Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Near death boiler + replacing a boiler | UK diy | |||
Cleaning flue component for combi boiler | UK diy | |||
Gas boiler service review/advice | UK diy |