"BBC considers archive fees for viewers" -- the inevitable march toPPV

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 19:58:52 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:

snip
Excuse the expletives partially deleted, but I think now that you can
understand my anger when I read such mindless rubbish as people often
post here.

Wow. I know how such a relatively small thing can totally snooker you
and how it's compounded by bureacratic incompetence.

Myself - after a lifetime of grafting for others and some for myself,
I've got knackered joints in my knees, shoulders, back. I can quite
happily potter around in my own space, doing necessary work to get
this place shipshape, but am totally fecked if I push it beyond two or
maybe three hours. Once I push it beyond that I'm buggered for a
couple of days or maybe up to a week if I put a knee or my back out.

I'd be interested to know what an employer would make of that - but
perhaps Slik and his ilk might inform me.

I know - I could become a Daily Mail sub-editor.

Bill Taylor wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 02:12:06 +0000, David Kennedy
wrote:

Andy Champ wrote:
On 20/01/2012 09:47, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:08:41 +0000, Andy
wrote:

On 19/01/2012 08:36, Bob Latham wrote:
In the UK, the state had to bail out the greedy, irresponsible banks
and
pay for it with jobs, pensions, and pay of the public sector
workers, most
of whom are/where poorly paid.

I might point out that the _first_ bit of pension raiding was done by
Blair/Brown when a small adjustment turned out to be £5bn a year out of
the private sector pension scheme. Then there was the change in state
pension age. Of course this lot aren't going to reverse that...

Don't forget Thatcher or Major stopped companies from contributing to
their pension schemes.

News to me. In fact my company still contributes. Do you have a source
for that assertion?


It was quite well known at the time. They weren't stopped from
contributing rather the rules were relaxed to allow then to take
contribution "holidays" as they decided that _all_ pension funds were in
surplus and would _never_ need all the money being paid in...

I don't think it was that simple, or the fault of Thatcher or Major on
this occasion.


You will have to be pretty good to convince me of that. Don't forget
that she was - in conjunction with Ronnie - the original author of the
banking crash through relaxation of the regulations. The pension rule
changes were all part of it.

The tax rules at the time limited the total value of the fund that a
pension could build up. The high inflation rates of the 70s meant that
pension funds were getting close to the maximum value that they were
allowed to have, so contributions had to be reduced and most employers
did this by reducing their payments into the scheme. In general they
didn't raise them when the funds started stopped having a surplusl.

Because the rules were changed by the woman who allowed most building
societies to de-mutualise and who spent all the oil money.

Don't get me started I could go on for days...

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:56:57 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Since when was the NHS free?

Since 1948.

In the last ten years my wife has had two major operations,
chemotherapy, radio therapy, and prologued hospital treatment twice for
heart failure. I've had two operations. We haven't paid a penny.

Of course you have. A lifetime of paying direct and indirect taxation
paid for it, same as everyone else.

wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:56:57 +0000, Bill
wrote:

Since when was the NHS free?

Since 1948.

In the last ten years my wife has had two major operations,
chemotherapy, radio therapy, and prologued hospital treatment twice for
heart failure. I've had two operations. We haven't paid a penny.

Of course you have. A lifetime of paying direct and indirect taxation
paid for it, same as everyone else.

The NHS is free in the same way as tomatoes are free with the Tesco
BOGOFF...

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

In article ,
wrote:
Myself - after a lifetime of grafting for others and some for myself,
I've got knackered joints in my knees, shoulders, back. I can quite
happily potter around in my own space, doing necessary work to get
this place shipshape, but am totally fecked if I push it beyond two or
maybe three hours. Once I push it beyond that I'm buggered for a
couple of days or maybe up to a week if I put a knee or my back out.

I'd be interested to know what an employer would make of that - but
perhaps Slik and his ilk might inform me.

Indeed. Plenty of illnesses where one can be fine one day, but
incapacitated the next. Have a pal who looks fit and acts it on some days
- but in others is in a wheel chair. In between, can need a crutch to get
around.

Very few employers could cope with that.

Of course the likes of Bill would only see him out and about on a good
day, so conclude he is fit for any sort of work.

--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

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

On Saturday, January 21st, 2012, at 12:07:12h +0000,
Roderick Stewart wrote:

In article , J G Miller wrote:
Unintelligent and with a criminal disposition.

I never knew that criminality was an inherited disposition.

