How the disabled are ripped off

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:40:48 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I am rather bored with this now, but I have been involved with small
business retail all my life and I can tell you that 1,000% mark-ups are
never necessary. This is 'charging what you can get away with', also
known as 'charging what the market will stand'. It is the exploiting of
a local monopoly made possible indirectly by the customers' disability
and age.

Yeah right, that's why small businesses go bankrupt easily.

No, that's usually because of changing patterns of trade, out of town
supermarkets, ridiculous parking restrictions used as a means of getting
revenue, refusal of older proprietors to change with the times,
outrageous rate demands, etc.

If you sell less stuff, you need to make more profit on each item. I
think your problem is that you think everyone is out to get you. Why do
disabled people think this way? From what I've seen most folk go out of
their way to help you lot.

They clearly don't with the prices they charge
for what they sell them with retail operations.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Jim Thomas wrote:

"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and
miss."

You don't throw yourself at the ground.

I can tell you that you do if you are stood on a ridge and you hear a
whooshing sound so you look round and a hang glider is just about to hit
you.

You aren't flying if you are stood on a ridge.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:45:57 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:40:48 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I am rather bored with this now, but I have been involved with small
business retail all my life and I can tell you that 1,000% mark-ups are
never necessary. This is 'charging what you can get away with', also
known as 'charging what the market will stand'. It is the exploiting of
a local monopoly made possible indirectly by the customers' disability
and age.

Yeah right, that's why small businesses go bankrupt easily.

No, that's usually because of changing patterns of trade, out of town
supermarkets, ridiculous parking restrictions used as a means of getting
revenue, refusal of older proprietors to change with the times,
outrageous rate demands, etc.

If you sell less stuff, you need to make more profit on each item. I
think your problem is that you think everyone is out to get you. Why do
disabled people think this way? From what I've seen most folk go out of
their way to help you lot.

They clearly don't with the prices they charge
for what they sell them with retail operations.

Small shop big price, nothing to do with disabled.

--
"I've never claimed to be anything more than a simple person" - Ronald Tompkins, circa 2013.

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:43:31 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:10:04 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 17:31:40 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article , ARW
wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 21:02:23 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

A good service the disabled should be doing for the whole
country
is
getting rid of speedbumps. They're illegally discriminating
against
the disabled. My Aunt has severe spine problems and can't go
over
them at any speed.

Yes I know someone who has to take a long route to her mother's
because of that.

In Rotherham a common way to induce a birth is for the woman to
stand
up in her boyfriend's van whilst he roars around the roadhump
strewn
streets. This has been known to make the baby plop out.

(That was a joke by the way)

What annoys me is the amount of money my council spends redoing
streets
with potholes, which are a tenth of the size of the speedbumps.
Why
do they bother?

Speed bumps? What a stupid name. They cause you to slow down.

same with the phrase "near miss" which ia actually a near hit - but a
complete miss.

Agreed, that always makes me laugh. Explaining the above doesn't seem
to
help when I dodge traffic at high speed and frighten the passenger
though.

"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground
and
miss."

You don't throw yourself at the ground.

Why not?

Because it works much better to do it the right way.

It's only carrier landings where the pilot does anything
like throw the plane at the ground and they don't miss,
they hit it where they need to hit it instead.

You might be thrown at the ground unintentionally.

That isn't throwing yourself at the ground.

You need to be able to recover from a plummet.

In article , Tough Guy no. 1265
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:17:35 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article , Tough Guy no. 1265
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:40:48 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

I am rather bored with this now, but I have been involved with
small business retail all my life and I can tell you that 1,000%
mark-ups are never necessary. This is 'charging what you can get
away with', also known as 'charging what the market will stand'.
It is the exploiting of a local monopoly made possible indirectly
by the customers' disability and age.

Yeah right, that's why small businesses go bankrupt easily.

No, that's usually because of changing patterns of trade, out of
town supermarkets, ridiculous parking restrictions used as a means
of getting revenue, refusal of older proprietors to change with the
times, outrageous rate demands, etc.

If you sell less stuff, you need to make more profit on each item. I
think your problem is that you think everyone is out to get you. Why
do disabled people think this way? From what I've seen most folk go
out of their way to help you lot.

Bill is NOT disabled, but Hil is.

Bill was the one that moaned about the cost.

He's paying

--
Please note new email address:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:51:39 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:43:31 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:10:04 +0100, Jim Thomas wrote:



"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 17:31:40 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article , ARW
wrote:
"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 21:02:23 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

A good service the disabled should be doing for the whole
country
is
getting rid of speedbumps. They're illegally discriminating
against
the disabled. My Aunt has severe spine problems and can't go
over
them at any speed.

Yes I know someone who has to take a long route to her mother's
because of that.

In Rotherham a common way to induce a birth is for the woman to
stand
up in her boyfriend's van whilst he roars around the roadhump
strewn
streets. This has been known to make the baby plop out.

(That was a joke by the way)

What annoys me is the amount of money my council spends redoing
streets
with potholes, which are a tenth of the size of the speedbumps.
Why
do they bother?

Speed bumps? What a stupid name. They cause you to slow down.

same with the phrase "near miss" which ia actually a near hit - but a
complete miss.

Agreed, that always makes me laugh. Explaining the above doesn't seem
to
help when I dodge traffic at high speed and frighten the passenger
though.

"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground
and
miss."

You don't throw yourself at the ground.

Why not?

Because it works much better to do it the right way.

It's only carrier landings where the pilot does anything
like throw the plane at the ground and they don't miss,
they hit it where they need to hit it instead.

You might be thrown at the ground unintentionally.

That isn't throwing yourself at the ground.

Maybe you had to to avoid the plane you're dogfighting.

--
If you spin oriental folk till they are dizzy, do they become disoriented?

In uk.d-i-y Rod Speed wrote:
Speed bumps? What a stupid name. They cause you to slow down.

I've never fathomed out why something which mounts to an
obstruction or fault in the road can contribute to road safety.

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

You don't get safety oil slicks to slow you
down so why have 'safety bumps'?

Because they do stop most of the traffic going
as fast as they would if they weren't there.

....and a patch of ice with a sign won't do that?

--
Chris Green
·

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:21:26 +0100, charles wrote:

In article , Tough Guy no. 1265
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:04:37 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 27/09/2015 17:30, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 17:11:58 +0100, Indy Jess
wrote:

On 27/09/2015 16:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:03:05 +0100,
wrote:

Speed bumps? What a stupid name. They cause you to slow down.

Maybe they'e meant to bump you only if you're speeding. Which
they don't, as the faster you go the less you get jolted. I have
to laugh at people going over them at 5mph, and I can see the
occupants of the car being shoved about. If you go about twice
the sped limit, the suspension may get a jolt, but the occupants
of the car do not.

The best speed varies from car to car, and it depends on the
distance between the front and back wheels and the design of the
suspension. Typically the best speed will be found (by trial and
error) to be between 37 and 47mph.

I've always found that it's a multiple or factor of the speed limit,
with higher numbers getting smoother for the occupants. For example
a 20mph bump should be taken at 5, 10, 20, or 40. 15 is worse than
20.

There is a standard Road Traffic Act specification for a speed bump.
Mostly the speed limit of the road in which it is installed doesn't
get taken into account for the profile of the bump.

Really? I assumed there'd be specs for each limit.

When I complained to my council (with a video showing how ridiculously
my car jumped about at 20mph) to the council, I was actually told I
shouldn't be going 20mph in a 20 zone. I was told 10mph was a more
appropriate speed. I said "change the speed limit signs to 10 then"
and she said "we're not allowed." The mind boggles.

contrary to popular belief the "speed limit" is not a target figure.

Quite so! The *target* speed is (Speed limit x 1.1) +2mph + speedometer
over-reading error as determined by a GPS speed calibration run on your
handiest 2 mile stretch of motorway. :-)

However, discretion being the better part of valour in this case, I'd
suggest a less ambitious target by excluding the +2mph allowance from the
equation.

--
Johnny B Good

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:41:28 +0100, ARW wrote:

"Tough Guy no. 1265" wrote in message
news
====snip====

"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground
and miss."


I never managed to master that knack.

I believe Arthur Dent finally mastered it (but he was a fictional hero
so not a real world example anyone should try to emulate... at least not
in real life).

--
Johnny B Good

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:58:23 +0100, Johnny B Good wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:21:26 +0100, charles wrote:

In article , Tough Guy no. 1265
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:04:37 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 27/09/2015 17:30, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 17:11:58 +0100, Indy Jess
wrote:

On 27/09/2015 16:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:03:05 +0100,
wrote:

Speed bumps? What a stupid name. They cause you to slow down.

Maybe they'e meant to bump you only if you're speeding. Which
they don't, as the faster you go the less you get jolted. I have
to laugh at people going over them at 5mph, and I can see the
occupants of the car being shoved about. If you go about twice
the sped limit, the suspension may get a jolt, but the occupants
of the car do not.

The best speed varies from car to car, and it depends on the
distance between the front and back wheels and the design of the
suspension. Typically the best speed will be found (by trial and
error) to be between 37 and 47mph.

I've always found that it's a multiple or factor of the speed limit,
with higher numbers getting smoother for the occupants. For example
a 20mph bump should be taken at 5, 10, 20, or 40. 15 is worse than
20.

There is a standard Road Traffic Act specification for a speed bump.
Mostly the speed limit of the road in which it is installed doesn't
get taken into account for the profile of the bump.

Really? I assumed there'd be specs for each limit.

When I complained to my council (with a video showing how ridiculously
my car jumped about at 20mph) to the council, I was actually told I
shouldn't be going 20mph in a 20 zone. I was told 10mph was a more
appropriate speed. I said "change the speed limit signs to 10 then"
and she said "we're not allowed." The mind boggles.

contrary to popular belief the "speed limit" is not a target figure.

Quite so! The *target* speed is (Speed limit x 1.1) +2mph + speedometer
over-reading error as determined by a GPS speed calibration run on your
handiest 2 mile stretch of motorway. :-)

However, discretion being the better part of valour in this case, I'd
suggest a less ambitious target by excluding the +2mph allowance from the
equation.

I've never known a police officer use such a complex calculation. It's speed limit +10mph. Unless you have a good funny excuse then it's a little more. The best I've got away with is 95 in a 70.

--
Seven dwarfs sat in the tub, feeling Happy.
Then Happy got out, so they all felt Grumpy.