UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
GregB
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

I recently asked about replacing a back boiler on here and the help
given was very useful. Unfortunately due to some stupidity on our part
I need some advice on fitting a flue extension.

Our new boiler is a Worcester Greenstar HE 28 Condensing System type
which we have had installed in our basement. The standard horizontal
flue has been fitted which goes out the back of the house near to a
shared back path. Out neighbours have already commented on the
excessive steam being produced. We have decided it will be necessary
to raise the flue outlet so I have some questions.

1. Can the Worcester extension parts be used externally? This is the
most important bit as extending internally could be very problematic

2. If No.1 is possible can the vertical outlet be used on the side
wall of the house? The diagrams on the product information show this
part on roofs but it would be helpful if this can be used on the side
wall near to the back window.

3. If 1 & 2 are Ok to do my rough measurements indicate that we will
need the following piping to get the required distance up the house
- Bend connector, 1 metre horizontal extension, bend connector,
1-meter vertical extension, Vertical outlet unit.

If none of the above is possible then we'll probably have to resite
the boiler in the kitchen which, although possible will be a real pain
and will completely cock up the plans for our new kitchen

Any help or advice will be gratefully received

Cheers

GregB.
  #2   Report Post  
Christian McArdle
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

1. Can the Worcester extension parts be used externally? This is the
most important bit as extending internally could be very problematic


Yes.

2. If No.1 is possible can the vertical outlet be used on the side
wall of the house? The diagrams on the product information show this
part on roofs but it would be helpful if this can be used on the side
wall near to the back window.


I don't think you can use the vertical terminal on a wall. They have a
technical number, which you could call for advice. When I called, they said
I could use the horizontal flue turret adaptor off the boiler (which came
with the boiler), go horizontal, use a 90 degree vertical and end with the
vertical terminal. Such a route might save you a 90 degree bend, or allow
the boiler to be mounted further up the wall.

If none of the above is possible then we'll probably have to resite
the boiler in the kitchen which, although possible will be a real pain
and will completely cock up the plans for our new kitchen


You could always use enough vertical extensions to get up to the roof line,
where the vertical piece would be allowed. This would probably be cheaper
than moving the boiler. Also, depending on the layout, you might be able to
go horizontal after you reach a convenient height. However, this might look
a bit weird if you don't have a rear extension or similar feature to hide
it.

I wonder why your plumber allowed the flue to be installed directly onto a
shared path?

Christian.


  #3   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"GregB" wrote in message
om...

I recently asked about replacing a back boiler on here and the help
given was very useful. Unfortunately due to some stupidity on our part
I need some advice on fitting a flue extension.

Our new boiler is a Worcester Greenstar HE 28 Condensing System type
which we have had installed in our basement. The standard horizontal
flue has been fitted which goes out the back of the house near to a
shared back path. Out neighbours have already commented on the
excessive steam being produced. We have decided it will be necessary
to raise the flue outlet so I have some questions.

1. Can the Worcester extension parts be used externally? This is the
most important bit as extending internally could be very problematic


Extending externally is fine. If the gasses cool and condense even further
then they will just flow back into the boiler. No problem.

2. If No.1 is possible can the vertical outlet be used on the side
wall of the house? The diagrams on the product information show this
part on roofs but it would be helpful if this can be used on the side
wall near to the back window.


Best take it up over the eves. But contact Worcester tech dept about it.
get your Q formulated right before you ring them to make sure you get the
right answer. The problem with terminating vertically up a wall is that you
will make it damp.

3. If 1 & 2 are Ok to do my rough measurements indicate that we will
need the following piping to get the required distance up the house
- Bend connector, 1 metre horizontal extension, bend connector,
1-meter vertical extension, Vertical outlet unit.

If none of the above is possible then we'll probably have to resite
the boiler in the kitchen which, although possible will be a real pain
and will completely cock up the plans for our new kitchen


Just take the flue pipe up as high as possible over the eves. If this
visually makes the house look crap, then re-sight the boiler.


  #4   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:53:46 +0100, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

1. Can the Worcester extension parts be used externally? This is the
most important bit as extending internally could be very problematic


Yes.

2. If No.1 is possible can the vertical outlet be used on the side
wall of the house? The diagrams on the product information show this
part on roofs but it would be helpful if this can be used on the side
wall near to the back window.


I don't think you can use the vertical terminal on a wall. They have a
technical number, which you could call for advice. When I called, they said
I could use the horizontal flue turret adaptor off the boiler (which came
with the boiler), go horizontal, use a 90 degree vertical and end with the
vertical terminal. Such a route might save you a 90 degree bend, or allow
the boiler to be mounted further up the wall.


Do they not do an adaptor to convert to twin 50mm plastic, a la
Keston?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #5   Report Post  
Christian McArdle
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

Do they not do an adaptor to convert to twin 50mm plastic, a la
Keston?


They didn't when I installed mine. They had 100mm and 125mm concentric
variations, but no drainpipe version. They may have developed one since,
though.

Christian.




  #6   Report Post  
Andrew Gabriel
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

In article ,
"IMM" writes:

Extending externally is fine. If the gasses cool and condense even further
then they will just flow back into the boiler. No problem.


IIRC, the Keston allows a max of only 4m of flue draining back
into the boiler. Anything longer than this and you have to add
additional condensate drain-off points. It shows you how to make
them in the boiler instructions.

--
Andrew Gabriel
  #7   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"IMM" writes:

Extending externally is fine. If the gasses cool and condense even

further
then they will just flow back into the boiler. No problem.


IIRC, the Keston allows a max of only 4m of flue draining back
into the boiler. Anything longer than this and you have to add
additional condensate drain-off points. It shows you how to make
them in the boiler instructions.


This is a Worcester. The makers are best contacted for situations like
this.


  #8   Report Post  
GregB
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message . net...
1. Can the Worcester extension parts be used externally? This is the
most important bit as extending internally could be very problematic


Yes.


Excellent.


2. If No.1 is possible can the vertical outlet be used on the side
wall of the house? The diagrams on the product information show this
part on roofs but it would be helpful if this can be used on the side
wall near to the back window.


I don't think you can use the vertical terminal on a wall. They have a
technical number, which you could call for advice. When I called, they said
I could use the horizontal flue turret adaptor off the boiler (which came
with the boiler), go horizontal, use a 90 degree vertical and end with the
vertical terminal. Such a route might save you a 90 degree bend, or allow
the boiler to be mounted further up the wall.
If none of the above is possible then we'll probably have to resite
the boiler in the kitchen which, although possible will be a real pain
and will completely cock up the plans for our new kitchen


You could always use enough vertical extensions to get up to the roof line,
where the vertical piece would be allowed. This would probably be cheaper
than moving the boiler. Also, depending on the layout, you might be able to
go horizontal after you reach a convenient height. However, this might look
a bit weird if you don't have a rear extension or similar feature to hide
it.


Thanks for those solutions. It's good to hear we can just use the
horizontal turret as the vertical terminal seems to be quite
expensive. I don;t think we can go to the roof because (if I've read
the specs right) it will be too long a run. However there is a
suitable spot foe the outlest a vcouple of metreas up and one metre
across so we'll probably go with piping that allows us to site it
there


I wonder why your plumber allowed the flue to be installed directly onto a
shared path?


Indeed. TBH I'm clueless at this type of thing so we just trusted him
to do it correctly. Serves me right for not researching fully before
going ahead with the install. I suppose I'm lucky that it doesn't seem
to be too expensive to resolve the problem

Christian.


Many thanks for your speedy reply. It is much appreciated.


GregB.
  #9   Report Post  
GregB
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

"IMM" wrote in message ...
"GregB" wrote in message
om...

I recently asked about replacing a back boiler on here and the help
given was very useful. Unfortunately due to some stupidity on our part
I need some advice on fitting a flue extension.

Our new boiler is a Worcester Greenstar HE 28 Condensing System type
which we have had installed in our basement. The standard horizontal
flue has been fitted which goes out the back of the house near to a
shared back path. Out neighbours have already commented on the
excessive steam being produced. We have decided it will be necessary
to raise the flue outlet so I have some questions.

1. Can the Worcester extension parts be used externally? This is the
most important bit as extending internally could be very problematic


Extending externally is fine. If the gasses cool and condense even further
then they will just flow back into the boiler. No problem.

2. If No.1 is possible can the vertical outlet be used on the side
wall of the house? The diagrams on the product information show this
part on roofs but it would be helpful if this can be used on the side
wall near to the back window.


Best take it up over the eves. But contact Worcester tech dept about it.
get your Q formulated right before you ring them to make sure you get the
right answer. The problem with terminating vertically up a wall is that you
will make it damp.

3. If 1 & 2 are Ok to do my rough measurements indicate that we will
need the following piping to get the required distance up the house
- Bend connector, 1 metre horizontal extension, bend connector,
1-meter vertical extension, Vertical outlet unit.

If none of the above is possible then we'll probably have to resite
the boiler in the kitchen which, although possible will be a real pain
and will completely cock up the plans for our new kitchen


Just take the flue pipe up as high as possible over the eves. If this
visually makes the house look crap, then re-sight the boiler.


After some thought we have decided to take it up to the eves as you
suggest using the vertical extensions. I spoke to Worcester earlier
about the terminating on the wall and they said it could be done but
it would look really odd. Other houses in our street have similar
pipework so it wouldn't look out of place.

The last thing to check is the height problem. The total run will be
approx 7/8 metres which will probably be OK provided we use the 125mm
rather than the standard 100mm extensions. I'll double check this with
Worcester tomorrow

Thanks again for all the help
  #10   Report Post  
MIKE THORNE
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"GregB" wrote in message
om...
"Christian McArdle" wrote in message

. net...



I wonder why your plumber allowed the flue to be installed directly onto

a
shared path?


Indeed. TBH I'm clueless at this type of thing so we just trusted him
to do it correctly. Serves me right for not researching fully before
going ahead with the install. I suppose I'm lucky that it doesn't seem
to be too expensive to resolve the problem

Christian.


Many thanks for your speedy reply. It is much appreciated.


GregB.


You presumably employed a plumber to do the thinking for you if he has
cocked up, he should put it right, read the fitting instructions re flue. It
will probably state that the flue should not terminate on a shared path, if
that don't the building regs do, (which we will all have to adhere to soon)
if you think you have a case contact Corgi.




  #11   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"MIKE THORNE" wrote in message
...

"GregB" wrote in message
om...
"Christian McArdle" wrote in message

. net...



I wonder why your plumber allowed the flue to be installed directly

onto
a
shared path?


Indeed. TBH I'm clueless at this type of thing so we just trusted him
to do it correctly. Serves me right for not researching fully before
going ahead with the install. I suppose I'm lucky that it doesn't seem
to be too expensive to resolve the problem

Christian.


Many thanks for your speedy reply. It is much appreciated.

GregB.


You presumably employed a plumber to do the thinking for you if he has
cocked up, he should put it right, read the fitting instructions re flue.

It
will probably state that the flue should not terminate on a shared path,


There is nothing to say a flue cannot terminate on shared path or landing.

if
that don't the building regs do, (which we will all have to adhere to

soon)
if you think you have a case contact Corgi.


CORGI? What can they do? They don't make the regs. They are a self
interest group.


  #12   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:26:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




CORGI? What can they do? They don't make the regs. They are a self
interest group.

True, but whether you like it or not, they are the body designated by
the HSE, who in turn are designated by law to which professional
fitters must belong.

I would remind you that your pugilistic pal wants to extend the same
concept across the entire construction and maintenance industry.

I don't like it either, and wrote to my MP about it. Twice. Why don't
you write to Raynsford about it, or his boss or even his boss's boss?








..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #13   Report Post  
Colin Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

There is nothing to say a flue cannot terminate on shared path or landing.

I thought i`d seen something in the Worcester Bosch install guide about
not fitting it in a shared passageway, and that a boiler with a fanned
flue should have something like 1.5m horizontal seperation.

There may also be height considerations in a shared passageway - it might
be possible for someone to inadvertantly come into contact with the flue.

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-generated spam *
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---
  #14   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:26:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




CORGI? What can they do? They don't make the regs. They are a self
interest group.

True, but whether you like it or not, they are the body designated by
the HSE, who in turn are designated by law to which professional
fitters must belong.

I would remind you that your pugilistic pal wants to extend the same
concept across the entire construction and maintenance industry.

I don't like it either, and wrote to my MP about it. Twice. Why don't
you write to Raynsford about it, or his boss or even his boss's boss?


Do you think Thatcher is worth writing to.


  #15   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"Colin Wilson" wrote in message
t...
There is nothing to say a flue cannot terminate on shared path or

landing.

I thought i`d seen something in the Worcester Bosch install guide about
not fitting it in a shared passageway, and that a boiler with a fanned
flue should have something like 1.5m horizontal seperation.

There may also be height considerations in a shared passageway - it might
be possible for someone to inadvertantly come into contact with the flue.


Depending on the size of the passageway. A 2 to 2.5 meter wide passageway
is fine.




  #16   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:43:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:26:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




CORGI? What can they do? They don't make the regs. They are a self
interest group.

True, but whether you like it or not, they are the body designated by
the HSE, who in turn are designated by law to which professional
fitters must belong.

I would remind you that your pugilistic pal wants to extend the same
concept across the entire construction and maintenance industry.

I don't like it either, and wrote to my MP about it. Twice. Why don't
you write to Raynsford about it, or his boss or even his boss's boss?


Do you think Thatcher is worth writing to.


These days, possibly not; although it may well be more effective even
now than writing to the hard of thinking in the ODPM.

One may not have agreed with the Baroness's actions, but at least
there was never any confusion over where she stood on important
issues.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #17   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:43:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:26:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




CORGI? What can they do? They don't make the regs. They are a self
interest group.

True, but whether you like it or not, they are the body designated by
the HSE, who in turn are designated by law to which professional
fitters must belong.

I would remind you that your pugilistic pal wants to extend the same
concept across the entire construction and maintenance industry.

I don't like it either, and wrote to my MP about it. Twice. Why don't
you write to Raynsford about it, or his boss or even his boss's boss?


Do you think Thatcher is worth writing to.


These days, possibly not; although it may well be more effective even
now than writing to the hard of thinking in the ODPM.

One may not have agreed with the Baroness's actions, but at least
there was never any confusion over where she stood on important
issues.


Yep, always stood in the wrong place. The women was such a failure.


  #18   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:08:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:43:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:26:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




CORGI? What can they do? They don't make the regs. They are a self
interest group.

True, but whether you like it or not, they are the body designated by
the HSE, who in turn are designated by law to which professional
fitters must belong.

I would remind you that your pugilistic pal wants to extend the same
concept across the entire construction and maintenance industry.

I don't like it either, and wrote to my MP about it. Twice. Why don't
you write to Raynsford about it, or his boss or even his boss's boss?

Do you think Thatcher is worth writing to.


These days, possibly not; although it may well be more effective even
now than writing to the hard of thinking in the ODPM.

One may not have agreed with the Baroness's actions, but at least
there was never any confusion over where she stood on important
issues.


Yep, always stood in the wrong place. The women was such a failure.


That depends on your perspective. Now then, about failures - you
have failed to comment on government over-legislation in the
construction industry. Do you have anything meaningful to say on the
subject, or are you going to continue with the same diversionary
tactics as ((jag++)++) and his cronies?



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #19   Report Post  
Colin Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

I thought i`d seen something in the Worcester Bosch install guide about
not fitting it in a shared passageway, and that a boiler with a fanned
flue should have something like 1.5m horizontal seperation.
There may also be height considerations in a shared passageway - it might
be possible for someone to inadvertantly come into contact with the flue.

Depending on the size of the passageway. A 2 to 2.5 meter wide passageway
is fine.


Ours isn`t that wide. Yes, its almost useless.

--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-generated spam *
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---
  #20   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:08:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:43:27 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:26:24 +0100, "IMM"

wrote:




CORGI? What can they do? They don't make the regs. They are a

self
interest group.

True, but whether you like it or not, they are the body designated

by
the HSE, who in turn are designated by law to which professional
fitters must belong.

I would remind you that your pugilistic pal wants to extend the same
concept across the entire construction and maintenance industry.

I don't like it either, and wrote to my MP about it. Twice. Why

don't
you write to Raynsford about it, or his boss or even his boss's

boss?

Do you think Thatcher is worth writing to.


These days, possibly not; although it may well be more effective even
now than writing to the hard of thinking in the ODPM.

One may not have agreed with the Baroness's actions, but at least
there was never any confusion over where she stood on important
issues.


Yep, always stood in the wrong place. The women was such a failure.


That depends on your perspective.


She promised all a meritocracy and totally failed.

Now then, about failures - you
have failed to comment on government
over-legislation in the construction industry.


Andy, you have it wrong. The government should regulate even more. The
quality of the crap dished up by construction companies is dire. More
pre-checks, and bigger fines for obvious not nailing down roofs and the
likes, should be done. Checks for quality not just structural soundness,
should undertaken, not re-active suing, as only parasite lawyers make money
then. The best way is to prevent the poor quality in the first place. The
UK has an international reputation of being cowboys. Lat year the big house
builders made record profits with the lowest number of homes built since the
1920s. In the 1920s the population was only in the 40 millions too, making
this even worse when the big picture is fully viewed.

Do you have anything meaningful to say on the
subject,


See above and no doubt you were astounded.

or are you going to continue with the same diversionary
tactics as ((jag++)++) and his cronies?


Prescott should dish out a few left hooks, that is clear. The ST Rich list
still puts parasite landowners and large construction company owners as the
richest people in the UK. Foreign billionaires using London as a sort of
base, with pet footy teams too, don't count as UK billionaires.





  #21   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:17:23 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Andy, you have it wrong. The government should regulate even more.


Nonsense. There is seldom a justification for increased regulation
and legislation and this is certainly not one of them.

The
quality of the crap dished up by construction companies is dire. More
pre-checks, and bigger fines for obvious not nailing down roofs and the
likes, should be done.


The problem is where does one draw the line? To check on every
detail would require a huge army of inspectors and administrators.
This isn't wealth creating, and too large a proportion of the
workforce is in administrative work as it is.


Checks for quality not just structural soundness,
should undertaken, not re-active suing, as only parasite lawyers make money
then.


I'm not in favour of parasite lawyers making money, but if heavy fines
and compensation were awarded against errant construction companies
then they would take notice and control their activities rather
better.

The best way is to prevent the poor quality in the first place.


I don't disagree with that, but it should be the responsibility of the
construction company. It is with every other product that the
consumer buys.

Since a lot of problems with a house don't appear for a period of
time, then a proper guarantee covering most aspects of the house
should be required and implemented properly, not the weak NHBC thing
that we have today.

Perhaps there should be an escrow system for the last X% of the
purchase money of a new property. In other words the purchaser pays
most of the money to the developer in the usual way but X% goes into a
separate account, not under either party's control for a period of say
a year. At the end of the year, the purchaser signs a release for
the money if all is satisfactory and the developer receives this plus
any interest. Having the money outside the direct control of either
party makes sure that it is available as long as the contract
conditions have been met.



The
UK has an international reputation of being cowboys. Lat year the big house
builders made record profits with the lowest number of homes built since the
1920s. In the 1920s the population was only in the 40 millions too, making
this even worse when the big picture is fully viewed.


That's a separate issue. There's nothing wrong with making profits.

Numbers of houses built is a separate issue to their quality, except
in that large building rates exacerbate the skills shortage which
hardly helps quality either.

The real problems are threefold:

- Customers wanting things on the cheap

- Customers not complaining when things are wrong

- Lack of encouragement and incentive for young people to go into the
construction industry because the idiot in No. 10 wants them to go to
"universities".




Do you have anything meaningful to say on the
subject,


See above and no doubt you were astounded.


I was.


or are you going to continue with the same diversionary
tactics as ((jag++)++) and his cronies?


Prescott should dish out a few left hooks, that is clear. The ST Rich list
still puts parasite landowners and large construction company owners as the
richest people in the UK.


Nothing wrong with that.

Foreign billionaires using London as a sort of
base, with pet footy teams too, don't count as UK billionaires.

or that.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #22   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:17:23 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


Andy, you have it wrong. The government
should regulate even more.


Nonsense. There is seldom a justification
for increased regulation and legislation


and this is certainly one of them.

The
quality of the crap dished up by construction companies is dire. More
pre-checks, and bigger fines for obvious not nailing down roofs and the
likes, should be done.


The problem is where does one draw the line?


You can adopt the German method, of qualified builders, instead of any Tom ,
Dick or Harry doing it. If you do crap, and proven, then you are suspended
or stuck off and you can't work on building.

Checks for quality not just structural soundness,
should undertaken, not reactive suing, as
only parasite lawyers make money
then.


I'm not in favour of parasite lawyers
making money, but if heavy fines
and compensation were awarded
against errant construction companies
then they would take notice and control
their activities rather better.


No. They just dissolve the company and start under a different name. The
usual palaver. And the cowboys reign supreme.

The best way is to prevent the poor quality in the first place.


I don't disagree with that, but
it should be the responsibility of the
construction company.


It is now, but the cowboyism continues.

It is with every other product that the
consumer buys.


A house is quite different to a toaster.

Since a lot of problems with a house don't appear for a period of
time, then a proper guarantee covering most aspects of the house
should be required and implemented properly, not the weak NHBC thing
that we have today.


Proper guarantees should be in place, they are not. NHBC is for the
interest of the builders. They formed it.

Perhaps there should be an escrow system for the last X% of the
purchase money of a new property. In other words the purchaser pays
most of the money to the developer in the usual way but X% goes into a
separate account, not under either party's control for a period of say
a year. At the end of the year, the purchaser signs a release for
the money if all is satisfactory and the developer receives this plus
any interest. Having the money outside the direct control of either
party makes sure that it is available as long as the contract
conditions have been met.


A similar thing happens for the roads, etc. Developers pay up front to the
council in some cases, so that they can't dissolve a company and not finish
the roads and pavements stealing a wedge.

The
UK has an international reputation of being cowboys. Lat year the big

house
builders made record profits with the lowest number of homes built since

the
1920s. In the 1920s the population was only in the 40 millions too,

making
this even worse when the big picture is fully viewed.


That's a separate issue. There's nothing
wrong with making profits.


Nothing wrong at all. But when you look at the state of the quality of
design and construction it makes you weep at the money these cowboys are
making. Watch Dog exposing 60 houses of Westbury, supposed to be a better
builder, with roofs not nailed down. Westbury would not recheck all 60
homes; look at the profits they made last year and they will not recheck
roofs that are known to be faulty. That is just the tip of the iceberg too.
One poster here said roofs not being nailed down is the norm.

Then still 50% of new homes still have old fashioned tanks in the loft too,
need stupid power shower pumps so they don't have to run around the shower
to get wet.

The way you defend cowboyism and the vast profits they make, leads me to
believe you may have a cowboy streak in you too.

The real problems are threefold:

- Customers wanting things on the cheap


UK houses are "CHEAP"!!!!!! What world are you in????

- Customers not complaining when things are wrong


Many problems are underlying and are potential time bombs. The after sales
service in most cases, as the consumer TV progs show, is sparse or none
existent.

- Lack of encouragement and incentive
for young people to go into the
construction industry because the
idiot in No. 10 wants them to go to
"universities".


We need people to go to universities, as history will show that a highly
educated population always prospers. You are full of petty snobbery as you
don't want your Little Middle Englander kids being in the same uni as your
kids. Pathetic!

There is a long waiting list for plumbing and heating courses which
rubbishes your petty snob views.

Do you have anything meaningful to say on the
subject,


See above and no doubt you were astounded.


I was.


I thought so.

or are you going to continue with the same diversionary
tactics as ((jag++)++) and his cronies?


Prescott should dish out a few left hooks, that
is clear. The ST Rich list still puts parasite
landowners and large construction company owners as the
richest people in the UK.


Nothing wrong with that.


There is. The land should not be in the hands of few unproductive parasitic
few who make billions by taking rent. The land already belongs to the
people. It is called sovereignty.

Foreign billionaires using London as a sort of
base, with pet footy teams too, don't count as UK billionaires.

or that.


They can be here, but they are NOT UK billionaires as the ST Rich list say
they are. Strangely, they list the Irish rich, north and south, and do not
list those who made there money outside of Ireland yet list foreign
billionaires as being British: Reusling (sp), Abromovich, The Indian steel
billionaires, etc.

Take these people off the list and the rich list and it is spattered with
unproductive landowning parasites. Many of the landowners are worth a hell
of a lot more than what they are, the royal family comes to mind. The
problem is that it is near impossible to assess their wealth, which is not
the case in proper countries. Large landowners, and the aristocracy, have
always hid their real wealth, as Kevin Cahill revealed when they suppressed
a land census in the late 1800s, because the census reveal how much land
they actually owned.





  #23   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:57:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:17:23 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


Andy, you have it wrong. The government
should regulate even more.


Nonsense. There is seldom a justification
for increased regulation and legislation


and this is certainly one of them.


Not in my view


The
quality of the crap dished up by construction companies is dire. More
pre-checks, and bigger fines for obvious not nailing down roofs and the
likes, should be done.


The problem is where does one draw the line?


You can adopt the German method, of qualified builders, instead of any Tom ,
Dick or Harry doing it. If you do crap, and proven, then you are suspended
or stuck off and you can't work on building.


That could be a reasonable idea.





No. They just dissolve the company and start under a different name. The
usual palaver. And the cowboys reign supreme.


Small companies may do that, but the large firms certainly don't




It is now, but the cowboyism continues.

It is with every other product that the
consumer buys.


A house is quite different to a toaster.


Yes, but still something that one buys.



Since a lot of problems with a house don't appear for a period of
time, then a proper guarantee covering most aspects of the house
should be required and implemented properly, not the weak NHBC thing
that we have today.


Proper guarantees should be in place, they are not. NHBC is for the
interest of the builders. They formed it.


That was the point that I made.



Perhaps there should be an escrow system for the last X% of the
purchase money of a new property. In other words the purchaser pays
most of the money to the developer in the usual way but X% goes into a
separate account, not under either party's control for a period of say
a year. At the end of the year, the purchaser signs a release for
the money if all is satisfactory and the developer receives this plus
any interest. Having the money outside the direct control of either
party makes sure that it is available as long as the contract
conditions have been met.


A similar thing happens for the roads, etc. Developers pay up front to the
council in some cases, so that they can't dissolve a company and not finish
the roads and pavements stealing a wedge.


Generally methods with financial downside or upside work the most
effectively on businesses.



The


Then still 50% of new homes still have old fashioned tanks in the loft too,
need stupid power shower pumps so they don't have to run around the shower
to get wet.


That is not a measure of the quality of a house, just an indication of
what is used. Both mains pressure and gravity water systems have
their advantages and disadvantages and there are good and bad
implementations of both.



The way you defend cowboyism and the vast profits they make, leads me to
believe you may have a cowboy streak in you too.


I'm not defending cowboyism at all. I simply said that it is
reasonable to make a good profit. If that didn't happen then there
is no incentive for a construction firm to build. They aren't in
business for love.



The real problems are threefold:

- Customers wanting things on the cheap


UK houses are "CHEAP"!!!!!! What world are you in????


I know. The point is that people get what they are willing to pay
for.



- Customers not complaining when things are wrong


Many problems are underlying and are potential time bombs. The after sales
service in most cases, as the consumer TV progs show, is sparse or none
existent.


Which is why I suggested something with financial rather than
legislative teeth.


- Lack of encouragement and incentive
for young people to go into the
construction industry because the
idiot in No. 10 wants them to go to
"universities".


We need people to go to universities, as history will show that a highly
educated population always prospers.


Yes but that notion does not extend to 50% of the population going to
"university" as Mr EU Turn seems to think. There's nothing wrong
with higher education for a broad section of the population as such -
it is question of appropriateness. Not everybody can benefit from an
academic university education, so the idea of dropping the barrier
until they can makes no sense at all.

You are full of petty snobbery as you
don't want your Little Middle Englander kids being in the same uni as your
kids. Pathetic!


That is a completely confused sentence.



There is a long waiting list for plumbing and heating courses which
rubbishes your petty snob views.

This has nothing to do with snobbery at all.

The real question is why is there a proposal to bribe 16 year olds to
stay on in education?

If plumbing and heating have suddenly become so popular, where are all
the people who are passing?



) and his cronies?

Prescott should dish out a few left hooks, that
is clear. The ST Rich list still puts parasite
landowners and large construction company owners as the
richest people in the UK.


Nothing wrong with that.


There is. The land should not be in the hands of few unproductive parasitic
few who make billions by taking rent. The land already belongs to the
people. It is called sovereignty.


I'm not wasting time on that silly nonsense again.


Foreign billionaires using London as a sort of
base, with pet footy teams too, don't count as UK billionaires.

or that.


They can be here, but they are NOT UK billionaires as the ST Rich list say
they are. Strangely, they list the Irish rich, north and south, and do not
list those who made there money outside of Ireland yet list foreign
billionaires as being British: Reusling (sp), Abromovich, The Indian steel
billionaires, etc.

Take these people off the list and the rich list and it is spattered with
unproductive landowning parasites.


So what...

Many of the landowners are worth a hell
of a lot more than what they are, the royal family comes to mind. The
problem is that it is near impossible to assess their wealth, which is not
the case in proper countries.


It's nobody else's business.

Large landowners, and the aristocracy, have
always hid their real wealth, as Kevin Cahill revealed when they suppressed
a land census in the late 1800s, because the census reveal how much land
they actually owned.

So a small number of people have a lot of assets. That always has
been the case and likely always will be.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #24   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:57:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


The way you defend cowboyism and the vast profits they make, leads me to
believe you may have a cowboy streak in you too.


I'm not defending cowboyism at all.


You are.

We need people to go to universities,
as history will show that a highly
educated population always prospers.


Yes but that notion does not extend to 50%
of the population going to "university" as
Mr EU Turn seems to think.


Has someone done a study to assess what %age need to go to uni? Those who
are against are mainly Little Middle Englanders.

There's nothing wrong
with higher education for a broad section of the population as such -
it is question of appropriateness. Not everybody can benefit from an
academic university education,


What a stupid comment.

There is a long waiting list for plumbing
and heating courses which
rubbishes your petty snob views.


This has nothing to do with snobbery at all.


It has.

The real question is why is there a
proposal to bribe 16 year olds to
stay on in education?


We need a highly educated population. Graduates tend to be into positions
of power. If many of them are from the working class a form of meritocracy
will prevail, and hopefully these people will get rid of the public
school/Oxbridge self interest group.

If plumbing and heating have suddenly
become so popular, where are all
the people who are passing?


Filling the skills gap.

) and his cronies?

Prescott should dish out a few left hooks, that
is clear. The ST Rich list still puts parasite
landowners and large construction company owners as the
richest people in the UK.

Nothing wrong with that.


There is. The land should not be in the
hands of few unproductive parasitic
few who make billions by taking rent.
The land already belongs to the
people. It is called sovereignty.


I'm not wasting time on that silly nonsense again.


1% of the population owning 70% of the land is not nonsense at all. We are
the only major country in the world not to re-distribute land and it shows.

They can be here, but they are NOT UK billionaires as the ST Rich list

say
they are. Strangely, they list the Irish rich, north and south, and do

not
list those who made there money outside of Ireland yet list foreign
billionaires as being British: Reusling (sp), Abromovich, The Indian

steel
billionaires, etc.

Take these people off the list and the rich list and it is spattered with
unproductive landowning parasites.


So what...


You can't be that dumb. The riches people in the UK take RENT and become
billionaires to the detriment of the people as a whole. That is obvious.

Many of the landowners are worth a hell
of a lot more than what they are, the royal
family comes to mind. The problem is that
it is near impossible to assess their wealth,
which is not the case in proper countries.


It's nobody else's business.


It is. Every other sane country thinks so too.

Large landowners, and the aristocracy, have
always hid their real wealth, as Kevin Cahill
revealed when they suppressed
a land census in the late 1800s, because
the census reveal how much land
they actually owned.


So a small number of people have a lot of assets.


That can be reversed and measures taken to prevent it occurring again.

That always has been the case and likely always will be.


It always will be with brainwashed people like you around. These parasites
must love the likes of you.


  #25   Report Post  
Andy Luckman
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

In article , IMM
wrote:

Do you think Thatcher is worth writing to.


You really are a hysterically funny little Trot aren't you? I have your
"gems" killfiled on my works account and I see there is no good reason not
to do the same from here.

--
AJL Electronics
Home account classic.vispa.com



  #26   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:00:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:57:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


The way you defend cowboyism and the vast profits they make, leads me to
believe you may have a cowboy streak in you too.


I'm not defending cowboyism at all.


You are.


I talked only about profit. You raised the subject of cowboyism.

We need people to go to universities,
as history will show that a highly
educated population always prospers.


Yes but that notion does not extend to 50%
of the population going to "university" as
Mr EU Turn seems to think.


Has someone done a study to assess what %age need to go to uni? Those who
are against are mainly Little Middle Englanders.


Not really - only realists.



There's nothing wrong
with higher education for a broad section of the population as such -
it is question of appropriateness. Not everybody can benefit from an
academic university education,


What a stupid comment.


It isn't at all. Not everybody will benefit from an academic
university education. That's obvious because not everybody is
academically gifted. Some people are gifted in other areas, but it
doesn't make them less valuable members of society.

The problem lies in the misguided belief that academic education and
institutions delivering it should be delivered to everybody or at
least a substantial proportion. That is plainly impossible, because
only a small percentage actually *do* benefit from a high level
academic education.

The mistake is in not accepting that but in dropping standards to make
it happen. It does a disservice to the students and reduces skill
levels. Not what should be happening at all.

The even bigger mistake is in arguing that this has to do with
snobbery and elitism. It has nothing to do with those at all.
You can have excellence in particle physics and excellence in
carpentry. Both are important to society as a whole.



There is a long waiting list for plumbing
and heating courses which
rubbishes your petty snob views.


This has nothing to do with snobbery at all.


It has.


Therein lies the inverted snobbery and chip on shoulder mentality that
does nobody any good.




The real question is why is there a
proposal to bribe 16 year olds to
stay on in education?


We need a highly educated population. Graduates tend to be into positions
of power. If many of them are from the working class a form of meritocracy
will prevail, and hopefully these people will get rid of the public
school/Oxbridge self interest group.


Graduates end up in positions of power in situations where they also
have leadership or other skills appropriate to that position.

It isn't a class issue at all apart from in the minds of people who
choose to have that view for their own political reasons.





You can't be that dumb. The riches people in the UK take RENT and become
billionaires to the detriment of the people as a whole. That is obvious.


I'm not at all dumb.

People own property. They let it to others and charge a rent.
It's simple return on investment.

So some people have more than others. That's how it is.


snip nonsense
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #27   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:00:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:57:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


The way you defend cowboyism and the vast profits they make, leads me

to
believe you may have a cowboy streak in you too.

I'm not defending cowboyism at all.


You are.


I talked only about profit. You raised the subject of cowboyism.

We need people to go to universities,
as history will show that a highly
educated population always prospers.

Yes but that notion does not extend to 50%
of the population going to "university" as
Mr EU Turn seems to think.


Has someone done a study to assess what %age need to go to uni? Those

who
are against are mainly Little Middle Englanders.


Not really - only realists.


Since when have Little Middle Englanders been realists.

There's nothing wrong
with higher education for a broad section of the population as such -
it is question of appropriateness. Not everybody can benefit from an
academic university education,


What a stupid comment.


It isn't at all.


It is.

Not everybody will benefit from an academic
university education. That's obvious because not everybody is
academically gifted.


They must be academically gifted to be accepted for uni. Can't you figure
that out?

Some people are gifted in other areas, but it
doesn't make them less valuable members
of society.


The idiotic view you have. What you are proposing is that working class
kids should be plasterers and the middle class go to uni.

The problem lies in the misguided belief that academic education and
institutions delivering it should be delivered to everybody or at
least a substantial proportion.


Quite right too.

That is plainly impossible, because
only a small percentage actually *do*
benefit from a high level
academic education.


Another meaningless empty statement.

The mistake is in not accepting that
but in dropping standards to make
it happen.


No proof of this.

It does a disservice to the students and reduces skill
levels. Not what should be happening at all.


University is geared in the UK to make you think, not supply you with craft
skills.

The even bigger mistake is in arguing that this has to do with
snobbery and elitism.


It is, as Little Middle Englanders are obsessed with petty snobbery.

It has nothing to do with those at all.
You can have excellence in particle
physics and excellence in
carpentry. Both are important to society
as a whole.


But you want the carpenter to come from the council estate. How dare they
sent him to a uni with your kids in!

The real question is why is there a
proposal to bribe 16 year olds to
stay on in education?


We need a highly educated population. Graduates tend to be into

positions
of power. If many of them are from the working class a form of

meritocracy
will prevail, and hopefully these people will get rid of the public
school/Oxbridge self interest group.


It isn't a class issue at all


It is. Those who bring it up are all brainwashed right wing Tory types like
you.

You can't be that dumb. The riches people
in the UK take RENT and become
billionaires to the detriment of the people
as a whole. That is obvious.


I'm not at all dumb.


You must be, you can't see it.

People own property. They let it to
others and charge a rent.
It's simple return on investment.


Land is NOT property, the bricks on it are. Also the parasites own most of
the land. Read:

Who Owns Britain by Kevin Cahill
The Theft of the Countryside by Marion Shoard
Whose Land is it Anyway? by Richard Norton-Taylor

So some people have more than others. That's how it is.


We know how it is and you think it is right that we are ripped off by a few.
What is so astounding is that you like being ripped off.

To illustrate the brutality of power in relation to land-ownership, the
period 1990 to 1997 when over 5,000,000 families had their homes repossessed
by mortgage-lenders, while in the same period the 157,000 wealthiest
families in the UK received up to £21 billion in subsidies.


  #28   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:25:34 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:00:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


Yes but that notion does not extend to 50%
of the population going to "university" as
Mr EU Turn seems to think.

Has someone done a study to assess what %age need to go to uni? Those

who
are against are mainly Little Middle Englanders.


Not really - only realists.


Since when have Little Middle Englanders been realists.


I wouldn't know - I've never met one.


There's nothing wrong
with higher education for a broad section of the population as such -
it is question of appropriateness. Not everybody can benefit from an
academic university education,

What a stupid comment.


It isn't at all.


It is.


He's behind you.



Not everybody will benefit from an academic
university education. That's obvious because not everybody is
academically gifted.


They must be academically gifted to be accepted for uni. Can't you figure
that out?


If you lower the standard enough, anybody can be academically
"gifted". The trouble is that it is then meaningless unles your
objective is to be able to say that X% of the population went to
university. This is the obvious case with TonyB where perception is
far more important than reality.






Some people are gifted in other areas, but it
doesn't make them less valuable members
of society.


The idiotic view you have. What you are proposing is that working class
kids should be plasterers and the middle class go to uni.


I didn't bring the class aspect into this - you did.

There is no reason why people from one class or background or another
should be more or less academically able or more or less practically
able.



The problem lies in the misguided belief that academic education and
institutions delivering it should be delivered to everybody or at
least a substantial proportion.


Quite right too.

It isn't though. It's a con because the only possible way to
achieve it is a lowering of standards.
16 year olds in large numbers don't want it and are having to be
bribed.



That is plainly impossible, because
only a small percentage actually *do*
benefit from a high level
academic education.


Another meaningless empty statement.


If somebody is presented with academic teaching or opportunity to
learn that is beyond their capability, what possible benefit can it be
to them.

I happen to be reasonably able academically. I can't play football
or plaster walls to save my life. People make perfectly good
livings out of both of these.


The mistake is in not accepting that
but in dropping standards to make
it happen.


No proof of this.


There's no need for any - it's blindingly obvious.




It does a disservice to the students and reduces skill
levels. Not what should be happening at all.


University is geared in the UK to make you think, not supply you with craft
skills.


As it should be. So what then is the point in subjecting people who
don't have the intellectual skills to benefit from it to something
that is inappropriate for them.

I used to be subjected to football and cross country running at
school. I hated both and they didn't benefit me one iota because I
was useless at them.

Others did well at that but were hopeless at calculus.


The even bigger mistake is in arguing that this has to do with
snobbery and elitism.


It is, as Little Middle Englanders are obsessed with petty snobbery.


I don't know any.


It has nothing to do with those at all.
You can have excellence in particle
physics and excellence in
carpentry. Both are important to society
as a whole.


But you want the carpenter to come from the council estate. How dare they
sent him to a uni with your kids in!


I haven't said that at all - it is purely a figment of your inverted
imagination.

I don't mind where the carpenter comes from nor the particle
physicist. It doesn't matter as long as they can do the job and
are happy doing it.



The real question is why is there a
proposal to bribe 16 year olds to
stay on in education?

We need a highly educated population. Graduates tend to be into

positions
of power. If many of them are from the working class a form of

meritocracy
will prevail, and hopefully these people will get rid of the public
school/Oxbridge self interest group.


It isn't a class issue at all


It is. Those who bring it up are all brainwashed right wing Tory types like
you.


First of all I didn't bring up the issue of alleged Oxbridge self
interest - you did, because for some reason it is one of your hobby
horses. Secondly, none of the other descriptions that you made are
applicable to me so that statement is meanigless.




You can't be that dumb. The riches people
in the UK take RENT and become
billionaires to the detriment of the people
as a whole. That is obvious.


I'm not at all dumb.


You must be, you can't see it.


It depends on whether you believe that there is something wrong with
people being rich, owning property, letting it and taking rent.
If you do, then I can understand your perspective.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with it, so that's the end
of it as far as I am concerned.




People own property. They let it to
others and charge a rent.
It's simple return on investment.


Land is NOT property, the bricks on it are. Also the parasites own most of
the land. Read:

Who Owns Britain by Kevin Cahill
The Theft of the Countryside by Marion Shoard
Whose Land is it Anyway? by Richard Norton-Taylor


I don't have the time to waste and split hairs over land and property.
If somebody holds the title to a piece of land, with or without
buildings, that is that as far as I cam concerned.




So some people have more than others. That's how it is.


We know how it is and you think it is right that we are ripped off by a few.
What is so astounding is that you like being ripped off.


I don't consider myself to be ripped off in this regard so it doesn't
cause me the angst that you seem to have.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #29   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Not everybody will benefit from an academic
university education. That's obvious because not everybody is
academically gifted.


They must be academically gifted to be
accepted for uni. Can't you figure that out?


If you lower the standard enough,


Proof of lowered standards please.

Some people are gifted in other areas, but it
doesn't make them less valuable members
of society.


The idiotic view you have. What you are proposing is that working class
kids should be plasterers and the middle class go to uni.


I didn't bring the class aspect into this - you did.


Tory thinking is class ingrained.

There is no reason why people from one class or background or another
should be more or less academically able or more or less practically
able.


That is true, then why is it that Oxbridge has 50% of its students from fee
paying schools.

The problem lies in the misguided belief that academic education and
institutions delivering it should be delivered to everybody or at
least a substantial proportion.


Quite right too.


It isn't though.


It is.

That is plainly impossible, because
only a small percentage actually *do*
benefit from a high level
academic education.


Another meaningless empty statement.


If somebody is presented with academic teaching or opportunity to
learn that is beyond their capability, what possible benefit can it be
to them.


You have an assumption that those going to uni are not capable. Tory class
badgering again.

I happen to be reasonably able academically. I can't play football
or plaster walls to save my life. People make perfectly good
livings out of both of these.


The last three are mainly working class.

The mistake is in not accepting that
but in dropping standards to make
it happen.


No proof of this.


There's no need for any - it's blindingly obvious.


Proof please.

It does a disservice to the students and reduces skill
levels. Not what should be happening at all.


University is geared in the UK to make you think, not supply you with

craft
skills.


As it should be. So what then is the point in subjecting people who
don't have the intellectual skills to benefit from it to something
that is inappropriate for them.


You have an assumption that those going to uni are not capable. Tory class
badgering again.

I used to be subjected to football and cross country running at
school. I hated both and they didn't benefit me one iota because I
was useless at them.


Made you fit.

Others did well at that


How many played for Chelsea?

The even bigger mistake is in arguing that this has to do with
snobbery and elitism.


It is, as Little Middle Englanders are obsessed with petty snobbery.


I don't know any.


You can't see the wood for the trees.

It has nothing to do with those at all.
You can have excellence in particle
physics and excellence in
carpentry. Both are important to society
as a whole.


But you want the carpenter to come from the council estate. How dare

they
sent him to a uni with your kids in!


I haven't said that at all


Clear implication.

- it is purely a figment of your inverted
imagination.

I don't mind where the carpenter comes from nor the particle
physicist. It doesn't matter as long as they can do the job and
are happy doing it.


Tory class badgering wants the working class away from their lot.

The real question is why is there a
proposal to bribe 16 year olds to
stay on in education?

We need a highly educated population.
Graduates tend to be into positions
of power. If many of them are from the
working class a form of meritocracy
will prevail, and hopefully these people
will get rid of the public
school/Oxbridge self interest group.

It isn't a class issue at all


It is. Those who bring it up are all brainwashed
right wing Tory types like you.


First of all I didn't bring up the issue
of alleged Oxbridge self
interest - you did,


And true it is too.

You can't be that dumb. The riches people
in the UK take RENT and become
billionaires to the detriment of the people
as a whole. That is obvious.

I'm not at all dumb.


You must be, you can't see it.


It depends on whether you believe that
there is something wrong with
people being rich,


Nothing wrong with that. Landowners are rich through rip off. They hold
the country back.

owning property, letting it and taking rent.
If you do, then I can understand your perspective.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with it,
so that's the end of it as far as I am concerned.


You still don't get it. Only a few own the vast majority of the land. Our
land, as we own it as we have sovereignty over it.

People own property. They let it to
others and charge a rent.
It's simple return on investment.


Land is NOT property, the bricks on it are.
Also the parasites own most of
the land. Read:

Who Owns Britain by Kevin Cahill
The Theft of the Countryside by Marion Shoard
Whose Land is it Anyway? by Richard Norton-Taylor


I don't have the time to waste and split
hairs over land and property.


You shiuld, as you know very littel of what hold the country back.

So some people have more than others. That's how it is.


We know how it is and you think it is right that we are ripped off by a

few.
What is so astounding is that you like being ripped off.


I don't consider myself to be ripped
off in this regard


Because you don't know. You have been subject to propaganda over your
lifetime, sucked it in and love it. That is very sad.


  #30   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"Andy Luckman" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
wrote:

Do you think Thatcher is worth writing to.


You really are a hysterically funny little Trot aren't you? I have your
"gems" killfiled on my works account and I see there is no good reason not
to do the same from here.


Please killfile me Mr Little Middle Englander. Do it ASAP!




  #31   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:17:19 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Not everybody will benefit from an academic
university education. That's obvious because not everybody is
academically gifted.

They must be academically gifted to be
accepted for uni. Can't you figure that out?


If you lower the standard enough,


Proof of lowered standards please.


Search on Google. There are dozens of references




Tory thinking is class ingrained.


Really? I've found people of all political persuasions in all walks
of life so I can only assume that you don't get out much......


There is no reason why people from one class or background or another
should be more or less academically able or more or less practically
able.


That is true, then why is it that Oxbridge has 50% of its students from fee
paying schools.


What does that have to do with anything, except that fee paying
schools often, but don't always produce students with more academic
qualifications.



The problem lies in the misguided belief that academic education and
institutions delivering it should be delivered to everybody or at
least a substantial proportion.

Quite right too.


It isn't though.


It is.



It's behind you.


That is plainly impossible, because
only a small percentage actually *do*
benefit from a high level
academic education.

Another meaningless empty statement.


If somebody is presented with academic teaching or opportunity to
learn that is beyond their capability, what possible benefit can it be
to them.


You have an assumption that those going to uni are not capable. Tory class
badgering again.


Nothing to do with that. If somebody doesn't have academic ability,
they don't have academic ability and that's that. Class, if indeed
it exists at all, has nothing to do with it.



I happen to be reasonably able academically. I can't play football
or plaster walls to save my life. People make perfectly good
livings out of both of these.


The last three are mainly working class.


Only in your stereotyped view of life



The mistake is in not accepting that
but in dropping standards to make
it happen.

No proof of this.


There's no need for any - it's blindingly obvious.


Proof please.


Search on Google.


It does a disservice to the students and reduces skill
levels. Not what should be happening at all.

University is geared in the UK to make you think, not supply you with

craft
skills.


As it should be. So what then is the point in subjecting people who
don't have the intellectual skills to benefit from it to something
that is inappropriate for them.


You have an assumption that those going to uni are not capable. Tory class
badgering again.


I've made no such assumption. Intellectual and academic ability are
not related to "class" or to political persuasion, although I might be
persuaded otherwise when I read some of your postings on the matter.



I used to be subjected to football and cross country running at
school. I hated both and they didn't benefit me one iota because I
was useless at them.


Made you fit.


I had plenty of other ways to do that.


Others did well at that


How many played for Chelsea?


Who knows?


The even bigger mistake is in arguing that this has to do with
snobbery and elitism.

It is, as Little Middle Englanders are obsessed with petty snobbery.


I don't know any.


You can't see the wood for the trees.


I think that that is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle
black.



It has nothing to do with those at all.
You can have excellence in particle
physics and excellence in
carpentry. Both are important to society
as a whole.

But you want the carpenter to come from the council estate. How dare

they
sent him to a uni with your kids in!


I haven't said that at all


Clear implication.


There must be some very odd things going on in your head if you were
able to reach that conclusion from what was said.




Tory class badgering wants the working class away from their lot.


What on earth are you talking about?




Nothing wrong with that. Landowners are rich through rip off. They hold
the country back.


Outdated ideas of a class system and people with chips on their
shoulders do that.


You still don't get it. Only a few own the vast majority of the land. Our
land, as we own it as we have sovereignty over it.


Ownership is defined by who holds the title. End of story.




I don't have the time to waste and split
hairs over land and property.


You shiuld, as you know very littel of what hold the country back.


I don't have the time to waste on reflecting on nonsense like that.
If you want to, then that is up to you. I'm not interested.



I don't consider myself to be ripped
off in this regard


Because you don't know. You have been subject to propaganda over your
lifetime, sucked it in and love it. That is very sad.

The significant ripping off that is going on is excessive taxation and
government intervention.
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #32   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Not everybody will benefit from an academic
university education. That's obvious
because not everybody is
academically gifted.

They must be academically gifted to be
accepted for uni. Can't you figure that out?

If you lower the standard enough,


Proof of lowered standards please.


Search on Google. There are dozens of references


That is all opinion.

Tory thinking is class ingrained.


Really?


Yes. Their main aim is a ruling class of people and the upkeep of the
system that maintains this system: fee paying schools, Oxbridge,
aristocracy, land being in the hands of the privileged few, royal family,
etc. A system not based on merit. That is abundantly clear. Only a fool
cannot see it.

To make this exist you need class levels. You also need a propaganda
machine to make those at the lower levels accept this absurd retrograde
system.

There is no reason why people from
one class or background or another
should be more or less academically
able or more or less practically able.


That is true, then why is it that Oxbridge
has 50% of its students from fee
paying schools.


What does that have to do with anything,


See above fools not seeing it.

You have an assumption that those
going to uni are not capable. Tory class
badgering again.


Nothing to do with that. If somebody
doesn't have academic ability,
they don't have academic ability and
that's that.


If they don't, they don't go. Simple.

Class, if indeed
it exists at all, has nothing to do with it.


British society is ingrained with class. It permeates most of society. How
many council estate kids have ever been an ambassador? Only fool cannot see
it.

I happen to be reasonably able academically. I can't play football
or plaster walls to save my life. People make perfectly good
livings out of both of these.


The last three are mainly working class.


Only in your stereotyped view of life


It is a fact.

The mistake is in not accepting that
but in dropping standards to make
it happen.

No proof of this.

There's no need for any - it's blindingly obvious.


Proof please.


Search on Google.


I see only Tory opinions.

I used to be subjected to football and cross country running at
school. I hated both and they didn't benefit me one iota because I
was useless at them.


Made you fit.


I had plenty of other ways to do that.


How can you be useless at running? Even if you come last you still run and
it makes you fit.

It has nothing to do with those at all.
You can have excellence in particle
physics and excellence in
carpentry. Both are important to society
as a whole.

But you want the carpenter to come
from the council estate. How dare
they sent him to a uni with your kids in!

I haven't said that at all


Clear implication.


There must be some very odd
things going on in your head


Not my head, my reading. What you write.

Landowners are rich
through rip off. They hold the country back.


Outdated ideas of a class system


You have no idea of how British society is structured. I have given you a
few books to read. Please read them. Any problems get back to me and I will
clarify.

You still don't get it. Only a few own
the vast majority of the land. Our
land, as we own it as we have sovereignty
over it.


Ownership is defined by who holds the title.
End of story.


No. Ownership is the Crown, which filters down to the state. Title gives
you permission to use the land.

I repeat. I will write is slowly as I know you can't think and read fast.

" You still don't get it. Only a few own the vast majority of the land. Our
land, as we own it as we have sovereignty over it."

This acts as a lead weight around the necks of the British people.

I don't have the time to waste and split
hairs over land and property.


You should, as you know very little of
what hold the country back.


I don't have the time to waste on
reflecting on nonsense like that.
If you want to, then that is up to you.
I'm not interested.


You still haven't a clue how Britiain works.

I don't consider myself to be ripped
off in this regard


Because you don't know. You have
been subject to propaganda over your
lifetime, sucked it in and love it. That is
very sad.


The significant ripping off that is going on
is excessive taxation and
government intervention.


This dissipates your brainwashed perception. Myths exploded.

1) CHALLENGING THE MYTHS: WHAT IS THE COUNTRYSIDE FOR? (LONDON, 4/12/01)

Chris Baines, Vice President of the Wildlife Trusts; & Trustee, National
Heritage Memorial Fund Alan Evans, Professor of Environmental Economics,
University of Reading

Alan Evans argued that the term 'countryside' is loaded with a specific
meaning. It implies a pastoral, agricultural landscape - farmed and pretty.
Equating the countryside with farming has led to special treatment for the
agricultural industry. Farmers are perceived to be the custodians or
'stewards' of the countryside, which results in an acceptance of subsidies
to the industry and its special treatment in the planning system. A set of
myths help underpin the view that agriculture should be financially
supported and left free from aspects of planning control.

1. The first is the myth of 'over-urbanisation' - the view that the rate of
development of greenfield land is too high.

2. The second is the 'green belt myth' - that planning protection for green
belts will provide recreational and amenity land for the benefit of urban
dwellers.

3. The third is the 'sustainability myth' - that urban containment
contributes to sustainability objectives.

Professor Evans challenged each of these myths. He argued that the
countryside is about much more than farming and, moreover, because the urban
majority bears most of the cost of current rural policies, they should have
a legitimate say in shaping these policies.

This from the Tory New Statesman, your darling publication.
http://tinyurl.com/2udwc



  #33   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Not everybody will benefit from an academic
university education. That's obvious
because not everybody is
academically gifted.

They must be academically gifted to be
accepted for uni. Can't you figure that out?

If you lower the standard enough,

Proof of lowered standards please.


Search on Google. There are dozens of references


That is all opinion.

Tory thinking is class ingrained.


Really?


Yes. Their main aim is a ruling class of people and the upkeep of the
system that maintains this system: fee paying schools, Oxbridge,
aristocracy, land being in the hands of the privileged few, royal family,
etc. A system not based on merit. That is abundantly clear. Only a fool
cannot see it.

To make this exist you need class levels. You also need a propaganda
machine to make those at the lower levels accept this absurd retrograde
system.

There is no reason why people from
one class or background or another
should be more or less academically
able or more or less practically able.

That is true, then why is it that Oxbridge
has 50% of its students from fee
paying schools.


What does that have to do with anything,


See above fools not seeing it.

You have an assumption that those
going to uni are not capable. Tory class
badgering again.


Nothing to do with that. If somebody
doesn't have academic ability,
they don't have academic ability and
that's that.


If they don't, they don't go. Simple.

Class, if indeed
it exists at all, has nothing to do with it.


British society is ingrained with class. It permeates most of society.

How
many council estate kids have ever been an ambassador? Only fool cannot

see
it.

I happen to be reasonably able academically. I can't play football
or plaster walls to save my life. People make perfectly good
livings out of both of these.

The last three are mainly working class.


Only in your stereotyped view of life


It is a fact.

The mistake is in not accepting that
but in dropping standards to make
it happen.

No proof of this.

There's no need for any - it's blindingly obvious.

Proof please.


Search on Google.


I see only Tory opinions.

I used to be subjected to football and cross country running at
school. I hated both and they didn't benefit me one iota because I
was useless at them.

Made you fit.


I had plenty of other ways to do that.


How can you be useless at running? Even if you come last you still run

and
it makes you fit.

It has nothing to do with those at all.
You can have excellence in particle
physics and excellence in
carpentry. Both are important to society
as a whole.

But you want the carpenter to come
from the council estate. How dare
they sent him to a uni with your kids in!

I haven't said that at all

Clear implication.


There must be some very odd
things going on in your head


Not my head, my reading. What you write.

Landowners are rich
through rip off. They hold the country back.


Outdated ideas of a class system


You have no idea of how British society is structured. I have given you a
few books to read. Please read them. Any problems get back to me and I

will
clarify.

You still don't get it. Only a few own
the vast majority of the land. Our
land, as we own it as we have sovereignty
over it.


Ownership is defined by who holds the title.
End of story.


No. Ownership is the Crown, which filters down to the state. Title gives
you permission to use the land.

I repeat. I will write is slowly as I know you can't think and read fast.

" You still don't get it. Only a few own the vast majority of the land.

Our
land, as we own it as we have sovereignty over it."

This acts as a lead weight around the necks of the British people.

I don't have the time to waste and split
hairs over land and property.

You should, as you know very little of
what hold the country back.


I don't have the time to waste on
reflecting on nonsense like that.
If you want to, then that is up to you.
I'm not interested.


You still haven't a clue how Britiain works.

I don't consider myself to be ripped
off in this regard

Because you don't know. You have
been subject to propaganda over your
lifetime, sucked it in and love it. That is
very sad.


The significant ripping off that is going on
is excessive taxation and
government intervention.


This dissipates your brainwashed perception. Myths exploded.

1) CHALLENGING THE MYTHS: WHAT IS THE COUNTRYSIDE FOR? (LONDON, 4/12/01)

Chris Baines, Vice President of the Wildlife Trusts; & Trustee, National
Heritage Memorial Fund Alan Evans, Professor of Environmental Economics,
University of Reading

Alan Evans argued that the term 'countryside' is loaded with a specific
meaning. It implies a pastoral, agricultural landscape - farmed and

pretty.
Equating the countryside with farming has led to special treatment for the
agricultural industry. Farmers are perceived to be the custodians or
'stewards' of the countryside, which results in an acceptance of subsidies
to the industry and its special treatment in the planning system. A set of
myths help underpin the view that agriculture should be financially
supported and left free from aspects of planning control.

1. The first is the myth of 'over-urbanisation' - the view that the rate

of
development of greenfield land is too high.

2. The second is the 'green belt myth' - that planning protection for

green
belts will provide recreational and amenity land for the benefit of urban
dwellers.

3. The third is the 'sustainability myth' - that urban containment
contributes to sustainability objectives.

Professor Evans challenged each of these myths. He argued that the
countryside is about much more than farming and, moreover, because the

urban
majority bears most of the cost of current rural policies, they should

have
a legitimate say in shaping these policies.

This from the Tory New Statesman, your darling publication.
http://tinyurl.com/2udwc


Try this URL:
http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/site.p...NS&newDisplayU
RN=200205270017


  #34   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:05:46 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Proof of lowered standards please.


Search on Google. There are dozens of references


That is all opinion.


You didn't look very far then.

One only has to look at A level or degree exam papers of today
compared with 20 years ago, and the drop in standards is patently
obvious.



Yes. Their main aim is a ruling class of people and the upkeep of the
system that maintains this system: fee paying schools, Oxbridge,
aristocracy, land being in the hands of the privileged few, royal family,
etc. A system not based on merit. That is abundantly clear. Only a fool
cannot see it.


Only a fool keeps harping on about it




You have an assumption that those
going to uni are not capable. Tory class
badgering again.


Nothing to do with that. If somebody
doesn't have academic ability,
they don't have academic ability and
that's that.


If they don't, they don't go. Simple.


Right. That has nothing to do with "class".



Class, if indeed
it exists at all, has nothing to do with it.


British society is ingrained with class. It permeates most of society. How
many council estate kids have ever been an ambassador? Only fool cannot see
it.


Who would want to be an ambassador?



I happen to be reasonably able academically. I can't play football
or plaster walls to save my life. People make perfectly good
livings out of both of these.

The last three are mainly working class.


Only in your stereotyped view of life


It is a fact.


Mmmm....

Proof please.


Search on Google.


I see only Tory opinions.


That's curious. Do you think that they have an algorithm in their
search engine that filters to create propaganda?




I used to be subjected to football and cross country running at
school. I hated both and they didn't benefit me one iota because I
was useless at them.

Made you fit.


I had plenty of other ways to do that.


How can you be useless at running? Even if you come last you still run and
it makes you fit.


Because it was presented as something that should be competitive.
I'm not interested in competitive sport. I prefer to make my own
arrangements as with most other things.



You have no idea of how British society is structured.


It isn't structured apart from in the minds of people who see some
political aspect in making it appear to be structured and wanting to
change it.

I have given you a
few books to read. Please read them. Any problems get back to me and I will
clarify.


I don't have time to waste on that kind of nonsense, sorry.



You still don't get it. Only a few own
the vast majority of the land. Our
land, as we own it as we have sovereignty
over it.


Ownership is defined by who holds the title.
End of story.


No. Ownership is the Crown, which filters down to the state. Title gives
you permission to use the land.

I repeat. I will write is slowly as I know you can't think and read fast.

" You still don't get it. Only a few own the vast majority of the land. Our
land, as we own it as we have sovereignty over it."


I think that you just contradicted yourself......

I don't really care whether the Crown or a small number of people own
a large amount of land. I am far more bothered about overtaxation
and wastage by the government.


This acts as a lead weight around the necks of the British people.


Utter tripe.







I don't consider myself to be ripped
off in this regard

Because you don't know. You have
been subject to propaganda over your
lifetime, sucked it in and love it. That is
very sad.


The significant ripping off that is going on
is excessive taxation and
government intervention.


This dissipates your brainwashed perception.


At least 60 tax rises since 1997 with £5k more tax per household?

£10bn public finance deficit by this time next year?

I am far more interested in that than the assets of the Duke of
Westminster, and so, I expect, are most other people.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #35   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Yes. Their main aim is a ruling class of people and the upkeep of the
system that maintains this system: fee paying schools, Oxbridge,
aristocracy, land being in the hands of the privileged few, royal family,
etc. A system not based on merit. That is abundantly clear. Only a

fool
cannot see it.


Only a fool keeps harping on about it


Only a fool buries their head in the sand and pretends it doesn't exist.

British society is ingrained with class. It permeates most of society.

How
many council estate kids have ever been an ambassador? Only fool cannot

see
it.


Who would want to be an ambassador?


Missed the point entirely.

You have no idea of how British society is structured.


It isn't structured


snip drivel

I have given you a
few books to read. Please read them. Any
problems get back to me and I will
clarify.


I don't have time to waste on that kind of nonsense, sorry.


The Tory party and their land landowning backers really love you; a lacky.

I don't really care whether the Crown or a small number of people own
a large amount of land. I am far more bothered about overtaxation
and wastage by the government.


That is what they want to focus on, every day trivia. The basic foundations
of society, the constitution, being ripped off by large landowners, they
want you to forget about. Those are the real problems of the UK.

This acts as a lead weight around the necks of the British people.


Utter tripe.


See links and books I gave you.

I don't consider myself to be ripped
off in this regard

Because you don't know. You have
been subject to propaganda over your
lifetime, sucked it in and love it. That is
very sad.

The significant ripping off that is going on
is excessive taxation and
government intervention.


This dissipates your brainwashed perception.


At least 60 tax rises since 1997 with £5k more tax per household?

£10bn public finance deficit by this time next year?

I am far more interested in that than the assets of the Duke of
Westminster, and so, I expect, are most other people.


You have missed it totally. Did you read the links? Nah you didn't. Boy
they have made a good job on you. Sad to see, very sad.




  #36   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:53:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



That is what they want to focus on, every day trivia.


I don't think that most people would consider that an extra £5k a year
in taxation is everyday trivia.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #37   Report Post  
Andy Hall
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:23:18 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


Try this URL:
http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/site.p...NS&newDisplayU
RN=200205270017


To quote......

"..... when questioned on LVT, one Labour Party press officer called
it "as daft as the window tax".


Not much support there, then...
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
  #38   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:23:18 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Try this URL:


http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/site.p..._NS&newDisplay

U
RN=200205270017


To quote......

"..... when questioned on LVT, one Labour Party press officer called
it "as daft as the window tax".

Not much support there, then...


Appears not.


  #39   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:53:25 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



That is what they want to focus on, every day trivia.


I don't think that most people would consider that an extra £5k a year
in taxation is everyday trivia.


Compared to the sums the large landowners make and how much taxpayers
subsidies they get, that is chicken feed.


  #40   Report Post  
John Rumm
 
Posts: n/a
Default How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:17:23 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


Andy, you have it wrong. The government should regulate even more.



Nonsense. There is seldom a justification for increased regulation
and legislation and this is certainly not one of them.


What is more, governments (and not just the current shower) have a habit
of introducing legislation that tends to achieve the exact opposite of
their intention for it with alarming repetition. Even a monkey would get
it right half the time!

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Near death boiler + replacing a boiler David Hearn UK diy 9 January 26th 04 01:44 PM
Cleaning flue component for combi boiler PJ UK diy 4 December 1st 03 07:26 PM
Gas boiler service review/advice David Hearn UK diy 1 November 18th 03 05:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"