There are more types of inheritance than genetic inheritance. The way
children grow up will depend on everything in their immediate
environment, the attitudes of those around them, and the opportunities,
educational and otherwise, that their parents provide for them.

But what you describe is learned behavior from the environment,
not inheritance.

Now think about it some more.

Yes, what you say is about the influence of the home is very true
and will indeed greatly influence the future behavior of the child.

This is why defense of, and promotion of, the family as the basic
building block of society is a fundamental issue.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:00:02 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Those who draw benefits as a lifestyle choice when they are able to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
work have made a choice that wasn't open to us. They have other
options, like working for a living. With cancer there isn't the
option of having it or not having it.

That's your view. Most are simply concerned about the cost to the
taxpayer.

What?

I didn't expect you to see it.

You think it correct for society to pay for the very expensive health
care one of your own needed, but not that they pay for the care for
others. The exact circumstances of which you are only guessing at.

One should also take into account that some people will tend to suffer from
diseases including cancer as a result of their lifestyle choice, the best
know one of course being AIDS, and the resulting hundreds of thousands
of tax payers money having to be spent on anti-retroviral drugs.

On Saturday, January 21st, 2012, at 12:00:53h +0000, Grimly 4 wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:37:22 -0000, "Rick" wrote:

one of the reasons why so
much of Socialist Europe finds itself in the mess that it is and will
hopefully (for all our sakes) quickly be brought to heel.

What's needed is a Strong Leader, eh?

Incidentally if Socalist Europe is so bad, why does the president
of the Tax Payer's Alliance live in France?

Anybody who thinks Sarkozy or Merkel are socialists or support
socialist policies is nothing more than deluded demagogue.

And the Greek financial fiasco was due to deceitful overspending
by the conservative government not a socialist one.

On 20/01/2012 02:37, Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

We all (or almost all of us) support wholeheartedly the principle
that those in need should be given help. It there were no cheats (or
if there were very few of them) the consensus would be greatly in
favour of handing out generous benefits. But the public have come to
feel that such a large proportion of benefit money is wasted on the
undeserving that the system is becoming almost impractical.

'The public' believe this because they have been told it and want to
believe it. My experience says cheats are nothing like as large a
percentage of those on benefits as you imply.

Try working on the estates like I do. Every town in Britain has these
estates, where there are a lot of long-term unemployed.


Agreed.

Many think a single mother on benefits a scrounger.
Since a lot of them get pregnant in order to get a flat and benefits,
yes, they are scroungers.

Leaving aside your 'scrounger' comment, which appears to be your
opinion, do you have any evidence of this 'pregnant to get a flat'
thesis. Have a look on the JRF site. I worked as an allocations worker
for three years in inner London, and even given my reactionary state of
mind, never once saw what you say. Or thought what you think.


Dave, there's block after block of flats full of these young women in
them. As well as living off our backs they provide a terrible
environment for the kids. No male role model other than a succession of
dodgy 'uncles'.

I'd agree that the social environment can be difficult for may. As is
the economic, as you know. And the political.

The flats often become places to hide stolen goods, and
of course they are used as drug houses.


I used to manage 1000s of these flats - Brixton, Peckham, Canning Town.
Some of the poorest places in the UK. Based on what I saw you're wrong.
many many decent people trying really hard to get by.

But given it's
unlikely she could find well enough paid work to also pay for child care,
what's the answer? Other than letting them starve as an example to
others.
Or taking her children into care which will cost even more.
In the long run it would be cheaper to take the kids away, because the
upbringing they get otherwise turns them into criminals.


I give up!

Rob

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:38:51 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Saturday, January 21st, 2012, at 12:07:12h +0000,
Roderick Stewart wrote:

In article , J G Miller wrote:
Unintelligent and with a criminal disposition.

I never knew that criminality was an inherited disposition.

There are more types of inheritance than genetic inheritance. The way
children grow up will depend on everything in their immediate
environment, the attitudes of those around them, and the opportunities,
educational and otherwise, that their parents provide for them.

But what you describe is learned behavior from the environment,
not inheritance.

Now think about it some more.

Yes, what you say is about the influence of the home is very true
and will indeed greatly influence the future behavior of the child.

This is why defense of, and promotion of, the family as the basic
building block of society is a fundamental issue.

It is a fundamental issue. However, me must not get the romantic notion
the the family is always a force for good: the good of individuals and
social good. From the point of view of the desirable development of a
child there are good families and bad families.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)