength are you ?
:-)



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:14:56 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Badger" wrote in message
...

snip

And until someone comes up with a 'value add' that gets a big buy in to
finance it it will continue to be by slow copper with the accountants
wringing the last pennies of profit from it. The cost of fibre to the
home is x2 too expensive at the moment, and has been so for some time.
The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I
can't see it happening....Any ideas a what might trigger it?


Taking telecom's back into public ownership and then funding it from
taxation.

Oh good grief. What utter communist bull****.

Here he goes again. He keeps seeing these reds under the bed too.
Interesting. How the mind of the brainwashed Little Middle Englander works.
Fascinating..

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:14:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




Andy, the rambling thoughts of an obsessed mind.

Not exactly making this point from a position of strength are you ?
:-)

From a position of sensible observation. Sad but true.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:39:08 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:



Oh just **** off you right wing moaning ****.

There's no need to be rude.

Well stop being obnoxious yourself, when have I ever said I was a communist,
you totally missed the point I was making, that there would never be the
funding for a completely nationwide fibre telecom's network as the cost is
just far to great, just as a national telephone network was pre the
formation of the GPO and HMG funding.



You wouldn't know the real world if it came along and shoved your silver
spoon so far down your throat you ended up sitting on it. One day you
might
just start thinking about those less fortunate than yourself, but I doubt
it, you to much in love with your wallet.

"I'm alright so **** the rest of you", sums you up very nicely.


You don't seem to be capable of reading what is actually said and
having an intelligent discussion about it, but prefer to come to
completely incorrect conclusions based on your prejudices.
snip the rest oif your self centered bollox

It's pot, kettle, black time it seems, take your nose out of your wallet and
you might just see the real world beyond that of share dividends and
director bonuses. Neither are required to run a cost effective service, you
just need good management who don't create jobs for their 'buddies' - which
is what is happening ATM whist the front line staff are both over worked and
(mostly) under paid.

I've seen [1] the money that is wasted on back room departments within the
NHS, I've seen what is spent by those back room accounting departments on
the wards whilst they (the accounts) buy only the best for themselves - all
in the name of the internal market being run like a private business. I
doubt that you have walked into the front door of an NHS hospital, let a
lone one of the back doors...

[1] working for a NHS supplier, I've also got friends who do or have worked
as front line (ward) staff.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:13:04 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

Successive governments have allowed the NHS to grow like topsy into
the mess it is today.

There was nothing wrong with the NHS before your darling Thatcher got her
dirty mitts on it.

You may want to review its chequered history before 1979 before making
that point.


I recall one idiot Tory MP on TV slagging them because they didn't know the
cost of say an appendix operation. So they brought in tons of managers to
cost it all up. The costings were to prepare for privatisation as companies
only understand money figures. The NHS, quite rightly said we don't need to
know the cost.

Of course they need to know the cost, although I agree that they don't
need a huge army of government bureaucrats to figure it out.

Go and take a look at the NICE web site and the clinical policies and
you will discover that they are not nice at all.

Then go and look at a random sample of clinical studies.

www.pubmed.gov is a good resource with references to papers from all
over the world. If you select on almost any common medical
condition and NHS, you will find that this organisation thinks about
cost a lot. The problem is that the savings are attempted at the
sharp end and not in the fat belly where they should be.


We provide the treatment and drugs and charge. Very simple
very effective.

It wouldn't be a problem if they did.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:39:08 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:



Oh just **** off you right wing moaning ****.

There's no need to be rude.

His frustration is easy to understand.

"I'm alright so **** the rest of you", sums you up very nicely.

This is true.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:13:04 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

Successive governments have allowed the NHS to grow like topsy into
the mess it is today.

There was nothing wrong with the NHS before your darling Thatcher got her
dirty mitts on it.

You may want to review its chequered history before 1979 before making
that point.

It was fine until the wicked witch and her disfunctional family came about.

I recall one idiot Tory MP on TV slagging them because they didn't know
the
cost of say an appendix operation. So they brought in tons of managers
to
cost it all up. The costings were to prepare for privatisation as
companies
only understand money figures. The NHS, quite rightly said we don't need
to
know the cost.

Of course they need to know the cost,

They don't. It has to be paid for, so bloody what. We don't need managers
to price every band aid.

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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:39:08 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

Oh just **** off you right wing moaning ****.

There's no need to be rude.

Well stop being obnoxious yourself,
when have I ever said I was a communist,
you totally missed the point I was making

He always does. Sad but true.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 23:43:48 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Badger wrote:
And until someone comes up with a 'value add' that gets a big buy in to
finance it it will continue to be by slow copper with the accountants
wringing the last pennies of profit from it. The cost of fibre to the
home is x2 too expensive at the moment, and has been so for some time.
The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I
can't see it happening....Any ideas a what might trigger it?

I can't understand why the cable boys didn't use fibre - I can't see it
would have been that much more. Rumour has it the feeds to each area are
anyway.

I've not got it, but my neighbour has. Just installed a Freeview box for
her and got a chance to play with it. Not nearly as good as off air.
Suppose their modulators are cheap and cheerful too.

I had opportunity to look at this first hand when involved in a
debacle with NTL over ISDN provisioning.

From my house, the nearest cabinet is about 50m away. That cabling
is done in CTsomething coax and several telephone pairs in a formed
bundle cable going from a box on the wall to the cabinet.

In the cabinet there is a distribution amplifier and telephone
punchdown frame.

From that point, there is a coax cable (CTbigger something) going back
about 500m along with others to a rather larger distribution cabinet.
Multipair telephone cables go between cabinets as well.
In these larger cabinets there is fibre equipment, RF headends and
larger telephone punchdown panels. I understand that the fibres are
arranged in loops between large cabinets.

So in effect, fibre is two steps away from the house.
Although it's easy to lay fibre, terminating it is a bit more
difficult, needing a trained orang utan rather than a chimpanzee.
Also, the distribution amplifiers in the cabinets nearest to homes are
quite cheap. Fibre distribution equipment is rather more expensive.
Then there would need to be fibre termination in the home....


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

":::Jerry::::" wrote
| I did pillock.
| What, as an exam course?
| No. a brick course. Or was it the starter course.

Mmmm, deep-fried pillock and chips with sauce tartare.

| More likely a damp course.
| Might be better if it has been a 'foundation course', IMM
| giving a practical demonstration of his abilities.....

Dear god no, don't let him near foundations.

Owain

PS Very interesting article on German houses in one of the self build mags
in WHSmiths at the moment.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:40:42 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




It was fine until the wicked witch and her disfunctional family came about.

Cherie's not all bad.......


I recall one idiot Tory MP on TV slagging them because they didn't know
the
cost of say an appendix operation. So they brought in tons of managers
to
cost it all up. The costings were to prepare for privatisation as
companies
only understand money figures. The NHS, quite rightly said we don't need
to
know the cost.

Of course they need to know the cost,

They don't. It has to be paid for, so bloody what.

The 'bloody what' is that this is tax payer's money and should be
spent responsibly.


We don't need managers
to price every band aid.

I don't disagree with that, but it doesn't mean that blank cheques can
be written.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl