| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 35:45:10 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 172,999 |
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO >> devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time,
but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates >> era.
I guess by that time everyone had forgotten what Churchill did in April 1925.
(Go look it up.)
On 04/10/2025 08:26 am, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 03/10/2025 23:59, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2025 05:50 pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 03/10/2025 17:39, JNugent wrote:
On 03/10/2025 04:07 pm, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:True. Amazing how that myth has persisted for 80 years.
If that was the reason for the name then good on them :) DeTrue, but he did make sure that the French kept a degree of
Gaulle was
a backstabbing shit to the UK after we saved their arse in WW2. >>>>>>>
independence in
the realms of their defence ,where as the UK sold itself to the >>>>>>> US on the
grounds that we had rCLa special relationshiprCY
About the only UK politician who stood up to the US was Harold
Wilson who refused to send British Forces into Vietnam , so
the yanks retaliated by wrecking the value of the British pound
causing its devaluation .
That was Suez, not Vietnam.
Suez was 1956.
Devaluation ("the pound in your pocket") took place in late 1967.
There was a major devaluation in 1956 as a direct result of American
attacks on the pound because of the attack on Suez. They were annoyed
that they hadn't been invited to run the show.
According to Copilot's online AI consultation of the House of Commons Library, the post-war devaluations of sterling were as follows:
"No official devaluation of the pound sterling in 1956. The major post-
war devaluations occurred in:
- 1949, when the pound was devalued from $4.03 to $2.80
- 1967, when it was further reduced from $2.80 to $2.40"
I was a very small boy in 1956 so have no direct knowledge of that sort
of event, but the (in those days, fixed) value of sterling against the
US dollar seems to have been the same between 1949 and 1967. Perhaps the value against certain other currencies changed in 1956? Either way, it doesn't seem to have been classified as "major".
"No official devaluation of the pound sterling in 1956. The major post-
war devaluations occurred in:
- 1949, when the pound was devalued from $4.03 to $2.80
- 1967, when it was further reduced from $2.80 to $2.40" ...
I recall that exchange rates were fixed to gold until 1972. Volatility
came when the US moved away from the gold standard. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
I understand that Switzerland has a particularly vibrant pharmaceuticals >industry, and that it accounts for circa 40% of the country's exports by >value.
On 05/10/2025 08:37 pm, John Levine wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO >>> devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time, >>> but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates >>> era.
I guess by that time everyone had forgotten what Churchill did in April 1925.
(Go look it up.)
In 1924, the pound was worth $4.43.
In 1926, it was worth $4.86.
Whatever happened in 1925, it doesn't seem to have the affected sterling
too badly in terms of its value against other currencies, particularly >against the most important one of all.
We should be so lucky as to have a 10% revaluation against the dollar
over the next two years.
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
I understand that Switzerland has a particularly vibrant pharmaceuticals
industry, and that it accounts for circa 40% of the country's exports by
value.
They do, but I have heard that until a few months ago the largest export by value
was gold bars. That is because Europe and the US use different sized bars, and
Swiss refiners melt them down and recast them. In August the US put a 39% tariff
on them, because stupid, so that business has stopped for now.
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
I understand that Switzerland has a particularly vibrant pharmaceuticals >>> industry, and that it accounts for circa 40% of the country's exports by >>> value.
They do, but I have heard that until a few months ago the largest export by value
was gold bars. That is because Europe and the US use different sized bars, and
Swiss refiners melt them down and recast them. In August the US put a 39% tariff
on them, because stupid, so that business has stopped for now.
Is the tariff payable in, erm, gold?
:-)
According to ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk>:
"No official devaluation of the pound sterling in 1956. The major post- >>> war devaluations occurred in:
- 1949, when the pound was devalued from $4.03 to $2.80
- 1967, when it was further reduced from $2.80 to $2.40" ...
I recall that exchange rates were fixed to gold until 1972. Volatility
came when the US moved away from the gold standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
At the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, Keynes wanted an international reserve currency he called the Bancor, Harry Dexter White wanted dollars. Since the US had all the gold, and Keynes was old and sick, White won.
The USD was pegged to gold at $35/oz, everything else to the dollar,
until Nixon broke the gold peg in the 1970s.
ObRail: the Bretton Woods hotel is near the base of the Mt Washington Cog Railway, completed in 1869 and running ever since. It is the world's
oldest rack railway with an average grade of 25% and some places 37%,
base at 820m, top at 1920m, distance about 5km.
Until 2008 it was steam powered, since then some trips are steam and
some are biodiesel. When the state legislature passed the bill authorizing the company to build the railway, they considered it so implausible
that some wag suggested language allowing them to continue it to the
moon.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
I understand that Switzerland has a particularly vibrant pharmaceuticals >>>> industry, and that it accounts for circa 40% of the country's exports by >>>> value.
They do, but I have heard that until a few months ago the largest export by value
was gold bars. That is because Europe and the US use different sized bars, and
Swiss refiners melt them down and recast them. In August the US put a 39% tariff
on them, because stupid, so that business has stopped for now.
Is the tariff payable in, erm, gold?
:-)
Yes, to gold-plate the fixings in TrumprCOs new ballroom, being financed by reluctant rCOdonorsrCO. ItrCOs a huge space thatrCOs going to need a lot of gold
plastered over every undulating surface.
On 05/10/2025 23:07, Recliner wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
I understand that Switzerland has a particularly vibrant pharmaceuticals >>>>> industry, and that it accounts for circa 40% of the country's exports by >>>>> value.
They do, but I have heard that until a few months ago the largest export by value
was gold bars. That is because Europe and the US use different sized bars, and
Swiss refiners melt them down and recast them. In August the US put a 39% tariff
on them, because stupid, so that business has stopped for now.
Is the tariff payable in, erm, gold?
:-)
Yes, to gold-plate the fixings in TrumprCOs new ballroom, being financed by >> reluctant rCOdonorsrCO. ItrCOs a huge space thatrCOs going to need a lot of gold
plastered over every undulating surface.
A lot of companies seem to be making 'donations', sometimes in the form
of out-of-court settlements for baseless litigation, because it would be
a shame if anything were to happen to their businesses. The Mafia could learn a thing or two.
ObRail: the Bretton Woods hotel is near the base of the Mt Washington Cog
Railway, completed in 1869 and running ever since. It is the world's
oldest rack railway with an average grade of 25% and some places 37%,
base at 820m, top at 1920m, distance about 5km.
Until 2008 it was steam powered, since then some trips are steam and
some are biodiesel. When the state legislature passed the bill authorizing >> the company to build the railway, they considered it so implausible
that some wag suggested language allowing them to continue it to the
moon.
Thanks, I never knew about that connection!
On 05/10/2025 09:58 am, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 06:39:18 GMT
Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> gabbled:
boltar@caprica.universe posted:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 18:21:19 +0300
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
On 03/10/2025 17:26, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:He hardly had much choice. The red army was quite capable of carrying on >>>> west if Stalin chose causing a new war and dislodging the russians from >>>> east europe would have been impossible. He took the best option available. >>>>
If that was the reason for the name then good on them :) De Gaulle was >>>>>> a backstabbing shit to the UK after we saved their arse in WW2.
Churchill hardly covered himself in glory after WW2, agreeing a carveup >>>>> with Stalin and sentencing half the continent to decades of oppression >>>>
just to make sure Britain still had influence in the Med (and thus
Bollocks.
control of the Suez Canal - although that worked out well, didn't it.) >>>>>
There's no moral high ground for Britain to stand on, or lack of
backstabbing from Churchill, in post-WW2 Europe.
Oh really? Meanwhile the US and France cosied up to Germany almost
immediately, the former exfiltrating nazis such as Von Braun to work on >>>> the US missile program and pouring a ton of money into german industry. >>>> Meanwhile Britain still had food rationing until the 50s.
The British didn't want Germans in Britain but sent
200 (were not asked) to Melbourne.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overcast#Konkurrenz_zu_anderen_Staaten
Interesting, didn't know that. I doubt the germans would have wanted to be >> in the UK, their lives would have been made pretty unpleasent and quite
possibly they'd have been murdered.
There can't be all that many German POWs who settled in the UK post-WW2
still alive. But there are plenty of their descendants here.
Bert Trautmann, anyone?
True, but we did have a space programme.
and unlike their equivalents
in the occupied countries of Europe had never met or seen the activities of the German forces first hand.
DonrCOt know , My Godmother would not have thought so as an Me 109 hopping over the channel
decided to take on the Maidstone and District bus she was travelling in rather than the RAF and strafed the road with gunfire, fortunately the passengers just had enough time to get off and lie flat in a ditch.
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 11:22:28 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO >>> devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time, >>> but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates >>> era.
ItrCOs worse when you look at a stable currency like the Swiss Franc. About >> 50 or so years when I first went there it was around 12 Francs to the
Pound. Just come back from Switzerland and the exchange rate is almost
parity.
To be fair that probably says more about the swiss economy than ours. Somehow they seem to magic up money by doing very little other than private banking and cuckoo clocks.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 15:23:04 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 11:22:28 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO
devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time, >>>>>> but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates
era.
ItrCOs worse when you look at a stable currency like the Swiss Franc. About
50 or so years when I first went there it was around 12 Francs to the >>>>> Pound. Just come back from Switzerland and the exchange rate is almost >>>>> parity.
To be fair that probably says more about the swiss economy than ours. Somehow
they seem to magic up money by doing very little other than private banking
and cuckoo clocks.
Switzerland seems to be yet another country yourCOve never visitedrCa
So you're trying to explain the rapid rise of the swiss economy on
engineering are you? That would required their engineering GDP to have been >> something like 10 times that of germany over the same time period. I think not.
I think we all know financial services - some of them somewhat dodgy - is what
keeps that country going.
Have a look at https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/sectors
Financial services keeps the UK going as well .
On 05/10/2025 16:40, Tweed wrote:
Have a look at https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/sectors
Financial services keeps the UK going as well .
Especially laundering Russian money.
On 05/10/2025 09:58 am, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 06:39:18 GMT
Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> gabbled:
boltar@caprica.universe posted:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2025 18:21:19 +0300
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> gabbled:
On 03/10/2025 17:26, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:He hardly had much choice. The red army was quite capable of
If that was the reason for the name then good on them :) De Gaulle >>>>>> was
a backstabbing shit to the UK after we saved their arse in WW2.
Churchill hardly covered himself in glory after WW2, agreeing a
carveup
with Stalin and sentencing half the continent to decades of oppression >>>>
carrying on
west if Stalin chose causing a new war and dislodging the russians from >>>> east europe would have been impossible. He took the best option
available.
just to make sure Britain still had influence in the Med (and thus
Bollocks.
control of the Suez Canal - although that worked out well, didn't it.) >>>>>
There's no moral high ground for Britain to stand on, or lack of
backstabbing from Churchill, in post-WW2 Europe.
Oh really? Meanwhile the US and France cosied up to Germany almost
immediately, the former exfiltrating nazis such as Von Braun to work on >>>> the US missile program and pouring a ton of money into german industry. >>>> Meanwhile Britain still had food rationing until the 50s.
The British didn't want Germans in Britain but sent
200 (were not asked) to Melbourne.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overcast#Konkurrenz_zu_anderen_Staaten
Interesting, didn't know that. I doubt the germans would have wanted
to be
in the UK, their lives would have been made pretty unpleasent and quite
possibly they'd have been murdered.
There can't be all that many German POWs who settled in the UK post-WW2 still alive. But there are plenty of their descendants here.
Bert Trautmann, anyone?
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 08:28:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 05/10/2025 16:40, Tweed wrote:
Have a look at https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/sectors
Financial services keeps the UK going as well .
Especially laundering Russian money.
You have to wonder about the sort of people who become politicians in the
UK today. Any semblence of doing the right thing and putting country first seems to have gone out the window
On 05/10/2025 13:30, Marland wrote:
and unlike their equivalents
in the occupied countries of Europe had never met or seen the activities of >> the German forces first hand.
I went on a student exchange scheme in the Netherlands in the late
1960s. There was a Swiss student on the exchange, he mentioned that he
never spoke German there because he would get a hostile reception.
On 05/10/2025 14:18, Marland wrote:
DonrCOt know , My Godmother would not have thought so as an Me 109 hopping >> over the channel
decided to take on the Maidstone and District bus she was travelling in
rather than the RAF and strafed the road with gunfire, fortunately the
passengers just had enough time to get off and lie flat in a ditch.
I have a book by an English schoolboy who spent WWII in Germany (he went there with his mother just before the war and she returned to England on business just before the war started, leaving him there).
He describes seeing American (and British?) bombers strafing German
children crossing a bridge in the village where he was living.
On 05/10/2025 15:52, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 11:22:28 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO
devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time, >>>> but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates
era.
ItrCOs worse when you look at a stable currency like the Swiss Franc. About >>> 50 or so years when I first went there it was around 12 Francs to the
Pound. Just come back from Switzerland and the exchange rate is almost
parity.
To be fair that probably says more about the swiss economy than ours. Somehow
they seem to magic up money by doing very little other than private banking >> and cuckoo clocks.
Don't forget the chocolate.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 08:28:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 05/10/2025 16:40, Tweed wrote:
Have a look at https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/sectors
Financial services keeps the UK going as well .
Especially laundering Russian money.
You have to wonder about the sort of people who become politicians in the
UK today. Any semblence of doing the right thing and putting country first seems to have gone out the window to be replaced by flexible morality and inflexible ideology on both sides.
On 05/10/2025 15:52, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 11:22:28 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO
devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time, >>>> but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates
era.
ItrCOs worse when you look at a stable currency like the Swiss Franc. About >>> 50 or so years when I first went there it was around 12 Francs to the
Pound. Just come back from Switzerland and the exchange rate is almost
parity.
To be fair that probably says more about the swiss economy than ours. Somehow
they seem to magic up money by doing very little other than private banking >> and cuckoo clocks.
Don't forget the chocolate.
On 06/10/2025 08:39, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 08:28:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 05/10/2025 16:40, Tweed wrote:
Have a look at https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/sectors
Financial services keeps the UK going as well .
Especially laundering Russian money.
You have to wonder about the sort of people who become politicians in the
UK today. Any semblence of doing the right thing and putting country first >> seems to have gone out the window to be replaced by flexible morality and
inflexible ideology on both sides.
Sadly, we seem to have followed the bigly bad people of America.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 05/10/2025 14:18, Marland wrote:IrCOm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger,, it wasnrCOt till the Mustang was developed that the allies had a fighter in numbers that could reach Germany from safe airfields and was right at the limit of its range
DonrCOt know , My Godmother would not have thought so as an Me 109 hopping >>> over the channel
decided to take on the Maidstone and District bus she was travelling in
rather than the RAF and strafed the road with gunfire, fortunately the
passengers just had enough time to get off and lie flat in a ditch.
I have a book by an English schoolboy who spent WWII in Germany (he went
there with his mother just before the war and she returned to England on
business just before the war started, leaving him there).
He describes seeing American (and British?) bombers strafing German
children crossing a bridge in the village where he was living.
so popping down to ground level from the altitude where they should have
been escorting the bombers would be frowned on ,whereas Germans could just pop across the channel from French soil as lone Wolfs on a quick,surprise
and economic in fuel raid on civilian targets in Kent and Sussex
British raids were usually done at night so children would have unlikely to
have been around , so the boys account doesnrCOt really ring that true.
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
On 05/10/2025 08:37 pm, John Levine wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO
devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time, >>>> but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates
era.
I guess by that time everyone had forgotten what Churchill did in April 1925.
(Go look it up.)
In 1924, the pound was worth $4.43.
In 1926, it was worth $4.86.
Whatever happened in 1925, it doesn't seem to have the affected sterling
too badly in terms of its value against other currencies, particularly
against the most important one of all.
It was a disaster then, suddenly raising the price of British exports
by 10% for no reason other than Churchill's economic ignorance, which
made them globally uncompetitive.
We should be so lucky as to have a 10% revaluation against the dollar
over the next two years.
over the next two years.We should be so lucky as to have a 10% revaluation against the dollar
Things have changed in the last century, with most exchange rates now floating.
On 05/10/2025 14:18, Marland wrote:
DonrCOt know , My Godmother would not have thought so as an Me 109 hopping >> over the channel
decided to take on the Maidstone and District bus she was travelling in
rather than the RAF and strafed the road with gunfire, fortunately the
passengers just had enough time to get off and lie flat in a ditch.
I have a book by an English schoolboy who spent WWII in Germany (he went there with his mother just before the war and she returned to England on business just before the war started, leaving him there).
He describes seeing American (and British?) bombers strafing German
children crossing a bridge in the village where he was living.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
I understand that Switzerland has a particularly vibrant pharmaceuticals >>>> industry, and that it accounts for circa 40% of the country's exports by >>>> value.
They do, but I have heard that until a few months ago the largest export by value
was gold bars. That is because Europe and the US use different sized bars, and
Swiss refiners melt them down and recast them. In August the US put a 39% tariff
on them, because stupid, so that business has stopped for now.
Is the tariff payable in, erm, gold?
:-)
Yes, to gold-plate the fixings in TrumprCOs new ballroom, being financed by reluctant rCOdonorsrCO. ItrCOs a huge space thatrCOs going to need a lot of gold
plastered over every undulating surface.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 05/10/2025 13:30, Marland wrote:
and unlike their equivalents
in the occupied countries of Europe had never met or seen the activities of
the German forces first hand.
I went on a student exchange scheme in the Netherlands in the late
1960s. There was a Swiss student on the exchange, he mentioned that he never spoke German there because he would get a hostile reception.
Understandable ,and it was the same in Belgium , my wifes mother in laws mother is a hard to please grouchy 101 year old but her hard attitude may well have been conditioned by being a teenage member* of the Belgian resistance and losing family and friends .
In 1924, the pound was worth $4.43.
In 1926, it was worth $4.86.
Whatever happened in 1925, it doesn't seem to have the affected sterling >>> too badly in terms of its value against other currencies, particularly
against the most important one of all.
It was a disaster then, suddenly raising the price of British exports
by 10% for no reason other than Churchill's economic ignorance, which
made them globally uncompetitive.
How? The value of sterling against the US dollar *improved* between 1924
and 1926.
I went on a student exchange scheme in the Netherlands in the late
1960s. There was a Swiss student on the exchange, he mentioned that he
never spoke German there because he would get a hostile reception.
On 05/10/2025 10:05 pm, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
On 05/10/2025 08:37 pm, John Levine wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO
devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time, >>>>> but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates
era.
I guess by that time everyone had forgotten what Churchill did in April 1925.
(Go look it up.)
In 1924, the pound was worth $4.43.
In 1926, it was worth $4.86.
Whatever happened in 1925, it doesn't seem to have the affected sterling >>> too badly in terms of its value against other currencies, particularly
against the most important one of all.
It was a disaster then, suddenly raising the price of British exports
by 10% for no reason other than Churchill's economic ignorance, which
made them globally uncompetitive.
How? The value of sterling against the US dollar *improved* between 1924
and 1926.
We should be so lucky as to have a 10% revaluation against the dollar
over the next two years.
over the next two years.We should be so lucky as to have a 10% revaluation against the dollar
Things have changed in the last century, with most exchange rates now floating.
I had heard that. I can remember getting $2 per -u1, back around
2010/2011. Wish it were still so. And it would be if the UK had sane interest rates.
In message <10bvo1t$4cok$3@dont-email.me>, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> writes
I went on a student exchange scheme in the Netherlands in the late
1960s. There was a Swiss student on the exchange, he mentioned that he >never spoke German there because he would get a hostile reception.
I remember visiting the Netherlands in 1972/3, and the owners of a shop within sight of the Dutch/German border refused to speak German.
Fortunately their English was good enough for the job in hand.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
To be fair that probably says more about the swiss economy than ours. >Somehow
they seem to magic up money by doing very little other than private banking >>> and cuckoo clocks.
Don't forget the chocolate.
That neatly illustrates a big difference between Switzerland and the UK: we >live beyond our means, and steadily sell off our companies, land and
Returning to trains, the class 67, 68, 93 and 99 all came from the same >Valencia factory. The 67s were made by an Alstom/EMD consortium, the 68s by >Vossloh Espa|#a and the 93s and 99s by Stadler. Same factory, different >owners. From what one reads, the quality has improved along the way.
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 08:39, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 08:28:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 05/10/2025 16:40, Tweed wrote:
Have a look at https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/sectors
Financial services keeps the UK going as well .
Especially laundering Russian money.
You have to wonder about the sort of people who become politicians in the >>> UK today. Any semblence of doing the right thing and putting country first >>> seems to have gone out the window to be replaced by flexible morality and >>> inflexible ideology on both sides.
Sadly, we seem to have followed the bigly bad people of America.
Apart from the occasional seriously corrupt individuals, I think most of
our politicians on all sides are relatively clean. But I was disappointed
by the Labour freebie-fest. Did they really think it was OK for the wealthy >barrister leader of the party to accept free suits and even free spectacles >from a donor? Surely Starmer already had a wardrobe full of good quality >suits? Why did he need to use an extremely expensive penthouse flat >rent-free for weeks on end, when he only lived a few miles away? Several >other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert tickets, holidays,
etc.
On 06/10/2025 08:39, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 08:28:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 05/10/2025 16:40, Tweed wrote:
Have a look at https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/sectors
Financial services keeps the UK going as well .
Especially laundering Russian money.
You have to wonder about the sort of people who become politicians in the
UK today. Any semblence of doing the right thing and putting country first >> seems to have gone out the window
That went with Thatcher.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 05/10/2025 15:52, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 11:22:28 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO
devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time, >>>>> but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates
era.
ItrCOs worse when you look at a stable currency like the Swiss Franc. About
50 or so years when I first went there it was around 12 Francs to the
Pound. Just come back from Switzerland and the exchange rate is almost >>>> parity.
To be fair that probably says more about the swiss economy than ours. Somehow
they seem to magic up money by doing very little other than private banking >>> and cuckoo clocks.
Don't forget the chocolate.
That neatly illustrates a big difference between Switzerland and the UK: we live beyond our means, and steadily sell off our companies, land and properties. The Swiss are the opposite, and are steadily buying up
companies elsewhere. Taking chocolate as an example, many quintessentially British brands are now foreign-owned. For example, After Eights, Kit Kat
and Rowntree are among the numerous Nestl|- brands in this and many other countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nestl|-_brands
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
In 1924, the pound was worth $4.43.
In 1926, it was worth $4.86.
Whatever happened in 1925, it doesn't seem to have the affected sterling >>>> too badly in terms of its value against other currencies, particularly >>>> against the most important one of all.
It was a disaster then, suddenly raising the price of British exports
by 10% for no reason other than Churchill's economic ignorance, which
made them globally uncompetitive.
How? The value of sterling against the US dollar *improved* between 1924
and 1926.
Um, it's arithmetic. If a British widget had cost $44.30 to a foreign customer,
overnight the price increased to $48.60. If you want people to buy your exports,
you want the value of your currency to be low so their price to the importers is
cheap.
There were a lot of competitive devaluations in the 1930s after everyone left the
gold standard, leading to a currency war that left nobody better off.
At the end of WW II most of the Commonwealth other than Canada was the "Sterling
area" which kept their deposits in London and had a fixed exchange rate to the
pound. But the UK was broke and did not have the reserves to redeem those deposits, leading to two decades of simmering financial crisis until the 1967 devaluation forced them to admit they could never pay at the old rate.
See this paper "Zombie International Currency: The Pound Sterling 1945-1971"
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/7B7C31079FB943B4971CD4B9257013AB/S0022050724000329a.pdf/zombie-international-currency-the-pound-sterling-1945-1971.pdf
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/10/2025 10:05 pm, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
On 05/10/2025 08:37 pm, John Levine wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO
devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time, >>>>>> but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates
era.
I guess by that time everyone had forgotten what Churchill did in April 1925.
(Go look it up.)
In 1924, the pound was worth $4.43.
In 1926, it was worth $4.86.
Whatever happened in 1925, it doesn't seem to have the affected sterling >>>> too badly in terms of its value against other currencies, particularly >>>> against the most important one of all.
It was a disaster then, suddenly raising the price of British exports
by 10% for no reason other than Churchill's economic ignorance, which
made them globally uncompetitive.
How? The value of sterling against the US dollar *improved* between 1924
and 1926.
So UK exports became less competitive.
We should be so lucky as to have a 10% revaluation against the dollar
over the next two years.
We should be so lucky as to have a 10% revaluation against the dollar >>>> over the next two years.
Things have changed in the last century, with most exchange rates now floating.
I had heard that. I can remember getting $2 per -u1, back around
2010/2011. Wish it were still so. And it would be if the UK had sane
interest rates.
You want much higher interest rates?
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 05/10/2025 15:52, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 11:22:28 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO
devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time, >>>> but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates
era.
ItrCOs worse when you look at a stable currency like the Swiss Franc. About
50 or so years when I first went there it was around 12 Francs to the
Pound. Just come back from Switzerland and the exchange rate is almost >>> parity.
To be fair that probably says more about the swiss economy than ours. Somehow
they seem to magic up money by doing very little other than private banking
and cuckoo clocks.
Don't forget the chocolate.
That neatly illustrates a big difference between Switzerland and the UK: we live beyond our means, and steadily sell off our companies, land and properties. The Swiss are the opposite, and are steadily buying up
companies elsewhere. Taking chocolate as an example, many quintessentially British brands are now foreign-owned. For example, After Eights, Kit Kat
and Rowntree are among the numerous Nestl|- brands in this and many other countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nestl|-_brands
On 06/10/2025 03:44 pm, Recliner wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/10/2025 10:05 pm, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
On 05/10/2025 08:37 pm, John Levine wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO
devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time,
but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates
era.
I guess by that time everyone had forgotten what Churchill did in April 1925.
(Go look it up.)
In 1924, the pound was worth $4.43.
In 1926, it was worth $4.86.
Whatever happened in 1925, it doesn't seem to have the affected sterling >>>>> too badly in terms of its value against other currencies, particularly >>>>> against the most important one of all.
It was a disaster then, suddenly raising the price of British exports
by 10% for no reason other than Churchill's economic ignorance, which
made them globally uncompetitive.
How? The value of sterling against the US dollar *improved* between 1924 >>> and 1926.
So UK exports became less competitive.
We should be so lucky as to have a 10% revaluation against the dollar >>>>> over the next two years.
We should be so lucky as to have a 10% revaluation against the dollar >>>>> over the next two years.
Things have changed in the last century, with most exchange rates now floating.
I had heard that. I can remember getting $2 per -u1, back around
2010/2011. Wish it were still so. And it would be if the UK had sane
interest rates.
You want much higher interest rates?
Interest base rates need to provide for the rate of inflation plus a
modest real terms return. No-one should lose out by saving money. Well,
not unless there are just no borrowers patronising the deposit taking institutions.
Currently, saving accounts should be returning about 5.5% to 6%, after
tax, if any.
How? The value of sterling against the US dollar *improved* between 1924 >>> and 1926.
Um, it's arithmetic. If a British widget had cost $44.30 to a foreign customer,
overnight the price increased to $48.60. If you want people to buy your exports,
you want the value of your currency to be low so their price to the importers is
cheap.
Yes, I get that, but was looking at it from the other end of the
telescope. I don't believe that it's a bad thing to have a strong
currency (which keeps prices lower in the UK than they otherwise would be).
The opposite viewpoint and the accompanying willingness to allow
the continual devaluation as though it somehow doesn't matter is what
has led to the UK's prsent circumstances.
I had heard that. I can remember getting $2 per -u1, back around
2010/2011. Wish it were still so. And it would be if the UK had sane
interest rates.
You want much higher interest rates?
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 08:50:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 06/10/2025 08:39, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 08:28:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 05/10/2025 16:40, Tweed wrote:
Have a look at https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/sectors
Financial services keeps the UK going as well .
Especially laundering Russian money.
You have to wonder about the sort of people who become politicians in
the
UK today. Any semblence of doing the right thing and putting country
first
seems to have gone out the window
That went with Thatcher.
IMO she meant well even if she sometimes got it wrong.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 03:44 pm, Recliner wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/10/2025 10:05 pm, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
On 05/10/2025 08:37 pm, John Levine wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO
devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time,
but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates
era.
I guess by that time everyone had forgotten what Churchill did in April 1925.
(Go look it up.)
In 1924, the pound was worth $4.43.
In 1926, it was worth $4.86.
Whatever happened in 1925, it doesn't seem to have the affected sterling >>>>>> too badly in terms of its value against other currencies, particularly >>>>>> against the most important one of all.
It was a disaster then, suddenly raising the price of British exports >>>>> by 10% for no reason other than Churchill's economic ignorance, which >>>>> made them globally uncompetitive.
How? The value of sterling against the US dollar *improved* between 1924 >>>> and 1926.
So UK exports became less competitive.
We should be so lucky as to have a 10% revaluation against the dollar >>>>>> over the next two years.
We should be so lucky as to have a 10% revaluation against the dollar >>>>>> over the next two years.
Things have changed in the last century, with most exchange rates now floating.
I had heard that. I can remember getting $2 per -u1, back around
2010/2011. Wish it were still so. And it would be if the UK had sane
interest rates.
You want much higher interest rates?
Interest base rates need to provide for the rate of inflation plus a
modest real terms return. No-one should lose out by saving money. Well,
not unless there are just no borrowers patronising the deposit taking
institutions.
Currently, saving accounts should be returning about 5.5% to 6%, after
tax, if any.
So yourCOd want a bank rate of 8%?
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
How? The value of sterling against the US dollar *improved* between 1924 >>>> and 1926.
Um, it's arithmetic. If a British widget had cost $44.30 to a foreign customer,
overnight the price increased to $48.60. If you want people to buy your exports,
you want the value of your currency to be low so their price to the importers is
cheap.
Yes, I get that, but was looking at it from the other end of the
telescope. I don't believe that it's a bad thing to have a strong
currency (which keeps prices lower in the UK than they otherwise would be).
If you have a lot of assets denominated in the currency, sure, deflation
is great. If you want people to be able to trade with each other and
the rest of the world, not so much.
The economic collapse that started in the US in 1929 was made much
worse by bank failures leading people to try to hold as much cash as possible, causing deflation, and with all that cash under mattresses
rather than circulating, economic activity ground to a halt. The
central banks of that era had a fetish about "sound money" which
made it worse. These days we have the exotic sounding Quantitative
Easing which is essentially a way for central banks to push cash into
the economy to counteract that.
The opposite viewpoint and the accompanying willingness to allow
the continual devaluation as though it somehow doesn't matter is what
has led to the UK's prsent circumstances.
The UK has certainly made a hash of its economy, but I would say the problems were exacerbated by trying to keep the value of the pound unrealistically high.
ObGodwin: everyone remembers the German hyperinflation of 1923, which was a deliberate and successful attempt to make it impossible to collect reparations.
But a decade later Heinrich Bruening's grinding deflation of 1930-32 caused severe unemployment and poverty, widespread unrest, and the rise of You Know Who. Be careful what you wish for.
Understandable ,and it was the same in Belgium , my wifes mother in laws mother is a hard to please grouchy 101 year old but her hard attitude may well have been conditioned by being a teenage member* of the Belgian resistance and losing family and friends .
Even about 25 years ago on a couple of occasions in the Netherlands I witnessed anti German sentiments from people just going about their
business, one I remember when driving back from Bremerhaven to Calais was when I stopped in the Netherlands for fuel. The cashier said rCLnice to see a Vauxhall and not a bloody Opel driven by a bloody German.
* She did not volunteer, her Father said she must as her patriotic duty.
He was later shot by the Germans.
IrCOm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
On 06/10/2025 09:49, Marland wrote:
IrCOm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which >> operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time
strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
He definitely wrote that they were bombers. It was a hilly or
mountainous area so probably safer to keep at low altitude as less
chance of AA fire and fighters.
On 06/10/2025 09:30, Marland wrote:
Understandable ,and it was the same in Belgium , my wifes mother in laws
mother is a hard to please grouchy 101 year old but her hard attitude may >> well have been conditioned by being a teenage member* of the Belgian
resistance and losing family and friends .
Even about 25 years ago on a couple of occasions in the Netherlands I
witnessed anti German sentiments from people just going about their
business, one I remember when driving back from Bremerhaven to Calais was >> when I stopped in the Netherlands for fuel. The cashier said rCLnice to see >> a Vauxhall and not a bloody Opel driven by a bloody German.
* She did not volunteer, her Father said she must as her patriotic duty.
He was later shot by the Germans.
Someone did a programme on BBC about travelling around Greece. He met
an elderly priest who carried a gun at all times and I think also had a sub-machine gun.
He had similar opinions of German tourists but said that if one of them desecrated the village War Memorial, he would kill him.
Got the impression that he would have loved an excuse to kill some Germans.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 09:49, Marland wrote:
IrCOm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which >>> operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time
strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
He definitely wrote that they were bombers. It was a hilly or
mountainous area so probably safer to keep at low altitude as less
chance of AA fire and fighters.
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign bomber and a fighter? Lumbering bombers at the limits of their range didnrCOt strafe the ground. And if they were flying at low altitude in a hilly area, strafing civilians would be the last thing they would be doing.
On 06/10/2025 09:30, Marland wrote:
Understandable ,and it was the same in Belgium , my wifes mother in laws mother is a hard to please grouchy 101 year old but her hard attitude may well have been conditioned by being a teenage member* of the Belgian resistance and losing family and friends .
Even about 25 years ago on a couple of occasions in the Netherlands I witnessed anti German sentiments from people just going about their business, one I remember when driving back from Bremerhaven to Calais was when I stopped in the Netherlands for fuel. The cashier said rCLnice to see
a Vauxhall and not a bloody Opel driven by a bloody German.
* She did not volunteer, her Father said she must as her patriotic duty. He was later shot by the Germans.
Someone did a programme on BBC about travelling around Greece. He met
an elderly priest who carried a gun at all times and I think also had a sub-machine gun.
He had similar opinions of German tourists but said that if one of them desecrated the village War Memorial, he would kill him.
Got the impression that he would have loved an excuse to kill some Germans.
That would be a job and a half for a bomber, which is essentially a high altitude aircraft.
Of course, some/all of the Boeing bombers had "belly turrets". It would still require unbelievably good eyesight on the part of the gunner from
that height. And a willingness to waste valuable ammunition which might
be required on the return journey.
o you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign bomber and a fighter?
( When they first entered the conflict they didnrCOt have
anything like that so acquired Beaufighters.)
On 06/10/2025 23:36, Recliner wrote:
o you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign bomber and a fighter?
Actually schoolboys tend to take a lot of interest in identifying
aircraft, particularly in wartime when there would be many around.
On 06/10/2025 16:46, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 08:50:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 06/10/2025 08:39, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 08:28:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 05/10/2025 16:40, Tweed wrote:
Have a look at https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/sectors >>>>>> Financial services keeps the UK going as well .
Especially laundering Russian money.
You have to wonder about the sort of people who become politicians in >>>> the
UK today. Any semblence of doing the right thing and putting country
first
seems to have gone out the window
That went with Thatcher.
IMO she meant well even if she sometimes got it wrong.
You have to be joking.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 21:49:35 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 06/10/2025 16:46, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 08:50:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 06/10/2025 08:39, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 08:28:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 05/10/2025 16:40, Tweed wrote:
Have a look at https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/sectors >>>>>>> Financial services keeps the UK going as well .
Especially laundering Russian money.
You have to wonder about the sort of people who become politicians
in the
UK today. Any semblence of doing the right thing and putting
country first
seems to have gone out the window
That went with Thatcher.
IMO she meant well even if she sometimes got it wrong.
You have to be joking.
No I'm not joking. Even if she'd done nothing else her smashing of the unions
was one of the best things that happened to this country since WW2.
On 06/10/2025 12:24, JNugent wrote:
That would be a job and a half for a bomber, which is essentially a
high altitude aircraft.
Of course, some/all of the Boeing bombers had "belly turrets". It
would still require unbelievably good eyesight on the part of the
gunner from that height. And a willingness to waste valuable
ammunition which might be required on the return journey.
There many twin engined bombers that were used in low level attacks.
Even big ones do sometimes fly low, the only time that I saw a BUFF, it
was flying up Loch Ness quite low!-a Some Lancaster bombers were given permission to fly under the Menai Bridge in preparation for a raid that would involved low flying.
But he was most likely referring to some twin engine aircraft.
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 09:45:08 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 08:39, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 08:28:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 05/10/2025 16:40, Tweed wrote:
Have a look at https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/sectors >>>>>> Financial services keeps the UK going as well .
Especially laundering Russian money.
You have to wonder about the sort of people who become politicians in the >>>> UK today. Any semblence of doing the right thing and putting country first >>>> seems to have gone out the window to be replaced by flexible morality and >>>> inflexible ideology on both sides.
Sadly, we seem to have followed the bigly bad people of America.
Apart from the occasional seriously corrupt individuals, I think most of >>our politicians on all sides are relatively clean. But I was disappointed >>by the Labour freebie-fest. Did they really think it was OK for the wealthy >>barrister leader of the party to accept free suits and even free spectacles >>from a donor? Surely Starmer already had a wardrobe full of good quality >>suits? Why did he need to use an extremely expensive penthouse flat >>rent-free for weeks on end, when he only lived a few miles away? Several >>other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert tickets, holidays, >>etc.
*cough* Rayner *cough*
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 09:49, Marland wrote:
IAm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which >>> operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time
strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
He definitely wrote that they were bombers. It was a hilly or
mountainous area so probably safer to keep at low altitude as less
chance of AA fire and fighters.
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign >bomber and a fighter?
Lumbering bombers at the limits of their range
didnAt strafe the ground. And if they were flying at low altitude in a
hilly area, strafing civilians would be the last thing they would be doing.
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign bomber and a fighter?
On 06/10/2025 23:36, Recliner wrote:
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign >> bomber and a fighter?
That is surely the kind of thing that schoolboys are really good at.
On 07/10/2025 00:52, Marland wrote:
( When they first entered the conflict they didnrCOt have
anything like that so acquired Beaufighters.)
B-25 Mitchell
B-26 Marauder
A-20 Havoc
A-26 Invader
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 09:49, Marland wrote:
IrCOm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which >>> operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time
strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
He definitely wrote that they were bombers. It was a hilly or
mountainous area so probably safer to keep at low altitude as less
chance of AA fire and fighters.
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign bomber and a fighter? Lumbering bombers at the limits of their range didnrCOt strafe the ground. And if they were flying at low altitude in a hilly area, strafing civilians would be the last thing they would be doing.
On 06/10/2025 10:45, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 05/10/2025 15:52, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2025 11:22:28 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO
devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time, >>>>>> but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates
era.
ItrCOs worse when you look at a stable currency like the Swiss Franc. About
50 or so years when I first went there it was around 12 Francs to the >>>>> Pound. Just come back from Switzerland and the exchange rate is almost >>>>> parity.
To be fair that probably says more about the swiss economy than ours. Somehow
they seem to magic up money by doing very little other than private banking
and cuckoo clocks.
Don't forget the chocolate.
That neatly illustrates a big difference between Switzerland and the UK: we >> live beyond our means, and steadily sell off our companies, land and
properties. The Swiss are the opposite, and are steadily buying up
companies elsewhere. Taking chocolate as an example, many quintessentially >> British brands are now foreign-owned. For example, After Eights, Kit Kat
and Rowntree are among the numerous Nestl|- brands in this and many other
countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nestl|-_brands
Is Nestle still considered more evil than Satan eating kittens?
On 06/10/2025 09:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
If you have a lot of assets denominated in the currency, sure, deflationHow? The value of sterling against the US dollar *improved* between 1924 >>>>> and 1926.
Um, it's arithmetic. If a British widget had cost $44.30 to a foreign customer,
overnight the price increased to $48.60. If you want people to buy your exports,
you want the value of your currency to be low so their price to the importers is
cheap.
Yes, I get that, but was looking at it from the other end of the
telescope. I don't believe that it's a bad thing to have a strong
currency (which keeps prices lower in the UK than they otherwise would be). >>
is great. If you want people to be able to trade with each other and
the rest of the world, not so much.
The economic collapse that started in the US in 1929 was made much
worse by bank failures leading people to try to hold as much cash as
possible, causing deflation, and with all that cash under mattresses
rather than circulating, economic activity ground to a halt. The
central banks of that era had a fetish about "sound money" which
made it worse. These days we have the exotic sounding Quantitative
Easing which is essentially a way for central banks to push cash into
the economy to counteract that.
I'm not a fan of cash under mattresses.
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 22:36:00 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:As with e.g. railway locomotives, a schoolboy might have been better
On 06/10/2025 09:49, Marland wrote:
IrCOm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which >>>> operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time >>>> strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
He definitely wrote that they were bombers. It was a hilly or
mountainous area so probably safer to keep at low altitude as less
chance of AA fire and fighters.
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign >> bomber and a fighter?
at it than many civvy parents, especially if aided by one of various
spotting charts that were available to official and unofficial
watchers.
On 07/10/2025 00:52, Marland wrote:
( When they first entered the conflict they didnrCOt have
anything like that so acquired Beaufighters.)
B-25 Mitchell.
B-26 Marauder
A-20 HavocNot enough of them available earlier in the war the US had mainly seen the type as bomber , it was the French and the RAF who took on diverted French orders after their occupation that had turned them into night fighters the latter installing radar, it was one of the reasons the US acquired
A-26 Invader
The Mosquito was another British Aircraft used by the US as its characteristics made it ideal for some roles, they requested and would
have flown more but the British and Canadian could barely keep up with RAF and the Empire airforces requirements.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 09:49, Marland wrote:
IrCOm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which >>>> operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time >>>> strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
He definitely wrote that they were bombers. It was a hilly or
mountainous area so probably safer to keep at low altitude as less
chance of AA fire and fighters.
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign >> bomber and a fighter? Lumbering bombers at the limits of their range
didnrCOt strafe the ground. And if they were flying at low altitude in a
hilly area, strafing civilians would be the last thing they would be doing.
Did you ever read about the Dam Busters raid?
Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 23:36, Recliner wrote:
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign >>> bomber and a fighter?
That is surely the kind of thing that schoolboys are really good at.
I would have been!
Sam
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:Did you ever read about the Dam Busters raid?
On 06/10/2025 09:49, Marland wrote:
IrCOm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which
operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time >>>>> strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
He definitely wrote that they were bombers. It was a hilly or
mountainous area so probably safer to keep at low altitude as less
chance of AA fire and fighters.
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign >>> bomber and a fighter? Lumbering bombers at the limits of their range
didnrCOt strafe the ground. And if they were flying at low altitude in a >>> hilly area, strafing civilians would be the last thing they would be doing. >>
How much strafing did they do?
On 07/10/2025 16:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 22:36:00 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:As with e.g. railway locomotives, a schoolboy might have been better
On 06/10/2025 09:49, Marland wrote:
IrCOm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers >>>>> which
operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste
time
strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
He definitely wrote that they were bombers.-a It was a hilly or
mountainous area so probably safer to keep at low altitude as less
chance of AA fire and fighters.
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a
foreign
bomber and a fighter?
at it than many civvy parents, especially if aided by one of various
spotting charts that were available to official and unofficial
watchers.
In Nazi Germany?
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:Did you ever read about the Dam Busters raid?
On 06/10/2025 09:49, Marland wrote:
IrCOm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which
operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time >>>>> strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
He definitely wrote that they were bombers. It was a hilly or
mountainous area so probably safer to keep at low altitude as less
chance of AA fire and fighters.
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign >>> bomber and a fighter? Lumbering bombers at the limits of their range
didnrCOt strafe the ground. And if they were flying at low altitude in a >>> hilly area, strafing civilians would be the last thing they would be doing. >>
How much strafing did they do?
You weren't on the receiving end. She lost her first attempt by going to
war with ACTT and lost badly so she set the idiot scargill up as a patsy
and used the Met as a private army, much as Trump is doing with ICE.
--
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign bomber and a fighter?
In Nazi Germany?
None of the above is quite like a Beaufighter, though I think the A-26 probably comes closest.
On 07/10/2025 19:29, Graeme Wall wrote:
In Nazi Germany?
Some confusion.
The report was written by someone who was an English schoolboy at school
in Germany in WWII
The comment on identifying enemy / friendly aircraft was of a British schoolboy serving in the ROC(S) for D-Day on an American ship.
On 07/10/2025 22:56, JMB99 wrote:
On 07/10/2025 19:29, Graeme Wall wrote:
In Nazi Germany?
Some confusion.
The report was written by someone who was an English schoolboy at school in Germany in WWII
The comment on identifying enemy / friendly aircraft was of a British schoolboy serving in the ROC(S) for D-Day on an American ship.
My query was did Nazi Germany allow civilians to have such information?
On 07/10/2025 22:56, JMB99 wrote:
On 07/10/2025 19:29, Graeme Wall wrote:
In Nazi Germany?
Some confusion.
The report was written by someone who was an English schoolboy at school
in Germany in WWII
The comment on identifying enemy / friendly aircraft was of a British
schoolboy serving in the ROC(S) for D-Day on an American ship.
My query was did Nazi Germany allow civilians to have such information?
On 07/10/2025 09:55, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
No I'm not joking. Even if she'd done nothing else her smashing of the
unions
was one of the best things that happened to this country since WW2.
You weren't on the receiving end. She lost her first attempt by going to
war with ACTT and lost badly so she set the idiot scargill up as a patsy
and used the Met as a private army, much as Trump is doing with ICE.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 15:44:02 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 09:45:08 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 08:39, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 08:28:45 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 05/10/2025 16:40, Tweed wrote:
Have a look at https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/sectors >>>>>>> Financial services keeps the UK going as well .
Especially laundering Russian money.
You have to wonder about the sort of people who become politicians in the >>>>> UK today. Any semblence of doing the right thing and putting country first
seems to have gone out the window to be replaced by flexible morality and >>>>> inflexible ideology on both sides.
Sadly, we seem to have followed the bigly bad people of America.
Apart from the occasional seriously corrupt individuals, I think most of >>>our politicians on all sides are relatively clean. But I was disappointed >>>by the Labour freebie-fest. Did they really think it was OK for the wealthy >>>barrister leader of the party to accept free suits and even free spectacles >>>from a donor? Surely Starmer already had a wardrobe full of good quality >>>suits? Why did he need to use an extremely expensive penthouse flat >>>rent-free for weeks on end, when he only lived a few miles away? Several >>>other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert tickets, holidays, >>>etc.
*cough* Rayner *cough*
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >champagne socialists.
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that themselves is unreasonable.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to politicians expect >something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
In message <10c5cn9$1gqcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:09 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
My query was did Nazi Germany allow civilians to have such information?
In message <10c5cn9$1gqcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:09 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
On 08/10/2025 08:28, Graeme Wall wrote:
My query was did Nazi Germany allow civilians to have such information?
I thought the Germans did have an equivalent of the British ROC but
Google suggests they did not.
On 07/10/2025 20:43, Recliner wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 09:49, Marland wrote:
IrCOm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which
operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time >>>>>> strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
He definitely wrote that they were bombers. It was a hilly or
mountainous area so probably safer to keep at low altitude as less
chance of AA fire and fighters.
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign
bomber and a fighter? Lumbering bombers at the limits of their range
didnrCOt strafe the ground. And if they were flying at low altitude in a >>>> hilly area, strafing civilians would be the last thing they would be doing.
Did you ever read about the Dam Busters raid?
How much strafing did they do?
Having dropped his bomb, Gibson paralleled the approach of later
aircraft and strafed the flak towers to distract the German gunners.
But this was a single specialist unit trained for this one operation. Generally 4-engined "heavies" didn't fly low level missions. 617's later operations with "earthquake" bombs were flown at the maximum altitude Lancasters could reach with such bomb-loads.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5cn9$1gqcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:09 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
ThatrCOs a very generous interpretation of the gift giverrCOs motivations. ItrCOs
not one I share.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5cn9$1gqcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:09 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
Clearly, Taylor Swift concerts must be an important part of real life for >politicians to experience!
No doubt, staying rent-free in a multi-million pound penthouse in Covent >Garden for a few weeks is too?
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that themselves is unreasonable.
In message <10c5luv$1j9v4$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:37:51 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5cn9$1gqcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:09 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>>> 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
ThatrCOs a very generous interpretation of the gift giverrCOs motivations. ItrCOs
not one I share.
If you had more experience of the way things actually work, then maybe
you *would* be able to share my interpretation.
In message <0gtFQ.2488$k336.2443@fx14.ams1>, at 13:00:44 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5cn9$1gqcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:09 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>>> 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
Clearly, Taylor Swift concerts must be an important part of real life for
politicians to experience!
Taylor Swift concerts are an important way to understand modern culture
and younger voters.
In message <0gtFQ.2488$k336.2443@fx14.ams1>, at 13:00:44 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5cn9$1gqcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:09 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>>> 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to politicians >expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
Clearly, Taylor Swift concerts must be an important part of real life for >>politicians to experience!
Taylor Swift concerts are an important way to understand modern culture
and younger voters.
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an >all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable.
Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with (Baroness) Ann Mallalieu--
KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at drafting an amendment to the
UK's income tax codes.
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an >all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with (Baroness)
Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at drafting an >amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
In message <0gtFQ.2488$k336.2443@fx14.ams1>, at 13:00:44 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5cn9$1gqcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:09 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>>> 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
Clearly, Taylor Swift concerts must be an important part of real life for >>politicians to experience!
Taylor Swift concerts are an important way to understand modern culture
and younger voters.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at >>>> all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
ThatrCOs a very generous interpretation of the gift giverrCOs motivations. ItrCOs
not one I share.
If you had more experience of the way things actually work, then maybe
you *would* be able to share my interpretation.
What you describe is simply a tolerated level of petty corruption. One >persons posh dinner invite to discuss matters of mutual importance is
another persons observing the purchase of influence. What is the motivation >of someone spending thousands on a pair of glasses for the PM?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <0gtFQ.2488$k336.2443@fx14.ams1>, at 13:00:44 on Wed, 8 OctFunny how this fact finding only encompasses enjoyable and expensive
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5cn9$1gqcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:09 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>>>> 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>>>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to >>>>>politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at >>>> all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
Clearly, Taylor Swift concerts must be an important part of real life for >>> politicians to experience!
Taylor Swift concerts are an important way to understand modern culture
and younger voters.
things.
You donrCOt see them spending the day understanding the work of
social workers, an evening out on patrol with the police etc etc. (a few
do, but not many)
Needing free Taylor Swift tickets to understand youth
culture is a laughable excuse.
In message <10c5v0s$1m1ac$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:28 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at >>>>> all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
ThatrCOs a very generous interpretation of the gift giverrCOs motivations. ItrCOs
not one I share.
If you had more experience of the way things actually work, then maybe
you *would* be able to share my interpretation.
What you describe is simply a tolerated level of petty corruption. One
persons posh dinner invite to discuss matters of mutual importance is
another persons observing the purchase of influence. What is the motivation >> of someone spending thousands on a pair of glasses for the PM?
Keep digging, these politics of envy are very corrosive to discussions
such as this. And again, please read my words "it does sometimes
happen". Sometimes, only sometimes.
And the number MPs who have influence which can be bought in the way you suggest is very small, particularly if they aren't in the government.
In message <10c5vk2$1m75m$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:42 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <0gtFQ.2488$k336.2443@fx14.ams1>, at 13:00:44 on Wed, 8 OctFunny how this fact finding only encompasses enjoyable and expensive
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5cn9$1gqcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:09 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>>>>> 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to
politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at >>>>> all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
Clearly, Taylor Swift concerts must be an important part of real life for >>>> politicians to experience!
Taylor Swift concerts are an important way to understand modern culture
and younger voters.
things.
Except it doesn't! Most of the things are really boring stuff like
touring a newly opened sewage works. If a few fact finding missions get headlines, there will be hundreds which don't. And if you were more
familiar with the subject you'd accept that.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Do you know how few MPs that represents, let alone other politicians
such as County and District councillors who get criticism for allegedly accepting brown paper bags etc?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an
all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Their lifestyle is nothing like as luxurious as a typical successful businessman.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not unreasonable.
Given they are supposed to look neat and tidy twelve hours a day, six
days a week it's certainly possible, but I didn't raise the subject of clothes rather than the more general travelling expenses etc for getting
out and about.
Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with (Baroness) Ann
Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at drafting an
amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
In message <10c5vk2$1m75m$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:42 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <0gtFQ.2488$k336.2443@fx14.ams1>, at 13:00:44 on Wed, 8 OctFunny how this fact finding only encompasses enjoyable and expensive
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5cn9$1gqcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:09 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 >>>>>>> Oct
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, >>>>>>>>> concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not >>>>>>>> as I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to
politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the
trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
Clearly, Taylor Swift concerts must be an important part of real
life for
politicians to experience!
Taylor Swift concerts are an important way to understand modern culture
and younger voters.
things.
Except it doesn't! Most of the things are really boring stuff like
touring a newly opened sewage works. If a few fact finding missions get headlines, there will be hundreds which don't. And if you were more
familiar with the subject you'd accept that.
You donrCOt see them spending the day understanding the work of
social workers, an evening out on patrol with the police etc etc. (a few
do, but not many)
*You* don't because of those blinkers you wear. Or are you just trolling?
Needing free Taylor Swift tickets to understand youth
culture is a laughable excuse.
It's the publicised tip of the iceberg, for people with a political
agenda. You don't hear about the other things, because it's not on the
front page.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5v0s$1m1ac$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:28 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to >>>>>>>politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at >>>>>> all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to >>>>>> gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
ThatrCOs a very generous interpretation of the gift giverrCOs >>>>>motivations. ItrCOs
not one I share.
If you had more experience of the way things actually work, then maybe >>>> you *would* be able to share my interpretation.
What you describe is simply a tolerated level of petty corruption. One
persons posh dinner invite to discuss matters of mutual importance is
another persons observing the purchase of influence. What is the motivation >>> of someone spending thousands on a pair of glasses for the PM?
Keep digging, these politics of envy are very corrosive to discussions
such as this. And again, please read my words "it does sometimes
happen". Sometimes, only sometimes.
And the number MPs who have influence which can be bought in the way you
suggest is very small, particularly if they aren't in the government.
And, funnily enough, those uninfluential politicians donrCOt get
showered with freebies. I wonder why they donrCOt also need
rCyeducatingrCO with expensive concert and sports tickets?
In message <iiwFQ.450$PtC3.161@fx07.ams1>, at 16:27:58 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5v0s$1m1ac$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:28 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to
politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at >>>>>>> all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to >>>>>>> gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen. >>>>>>> However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
ThatrCOs a very generous interpretation of the gift giverrCOs
motivations. ItrCOs
not one I share.
If you had more experience of the way things actually work, then maybe >>>>> you *would* be able to share my interpretation.
What you describe is simply a tolerated level of petty corruption. One >>>> persons posh dinner invite to discuss matters of mutual importance is
another persons observing the purchase of influence. What is the motivation
of someone spending thousands on a pair of glasses for the PM?
Keep digging, these politics of envy are very corrosive to discussions
such as this. And again, please read my words "it does sometimes
happen". Sometimes, only sometimes.
And the number MPs who have influence which can be bought in the way you >>> suggest is very small, particularly if they aren't in the government.
And, funnily enough, those uninfluential politicians donrCOt get
showered with freebies. I wonder why they donrCOt also need
rCyeducatingrCO with expensive concert and sports tickets?
Perhaps you can produce a reference for that, preferably not the
occasional tabloid headline planted by a political rival.
On 07/10/2025 16:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 22:36:00 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:As with e.g. railway locomotives, a schoolboy might have been better
On 06/10/2025 09:49, Marland wrote:
IAm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which >>>>> operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time >>>>> strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
He definitely wrote that they were bombers. It was a hilly or
mountainous area so probably safer to keep at low altitude as less
chance of AA fire and fighters.
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign >>> bomber and a fighter?
at it than many civvy parents, especially if aided by one of various
spotting charts that were available to official and unofficial
watchers.
In Nazi Germany?
Funny how this fact finding only encompasses enjoyable and expensive
things. You donrCOt see them spending the day understanding the work of social workers, an evening out on patrol with the police etc etc. (a few
On 08/10/2025 04:54 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10c5vk2$1m75m$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:42 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <0gtFQ.2488$k336.2443@fx14.ams1>, at 13:00:44 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>> 2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:Funny how this fact finding only encompasses enjoyable and expensive
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5cn9$1gqcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:09 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 >>>>>>>> Oct
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, >>>>>>>>>> concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not >>>>>>>>> as I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to
politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the
trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to >>>>>> gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
Clearly, Taylor Swift concerts must be an important part of real
life for
politicians to experience!
Taylor Swift concerts are an important way to understand modern culture >>>> and younger voters.
things.
Except it doesn't! Most of the things are really boring stuff like
touring a newly opened sewage works. If a few fact finding missions get
headlines, there will be hundreds which don't. And if you were more
familiar with the subject you'd accept that.
If a delegation of MPs visit a sewage works on official fact-finding business, whether in the UK or overseas, all the costs of that journey
are met by the Treasury. They always have been.
And that's just an example, as you are aware. The same applies to civil servants and local government employees.
You donrCOt see them spending the day understanding the work of
social workers, an evening out on patrol with the police etc etc. (a few >>> do, but not many)
*You* don't because of those blinkers you wear. Or are you just trolling?
Needing free Taylor Swift tickets to understand youth
culture is a laughable excuse.
It's the publicised tip of the iceberg, for people with a political
agenda. You don't hear about the other things, because it's not on the
front page.
What POSSIBLE defensible reason could there be for the Taylor Swift freebies?
[Hint: There aren't any.]
In message <iiwFQ.450$PtC3.161@fx07.ams1>, at 16:27:58 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5v0s$1m1ac$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:28 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to >>>>>>>>politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at >>>>>>> all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to >>>>>>> gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen. >>>>>>> However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
ThatrCOs a very generous interpretation of the gift giverrCOs >>>>>>motivations. ItrCOs
not one I share.
If you had more experience of the way things actually work, then maybe >>>>> you *would* be able to share my interpretation.
What you describe is simply a tolerated level of petty corruption. One >>>> persons posh dinner invite to discuss matters of mutual importance is
another persons observing the purchase of influence. What is the motivation
of someone spending thousands on a pair of glasses for the PM?
Keep digging, these politics of envy are very corrosive to discussions
such as this. And again, please read my words "it does sometimes
happen". Sometimes, only sometimes.
And the number MPs who have influence which can be bought in the way you >>> suggest is very small, particularly if they aren't in the government.
And, funnily enough, those uninfluential politicians donrCOt get
showered with freebies. I wonder why they donrCOt also need >>rCyeducatingrCO with expensive concert and sports tickets?
Perhaps you can produce a reference for that, preferably not the
occasional tabloid headline planted by a political rival.
In message <0gtFQ.2488$k336.2443@fx14.ams1>, at 13:00:44 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5cn9$1gqcd$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:00:09 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5a1p$1g5uh$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:33 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>> 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen.
However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo
opportunity for the hosts.
Clearly, Taylor Swift concerts must be an important part of real life for >politicians to experience!
Taylor Swift concerts are an important way to understand modern culture
and younger voters.
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 19:29:29 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/10/2025 16:58, Charles Ellson wrote:Why not ? They had people dropping bombs on them as well.
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 22:36:00 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:As with e.g. railway locomotives, a schoolboy might have been better
On 06/10/2025 09:49, Marland wrote:
IrCOm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which
operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time >>>>>> strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
He definitely wrote that they were bombers. It was a hilly or
mountainous area so probably safer to keep at low altitude as less
chance of AA fire and fighters.
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign
bomber and a fighter?
at it than many civvy parents, especially if aided by one of various
spotting charts that were available to official and unofficial
watchers.
In Nazi Germany?
https://www.alamy.com/wwii-german-identification-chart-showing-silhouettes-of-english-war-planes-raf-aircrafts-fighter-aircrafts-bombers-image242025932.html
[https://tinyurl.com/4urtrdrm]
On 08/10/2025 18:19, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 19:29:29 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 07/10/2025 16:58, Charles Ellson wrote:Why not ? They had people dropping bombs on them as well.
On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 22:36:00 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:As with e.g. railway locomotives, a schoolboy might have been better
On 06/10/2025 09:49, Marland wrote:
IrCOm sure both sides indulged but I doubt the aircraft were bombers which
operated at high altitude and would not have dropped down to waste time
strafing the ground and putting themselves in danger
He definitely wrote that they were bombers. It was a hilly or
mountainous area so probably safer to keep at low altitude as less >>>>> chance of AA fire and fighters.
Do you really think a schoolboy would know the difference between a foreign
bomber and a fighter?
at it than many civvy parents, especially if aided by one of various
spotting charts that were available to official and unofficial
watchers.
In Nazi Germany?
https://www.alamy.com/wwii-german-identification-chart-showing-silhouettes-of-english-war-planes-raf-aircrafts-fighter-aircrafts-bombers-image242025932.html
[https://tinyurl.com/4urtrdrm]
I know they existed, what I am asking is were they available to
schoolboys and other civilians?
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonAs infamous Apound in your pocketA >devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time,
but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates >era.
On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 10:58:58 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Yup, 1967 or later. That was WilsonrCOs infamous rCOpound in your pocketrCO >> devaluation, from $2.80 to $2.40. That seemed catastrophic at the time,
but swings like that became much more common in the floating exchange rates >> era.
I liked the story about the two prostitutes standing at the street
corner in Berlin when one said to the other: 'The pound isn't worth a
fu*k these days'.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:48:07 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <iiwFQ.450$PtC3.161@fx07.ams1>, at 16:27:58 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5v0s$1m1ac$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:28 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to
politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to >>>>>>>> gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen. >>>>>>>> However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo >>>>>>>> opportunity for the hosts.
ThatrCOs a very generous interpretation of the gift giverrCOs
motivations. ItrCOs
not one I share.
If you had more experience of the way things actually work, then maybe >>>>>> you *would* be able to share my interpretation.
What you describe is simply a tolerated level of petty corruption. One >>>>> persons posh dinner invite to discuss matters of mutual importance is >>>>> another persons observing the purchase of influence. What is the motivation
of someone spending thousands on a pair of glasses for the PM?
Keep digging, these politics of envy are very corrosive to discussions >>>> such as this. And again, please read my words "it does sometimes
happen". Sometimes, only sometimes.
And the number MPs who have influence which can be bought in the way you >>>> suggest is very small, particularly if they aren't in the government.
And, funnily enough, those uninfluential politicians donrCOt get
showered with freebies. I wonder why they donrCOt also need
rCyeducatingrCO with expensive concert and sports tickets?
Perhaps you can produce a reference for that, preferably not the
occasional tabloid headline planted by a political rival.
I don't read the tabloids. So here's a broadsheet reference, easily found by Google:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/03/taylor-swift-freebies-labour-mps-starmer/
03 October 2024 3:31pm BST
Eleven Labour MPs including Sir Keir Starmer accepted more than -u20,000 in free Taylor Swift tickets, an official
register shows.
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free hospitality to watch the singer, prominent Labour
politicians, including the Prime Minister, have received more than 30 tickets.
As well as Sir Keir, other Cabinet members to accept tickets were Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, Bridget
Phillipson, the Education Secretary, and Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Other senior MPs to receive tickets include Catherine McKinnell, minister for schools standards, and Chris Ward,
parliamentary Private Secretary to Sir Keir.
Liam Conlon, the son of Sue Gray, the Prime MinisterrCOs Chief of Staff, also received tickets to see Swift during her
recent tour.
The only non-Labour MP to record accepting tickets was Sir Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:57:04 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an
all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with
(Baroness) Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at
drafting an amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in advance on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in HMRC thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the world
that does this nonsense.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:57:04 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an
all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with
(Baroness) Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at
drafting an amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in advance on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in HMRC thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the world
that does this
nonsense.
Am 08.10.2025 um 17:49 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:57:04 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes,
concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as
I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an
all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with
(Baroness) Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at
drafting an amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in
advance
on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in HMRC
thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the world
that does this nonsense.
It's the same in Germany when you're self employed (in Germany typically
4 or 6 installments compared to the 2 in the UK). What other
possibility would there be for the government to tax your monthly income immediately when you finalize the books at year end?
Where's the difference to your electricity bill: monthly deduction for estimated usage plus a final bill with real data.
On 09/10/2025 12:54 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 08.10.2025 um 17:49 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:57:04 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes,
concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as >>>>>> I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an
all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with
(Baroness) Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at
drafting an amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in
advance
on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in HMRC
thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the world
that does this nonsense.
It's the same in Germany when you're self employed (in Germany typically
4 or 6 installments compared to the 2 in the UK).-a What other
possibility would there be for the government to tax your monthly income
immediately when you finalize the books at year end?
Where's the difference to your electricity bill: monthly deduction for
estimated usage plus a final bill with real data.
The main difference is that the incomes of some self-employed workers
vary seasonally and that paying out even more per month (on *top* of national insurance contributions, housing costs, local taxes, domestic
fuel, loan repayments and general living costs (everything from
supermarket shopping to car-servicing) can be difficult at certain times
of the year.
Am 09.10.2025 um 14:09 schrieb JNugent:
On 09/10/2025 12:54 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 08.10.2025 um 17:49 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:57:04 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, >>>>>>>> concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as >>>>>>> I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an >>>>> all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with
(Baroness) Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at
drafting an amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in
advance
on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in HMRC >>>> thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the world
that does this nonsense.
It's the same in Germany when you're self employed (in Germany typically >>> 4 or 6 installments compared to the 2 in the UK). What other
possibility would there be for the government to tax your monthly income >>> immediately when you finalize the books at year end?
Where's the difference to your electricity bill: monthly deduction for
estimated usage plus a final bill with real data.
The main difference is that the incomes of some self-employed workers
vary seasonally and that paying out even more per month (on *top* of
national insurance contributions, housing costs, local taxes, domestic
fuel, loan repayments and general living costs (everything from
supermarket shopping to car-servicing) can be difficult at certain
times of the year.
On my gas bill, I consume 80% during the winter but the bills spread
evenly around the year.
Am 08.10.2025 um 17:49 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:57:04 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes,
concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as
I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an
all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with
(Baroness) Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at
drafting an amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in
advance
on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in HMRC
thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the world
that does this nonsense.
It's the same in Germany when you're self employed (in Germany typically
4 or 6 installments compared to the 2 in the UK).-a What other
possibility would there be for the government to tax your monthly income immediately when you finalize the books at year end?
On 2025-10-08 16:49, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:57:04 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes,
concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as
I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an
all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with
(Baroness) Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at
drafting an amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in
advance
on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in HMRC
thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the world
that does this
nonsense.
Is it as bad as that? I thought the 1st payment on account in January
was more than half-way through the tax year so you've probably earned a
lot of it and the second payment in July is 3 months after the tax year ends. Of course, if the payments were not very accurately predicted, and
you didn't ask to vary them, there's then a few months more before it
gets reconciled.
On 09/10/2025 13:06, nib wrote:
On 2025-10-08 16:49, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:57:04 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes,
concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as >>>>>> I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an
all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with
(Baroness) Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at
drafting an amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in
advance
on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in
HMRC thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the
world that does this
nonsense.
Is it as bad as that? I thought the 1st payment on account in January
was more than half-way through the tax year so you've probably earned
a lot of it and the second payment in July is 3 months after the tax
year ends. Of course, if the payments were not very accurately
predicted, and you didn't ask to vary them, there's then a few months
more before it gets reconciled.
IME those have always been payment in arears, ie for the previous tax
year. What circumstances leads to payment in advance?
On 2025-10-09 15:21, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/10/2025 13:06, nib wrote:
On 2025-10-08 16:49, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:57:04 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, >>>>>>>> concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not >>>>>>> as I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on
an all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with
(Baroness) Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at >>>>> drafting an amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in
advance
on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in
HMRC thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the
world that does this
nonsense.
Is it as bad as that? I thought the 1st payment on account in January
was more than half-way through the tax year so you've probably earned
a lot of it and the second payment in July is 3 months after the tax
year ends. Of course, if the payments were not very accurately
predicted, and you didn't ask to vary them, there's then a few months
more before it gets reconciled.
IME those have always been payment in arears, ie for the previous tax
year. What circumstances leads to payment in advance?
If your self-assessment results in a need to pay a largish balancing sum
(a few thousand say) then HMRC assume the same will happen the following year. They try to correct this by asking for some payment during the tax year rather than waiting for the assessment after the end of the tax
year. So for example, suppose you have just submitted your SA for
2024-25 and need to pay a large balancing sum of X. HMRC will then
typically ask you to pay:
1. Balancing sum of X for 2024-25 by end of January 2026
2. First payment on account for 2025-26 of Y (typically around X/2) by
end of January 2026
3. Second payment on account for 2025-26 of Y by end of July 2026
I'm not sure I've ever quite got to grips with the calculation of Y from
X, but in my case it works out that some years Y is zero and other years quite large!
Am 08.10.2025 um 17:49 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:57:04 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, concert >>>>>> tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as I do >>>>> champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an
all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with
(Baroness) Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at
drafting an amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in advance >> on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in HMRC
thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the world
that does this nonsense.
It's the same in Germany when you're self employed (in Germany typically
4 or 6 installments compared to the 2 in the UK). What other
possibility would there be for the government to tax your monthly income >immediately when you finalize the books at year end?
On 2025-10-08 16:49, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in advance >> on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in HMRC
thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the world
that does this
nonsense.
Is it as bad as that? I thought the 1st payment on account in January
was more than half-way through the tax year so you've probably earned a
lot of it and the second payment in July is 3 months after the tax year
ends. Of course, if the payments were not very accurately predicted, and
you didn't ask to vary them, there's then a few months more before it
gets reconciled.
On 09/10/2025 15:46, nib wrote:
I'm not sure I've ever quite got to grips with the calculation of Y from
X, but in my case it works out that some years Y is zero and other years
quite large!
More or less what I've been doing for the last 22 years but it is all >payment in arrears, Neil was complaining about having to pay in advance;
I don't understand how that situation arises.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:32:28 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 09/10/2025 15:46, nib wrote:
I'm not sure I've ever quite got to grips with the calculation of Y
from X, but in my case it works out that some years Y is zero and
other years quite large!
More or less what I've been doing for the last 22 years but it is all
payment in arrears, Neil was complaining about having to pay in
advance; I don't understand how that situation arises.
Its payment on extrapolated earnings. If I'd been unemployed since april
i'd STILL have to pay this tax even though I've not earnt any money.
On 09/10/2025 16:40, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:32:28 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 09/10/2025 15:46, nib wrote:
I'm not sure I've ever quite got to grips with the calculation of Y
from X, but in my case it works out that some years Y is zero and
other years quite large!
More or less what I've been doing for the last 22 years but it is all
payment in arrears, Neil was complaining about having to pay in
advance; I don't understand how that situation arises.
Its payment on extrapolated earnings. If I'd been unemployed since april
i'd STILL have to pay this tax even though I've not earnt any money.
That never happened to me, possibly because I was VAT registered and had
to supply quarterly returns of my actual income.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 13:06:10 +0100
nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> gabbled:
On 2025-10-08 16:49, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in
advance
on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in
HMRC thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the
world that does this
nonsense.
Is it as bad as that? I thought the 1st payment on account in January
was more than half-way through the tax year so you've probably earned
a lot of it and the second payment in July is 3 months after the tax year
No, you haven't probably earned a lot of it if you're self employed. You could be unemployed yet still have to pay tax on fictitious earnings!
ends. Of course, if the payments were not very accurately predicted,
and you didn't ask to vary them, there's then a few months more before
it gets reconciled.
Sorry? ITYF its a year before they get reconciled.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 13:54:05 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 08.10.2025 um 17:49 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:57:04 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes,
concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as >>>>>> I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an
all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with
(Baroness) Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at
drafting an amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in
advance
on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in
HMRC thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the
world that does this nonsense.
It's the same in Germany when you're self employed (in Germany
typically 4 or 6 installments compared to the 2 in the UK).-a What
other possibility would there be for the government to tax your
monthly income immediately when you finalize the books at year end?
Why should any government get tax on money you might not even earn? Oh
sure,
you get the money back the year after if you've overpaid but that doesn't help at the time.
On 09/10/2025 13:06, nib wrote:
On 2025-10-08 16:49, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:57:04 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes,
concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not as >>>>>> I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on an
all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with
(Baroness) Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at
drafting an amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in
advance
on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in
HMRC thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the
world that does this
nonsense.
Is it as bad as that? I thought the 1st payment on account in January
was more than half-way through the tax year so you've probably earned
a lot of it and the second payment in July is 3 months after the tax
year ends. Of course, if the payments were not very accurately
predicted, and you didn't ask to vary them, there's then a few months
more before it gets reconciled.
IME those have always been payment in arears, ie for the previous tax
year. What circumstances leads to payment in advance?
On 09/10/2025 15:21, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/10/2025 13:06, nib wrote:PoA is so-titled because the resulting payments were in advance of the
On 2025-10-08 16:49, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:57:04 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 10:29 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Who do you think 'other cabinet members accepted free clothes, >>>>>>>> concert
tickets, holidays,' was referring to?
I assumed most of them frankly. They're typical do as I say not >>>>>>> as I do
champagne socialists.
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
EH?
Do you know how much a cabinet minister is paid?
Some of them (as with any MP from outside London) more or less on
an all-found basis or with prestigious accommodation provided.
Funding the purchase of one's own clothes is absolutely not
unreasonable. Perhaps Starmer and co should have a word with
(Baroness) Ann Mallalieu KC. She'd probably love to have a crack at >>>>> drafting an amendment to the UK's income tax codes.
She could start with the absurd "payment on account". Ie pay tax in
advance
on money you haven't even earned yet but some 3rd rate herbert in
HMRC thinks you might next year. AFAIK we're the only country in the
world that does this
nonsense.
Is it as bad as that? I thought the 1st payment on account in January
was more than half-way through the tax year so you've probably earned
a lot of it and the second payment in July is 3 months after the tax
year ends. Of course, if the payments were not very accurately
predicted, and you didn't ask to vary them, there's then a few months
more before it gets reconciled.
IME those have always been payment in arears, ie for the previous tax
year. What circumstances leads to payment in advance?
the regime replaced by PoA.
As you imply, it is still not absolutely "in advance"
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:58:39 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 09/10/2025 16:40, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:32:28 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 09/10/2025 15:46, nib wrote:
I'm not sure I've ever quite got to grips with the calculation of Y >>>>> from X, but in my case it works out that some years Y is zero and
other years quite large!
More or less what I've been doing for the last 22 years but it is
all payment in arrears, Neil was complaining about having to pay in
advance; I don't understand how that situation arises.
Its payment on extrapolated earnings. If I'd been unemployed since april >>> i'd STILL have to pay this tax even though I've not earnt any money.
That never happened to me, possibly because I was VAT registered and
had to supply quarterly returns of my actual income.
Nope, just yearly like everyone else for normal self employed.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:48:07 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <iiwFQ.450$PtC3.161@fx07.ams1>, at 16:27:58 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5v0s$1m1ac$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:28 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers and not >>>>>>>>>> getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to fund that >>>>>>>>>> themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to
politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to >>>>>>>> gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen. >>>>>>>> However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo >>>>>>>> opportunity for the hosts.
ThatrCOs a very generous interpretation of the gift giverrCOs
motivations. ItrCOs
not one I share.
If you had more experience of the way things actually work, then maybe >>>>>> you *would* be able to share my interpretation.
What you describe is simply a tolerated level of petty corruption. One >>>>> persons posh dinner invite to discuss matters of mutual importance is >>>>> another persons observing the purchase of influence. What is the motivation
of someone spending thousands on a pair of glasses for the PM?
Keep digging, these politics of envy are very corrosive to discussions >>>> such as this. And again, please read my words "it does sometimes
happen". Sometimes, only sometimes.
And the number MPs who have influence which can be bought in the way you >>>> suggest is very small, particularly if they aren't in the government.
And, funnily enough, those uninfluential politicians donrCOt get
showered with freebies. I wonder why they donrCOt also need
rCyeducatingrCO with expensive concert and sports tickets?
Perhaps you can produce a reference for that, preferably not the
occasional tabloid headline planted by a political rival.
I don't read the tabloids. So here's a broadsheet reference, easily found by Google:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/03/taylor-swift-freebies-labour-mps-starmer/
03 October 2024 3:31pm BST
Eleven Labour MPs including Sir Keir Starmer accepted more than -u20,000 in free Taylor Swift tickets,
register shows.
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free hospitality to watch the singer,
Would you prefer a situation where you are allowed to underpay by
whatever amount you wish but with heavy interest payments added on top?
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 18:22:12 +0200, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Would you prefer a situation where you are allowed to underpay by
whatever amount you wish but with heavy interest payments added on top?
That's actually the current situation. You don't have to pay the amount
HMRC proposes for payment on account - you can choose to pay less (or more
if you want, though there's no benefit to that). The catch is that if you choose to pay less and the tax due ends up higher, you will be charged interest on the difference.
Mike
On 08/10/2025 22:21, Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:48:07 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <iiwFQ.450$PtC3.161@fx07.ams1>, at 16:27:58 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5v0s$1m1ac$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:28 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:And, funnily enough, those uninfluential politicians donrCOt get
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers >>>>>>>>>>> and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to >>>>>>>>>>> fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to >>>>>>>>>> politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing the >>>>>>>>> trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no need to >>>>>>>>> gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen. >>>>>>>>> However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo >>>>>>>>> opportunity for the hosts.
ThatrCOs a very generous interpretation of the gift giverrCOs
motivations. ItrCOs
not one I share.
If you had more experience of the way things actually work, then >>>>>>> maybe
you *would* be able to share my interpretation.
What you describe is simply a tolerated level of petty corruption. >>>>>> One
persons posh dinner invite to discuss matters of mutual importance is >>>>>> another persons observing the purchase of influence. What is the
motivation
of someone spending thousands on a pair of glasses for the PM?
Keep digging, these politics of envy are very corrosive to discussions >>>>> such as this. And again, please read my words "it does sometimes
happen". Sometimes, only sometimes.
And the number MPs who have influence which can be bought in the
way you
suggest is very small, particularly if they aren't in the government. >>>>
showered with freebies. I wonder why they donrCOt also need
rCyeducatingrCO with expensive concert and sports tickets?
Perhaps you can produce a reference for that, preferably not the
occasional tabloid headline planted by a political rival.
I don't read the tabloids. So here's a broadsheet reference, easily
found by Google:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/03/taylor-swift-freebies-
labour-mps-starmer/
03 October 2024 3:31pm BST
Eleven Labour MPs including Sir Keir Starmer accepted more than
-u20,000 in free Taylor Swift tickets,
I guess that is totally nominal value; the only cost to the organisers
is the opportunity cost?
-aan official register shows.Swift is a declared "Democrat".
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
On 09/10/2025 06:12 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 08/10/2025 22:21, Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:48:07 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <iiwFQ.450$PtC3.161@fx07.ams1>, at 16:27:58 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5v0s$1m1ac$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:28 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:And, funnily enough, those uninfluential politicians donrCOt get
Politicians are often criticised for living in ivory towers >>>>>>>>>>>> and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to >>>>>>>>>>>> fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to >>>>>>>>>>> politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness.
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing >>>>>>>>>> the trip at
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no >>>>>>>>>> need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen. >>>>>>>>>> However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo >>>>>>>>>> opportunity for the hosts.
ThatrCOs a very generous interpretation of the gift giverrCOs >>>>>>>>> motivations. ItrCOs
not one I share.
If you had more experience of the way things actually work, then >>>>>>>> maybe
you *would* be able to share my interpretation.
What you describe is simply a tolerated level of petty
corruption. One
persons posh dinner invite to discuss matters of mutual
importance is
another persons observing the purchase of influence. What is the >>>>>>> motivation
of someone spending thousands on a pair of glasses for the PM?
Keep digging, these politics of envy are very corrosive to
discussions
such as this. And again, please read my words "it does sometimes
happen". Sometimes, only sometimes.
And the number MPs who have influence which can be bought in the
way you
suggest is very small, particularly if they aren't in the government. >>>>>
showered with freebies. I wonder why they donrCOt also need
rCyeducatingrCO with expensive concert and sports tickets?
Perhaps you can produce a reference for that, preferably not the
occasional tabloid headline planted by a political rival.
I don't read the tabloids. So here's a broadsheet reference, easily
found by Google:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/03/taylor-swift-freebies- labour-mps-starmer/
03 October 2024 3:31pm BST
Eleven Labour MPs including Sir Keir Starmer accepted more than
-u20,000 in free Taylor Swift tickets,
I guess that is totally nominal value; the only cost to the organisers
is the opportunity cost?
The opportunity cost of those P&L losses is easily calculated once one
knows their face value (-u20,000 likely being an estimate and possubly an under-estimate) and far from being "nominal".
The tickets handed to government ministers could have been sold many
times over.>
-a-aan official register shows.Swift is a declared "Democrat".
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
On 10/10/2025 00:40, JNugent wrote:
On 09/10/2025 06:12 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 08/10/2025 22:21, Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:48:07 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <iiwFQ.450$PtC3.161@fx07.ams1>, at 16:27:58 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>>> 2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c5v0s$1m1ac$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:28 on Wed, 8 Oct >>>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:And, funnily enough, those uninfluential politicians donrCOt get
It's very much the issue to facilitate the politician doing >>>>>>>>>>> the trip atPoliticians are often criticised for living in ivory towers >>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
getting out and about to see real life. Expecting them to >>>>>>>>>>>>> fund that
themselves is unreasonable.
ThatrCOs not the issue. People who give things of value to >>>>>>>>>>>> politicians expect
something in return. They donrCOt do it out of kindness. >>>>>>>>>>>
all, without it adding to his credit card bill. There's no >>>>>>>>>>> need to
gold-plate the expenses claim, although it does sometimes happen. >>>>>>>>>>> However, the "something in return" is rarely more than a photo >>>>>>>>>>> opportunity for the hosts.
ThatrCOs a very generous interpretation of the gift giverrCOs >>>>>>>>>> motivations. ItrCOs
not one I share.
If you had more experience of the way things actually work, then >>>>>>>>> maybe
you *would* be able to share my interpretation.
What you describe is simply a tolerated level of petty
corruption. One
persons posh dinner invite to discuss matters of mutual
importance is
another persons observing the purchase of influence. What is the >>>>>>>> motivation
of someone spending thousands on a pair of glasses for the PM?
Keep digging, these politics of envy are very corrosive to
discussions
such as this. And again, please read my words "it does sometimes >>>>>>> happen". Sometimes, only sometimes.
And the number MPs who have influence which can be bought in the >>>>>>> way you
suggest is very small, particularly if they aren't in the government. >>>>>>
showered with freebies. I wonder why they donrCOt also need
rCyeducatingrCO with expensive concert and sports tickets?
Perhaps you can produce a reference for that, preferably not the
occasional tabloid headline planted by a political rival.
I don't read the tabloids. So here's a broadsheet reference, easily
found by Google:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/03/taylor-swift-freebies- >>>> labour-mps-starmer/
03 October 2024 3:31pm BST
Eleven Labour MPs including Sir Keir Starmer accepted more than
-u20,000 in free Taylor Swift tickets,
I guess that is totally nominal value; the only cost to the organisers
is the opportunity cost?
The opportunity cost of those P&L losses is easily calculated once one
knows their face value (-u20,000 likely being an estimate and possubly an >> under-estimate) and far from being "nominal".
The tickets handed to government ministers could have been sold many
times over.>
-a-aan official register shows.Swift is a declared "Democrat".
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
So you keep saying, US political divisions don't map easily onto British ones, especially now.
On 09/10/2025 06:12 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Swift is a declared "Democrat".While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
Am 09.10.2025 um 17:32 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
Why should any government get tax on money you might not even earn? Oh
sure,
you get the money back the year after if you've overpaid but that doesn't
help at the time.
In long-term business relations, some assumptions have to be taken that
are somewhere in between beneficial for one side and beneficial for the >other side.
Why should your gas company be paid for any gas that you might not
consume?
Would you prefer a situation where you are allowed to underpay by
whatever amount you wish but with heavy interest payments added on top?
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 18:22:12 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 09.10.2025 um 17:32 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
Why should any government get tax on money you might not even earn? Oh
sure,
you get the money back the year after if you've overpaid but that doesn't >> help at the time.
In long-term business relations, some assumptions have to be taken that >are somewhere in between beneficial for one side and beneficial for the >other side.
Why should your gas company be paid for any gas that you might not >consume?
Huh? Not in the UK they arn't. I give them a meter reading, I get my bill.
boltar@caprica.universe posted:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 18:22:12 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 09.10.2025 um 17:32 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
Why should any government get tax on money you might not even earn? Oh >>>> sure,
you get the money back the year after if you've overpaid but that doesn't >>>> help at the time.
In long-term business relations, some assumptions have to be taken that >>> are somewhere in between beneficial for one side and beneficial for the >>> other side.
Why should your gas company be paid for any gas that you might not
consume?
Huh? Not in the UK they arn't. I give them a meter reading, I get my bill.
And they trust all the bill will be paid? Even those
who manage to spend all available money during each month?
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prepayment_meter
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 18:22:12 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 09.10.2025 um 17:32 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
Why should any government get tax on money you might not even earn?
Oh sure,
you get the money back the year after if you've overpaid but that
doesn't
help at the time.
In long-term business relations, some assumptions have to be taken
that are somewhere in between beneficial for one side and beneficial
for the other side.
Why should your gas company be paid for any gas that you might not
consume?
Huh? Not in the UK they arn't. I give them a meter reading, I get my bill.
Am 10.10.2025 um 10:58 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 18:22:12 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 09.10.2025 um 17:32 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
Why should any government get tax on money you might not even earn?
Oh sure,
you get the money back the year after if you've overpaid but that
doesn't
help at the time.
In long-term business relations, some assumptions have to be taken
that are somewhere in between beneficial for one side and beneficial
for the other side.
Why should your gas company be paid for any gas that you might not
consume?
Huh? Not in the UK they arn't. I give them a meter reading, I get my
bill.
How often do you pay your gas bills? In Germany you typically pay
monthly installments.
How often do you give meter readings?-a In Germany, the gas company reads the meter once a year (but you have the option of providing intermediate meter readings).
The gas company does not wish to supply gas for a year in advance
without payment, so they send you monthly "Preliminary bills" (Abschlag) with estimated usage.
In the first year if your gas usage is significantly below the previous tenant or if you suddenly change your habits, this can cause you to pay
for gas that you have not used yet.
On 10/10/2025 00:40, JNugent wrote:
On 09/10/2025 06:12 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Eleven Labour MPs including Sir Keir Starmer accepted more thanI guess that is totally nominal value; the only cost to the
-u20,000 in free Taylor Swift tickets,
organisers is the opportunity cost?
The opportunity cost of those P&L losses is easily calculated once one
knows their face value (-u20,000 likely being an estimate and possubly
an under-estimate) and far from being "nominal".
The tickets handed to government ministers could have been sold many
times over.
an official register shows.
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
Swift is a declared "Democrat".
So you keep saying, US political divisions don't map easily onto British ones, especially now.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 06:12 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
Swift is a declared "Democrat".
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it.
If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have been happy to accept.
On 10/10/2025 09:52 AM, Recliner wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 06:12 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
Swift is a declared "Democrat".
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it.
I don't agree. The facts are the facts. I'm glad they are what they are.
If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have >> been happy to accept.
That's easy to say and impossible to prove. But the existing facts are >proven.
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 14:21:10 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52 AM, Recliner wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 06:12 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
Swift is a declared "Democrat".
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it.
I don't agree. The facts are the facts. I'm glad they are what they are.
What would anyone in the UK care what US party a US entertainer supports?
If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have >>> been happy to accept.
That's easy to say and impossible to prove. But the existing facts are
proven.
Yes, the fact that government ministers got freebie tickets, just as happened under previous governments. Opposition
leaders didn't, and nor did backbenchers. Those are the facts.
On 10/10/2025 08:56 AM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/10/2025 00:40, JNugent wrote:
On 09/10/2025 06:12 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
[ ... ]
Eleven Labour MPs including Sir Keir Starmer accepted more thanI guess that is totally nominal value; the only cost to the
-u20,000 in free Taylor Swift tickets,
organisers is the opportunity cost?
The opportunity cost of those P&L losses is easily calculated once one
knows their face value (-u20,000 likely being an estimate and possubly
an under-estimate) and far from being "nominal".
The tickets handed to government ministers could have been sold many
times over.
-a an official register shows.
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
Swift is a declared "Democrat".
So you keep saying, US political divisions don't map easily onto British
ones, especially now.
That particular one certainly *does*, except that the (US) Democrats are quite a bit further left than the the current ruling clique within the
UK's Labour Party.
On 10/10/2025 14:18, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 08:56 AM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/10/2025 00:40, JNugent wrote:
On 09/10/2025 06:12 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
[ ... ]
Eleven Labour MPs including Sir Keir Starmer accepted more thanI guess that is totally nominal value; the only cost to the
-u20,000 in free Taylor Swift tickets,
organisers is the opportunity cost?
The opportunity cost of those P&L losses is easily calculated once one >>>> knows their face value (-u20,000 likely being an estimate and possubly >>>> an under-estimate) and far from being "nominal".
The tickets handed to government ministers could have been sold many
times over.
an official register shows.
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
Swift is a declared "Democrat".
So you keep saying, US political divisions don't map easily onto British >>> ones, especially now.
That particular one certainly *does*, except that the (US) Democrats
are quite a bit further left than the the current ruling clique within
the UK's Labour Party.
Only of you assume the right wing in Britain is run by a megalomaniac
wannabe dictator, err AngomamorCa
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 18:22:12 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 09.10.2025 um 17:32 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
Why should any government get tax on money you might not even earn? Oh >> >> sure,
you get the money back the year after if you've overpaid but that doesn't >> >> help at the time.
In long-term business relations, some assumptions have to be taken that
are somewhere in between beneficial for one side and beneficial for the
other side.
Why should your gas company be paid for any gas that you might not
consume?
Huh? Not in the UK they arn't. I give them a meter reading, I get my bill.
And they trust all the bill will be paid? Even those
who manage to spend all available money during each month?
On 10/10/2025 02:38 PM, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 14:21:10 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52 AM, Recliner wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 06:12 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
Swift is a declared "Democrat".
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it.
I don't agree. The facts are the facts. I'm glad they are what they are.
What would anyone in the UK care what US party a US entertainer supports?
Nobody normal does, really.
It's simply an explanation for the tilted freeby list which we all know about.
Nothing more than that.
Am 10.10.2025 um 10:58 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 18:22:12 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 09.10.2025 um 17:32 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
Why should any government get tax on money you might not even earn?
Oh sure,
you get the money back the year after if you've overpaid but that
doesn't
help at the time.
In long-term business relations, some assumptions have to be taken
that are somewhere in between beneficial for one side and beneficial
for the other side.
Why should your gas company be paid for any gas that you might not
consume?
Huh? Not in the UK they arn't. I give them a meter reading, I get my bill.
How often do you pay your gas bills? In Germany you typically pay
monthly installments.
How often do you give meter readings? In Germany, the gas company reads
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 02:38 PM, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 14:21:10 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/10/2025 09:52 AM, Recliner wrote:Nobody normal does, really.
What would anyone in the UK care what US party a US entertainer supports? >>JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 06:12 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
Swift is a declared "Democrat".
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it.
I don't agree. The facts are the facts. I'm glad they are what they are. >>>
It's simply an explanation for the tilted freeby list which we all know
about.
Nothing more than that.
YourCOre completely missing the point. The whole point was that senior government ministers get desirable freebies, whether concert tickets for
them and their families, or sports invitations. Backbenchers and opposition politicians unlikely to be in power any time soon donrCOt. ItrCOs always the same, regardless of which party is in power rCo lobbyists donrCOt waste their money trying to influence people without the power to return the favours.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 02:38 PM, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 14:21:10 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/10/2025 09:52 AM, Recliner wrote:Nobody normal does, really.
What would anyone in the UK care what US party a US entertainer supports? >>JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 09/10/2025 06:12 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
Swift is a declared "Democrat".
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it.
I don't agree. The facts are the facts. I'm glad they are what they are. >>>
It's simply an explanation for the tilted freeby list which we all know
about.
Nothing more than that.
YourCOre completely missing the point. The whole point was that senior government ministers get desirable freebies, whether concert tickets for
them and their families, or sports invitations. Backbenchers and opposition politicians unlikely to be in power any time soon donrCOt. ItrCOs always the same, regardless of which party is in power rCo lobbyists donrCOt waste their money trying to influence people without the power to return the favours.
same, regardless of which party is in power rCo lobbyists donrCOt waste their money trying to influence people without the power to return the favours.
On 10/10/2025 04:01 PM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/10/2025 14:18, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 08:56 AM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/10/2025 00:40, JNugent wrote:
On 09/10/2025 06:12 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
[ ... ]
Eleven Labour MPs including Sir Keir Starmer accepted more thanI guess that is totally nominal value; the only cost to the
-u20,000 in free Taylor Swift tickets,
organisers is the opportunity cost?
The opportunity cost of those P&L losses is easily calculated once one >>>>> knows their face value (-u20,000 likely being an estimate and possubly >>>>> an under-estimate) and far from being "nominal".
The tickets handed to government ministers could have been sold many >>>>> times over.
-a an official register shows.
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
That's presumably not too surprising, on a number of levels.
Swift is a declared "Democrat".
So you keep saying, US political divisions don't map easily onto
British
ones, especially now.
That particular one certainly *does*, except that the (US) Democrats
are quite a bit further left than the the current ruling clique within
the UK's Labour Party.
Only of you assume the right wing in Britain is run by a megalomaniac
wannabe dictator, err AngomamorCa
I don't see the connection between that (whatever it means) and what I
said.
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:44:40 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 10.10.2025 um 10:58 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 18:22:12 +0200How often do you pay your gas bills? In Germany you typically pay
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 09.10.2025 um 17:32 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
Why should any government get tax on money you might not even earn? >>>>> Oh sure,
you get the money back the year after if you've overpaid but that
doesn't
help at the time.
In long-term business relations, some assumptions have to be taken
that are somewhere in between beneficial for one side and beneficial
for the other side.
Why should your gas company be paid for any gas that you might not
consume?
Huh? Not in the UK they arn't. I give them a meter reading, I get my bill. >>
monthly installments.
Monthly.
How often do you give meter readings? In Germany, the gas company reads
Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then they send
an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive to be honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but they'll get caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year visit.
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have been happy to accept.
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have >> been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie
media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd
think they can get away with anything.
On 10/10/2025 17:04, JNugent wrote:
While not a single Tory MP has been recorded accepting free
hospitality to watch the singer,
And you can be sure that Leftie reporters have been trying to find something.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:44:40 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 10.10.2025 um 10:58 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 18:22:12 +0200How often do you pay your gas bills? In Germany you typically pay
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 09.10.2025 um 17:32 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
Why should any government get tax on money you might not even earn? >>>>>> Oh sure,
you get the money back the year after if you've overpaid but that
doesn't
help at the time.
In long-term business relations, some assumptions have to be taken
that are somewhere in between beneficial for one side and beneficial >>>>> for the other side.
Why should your gas company be paid for any gas that you might not
consume?
Huh? Not in the UK they arn't. I give them a meter reading, I get my bill. >>>
monthly installments.
Monthly.
How often do you give meter readings? In Germany, the gas company reads
Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then they send >> an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive to be
honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but they'll get
caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year visit.
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher than our
consumption , not huge enough that they could be an unrealistic amount but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour. Cushioned us against price increases .
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have >>> been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie
media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd
think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph? The Sun?
Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still
with the resources to do investigations.
ItrCOs not hard rCo just look at their declarations of donations. Most actual
investigations into MPsrCO expenses have been led by the Telegraph. I suppose thatrCOs left-wing by your standards?
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd have >> been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would
have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie
media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd
think they can get away with anything.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have >>> been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie
media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd
think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph? The Sun?
Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still
with the resources to do investigations.
On 10/10/2025 10:38 PM, Marland wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:44:40 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 10.10.2025 um 10:58 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 18:22:12 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 09.10.2025 um 17:32 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
Why should any government get tax on money you might not even earn? >>>>>>> Oh sure,
you get the money back the year after if you've overpaid but that >>>>>>> doesn't
help at the time.
In long-term business relations, some assumptions have to be taken >>>>>> that are somewhere in between beneficial for one side and beneficial >>>>>> for the other side.
Why should your gas company be paid for any gas that you might not >>>>>> consume?
Huh? Not in the UK they arn't. I give them a meter reading, I get my bill.
How often do you pay your gas bills? In Germany you typically pay
monthly installments.
Monthly.
How often do you give meter readings? In Germany, the gas company reads >>>Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then they send >>> an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive to be >>> honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but they'll get >>> caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year visit.
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher than our >> consumption , not huge enough that they could be an unrealistic amount
but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour.
Cushioned us against price increases .
???
You could have just got the correct bill and paid more than the bottom line!
On 10/10/2025 11:18 PM, Recliner wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd >>>> have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children
would have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie
media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd
think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media?-a Your favourite Wail?-a The Telegraph?-a The >> Sun?
-a Express?-a GBNews?-a Sky News?-a The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still
with the resources to do investigations.
Print:
The Daily/Sunday Mirror (and all that it now owns locally, which is a LOT).
The Guardian.
The "Independent".
Broadcast / Online:
BBC
Sky News
ITV News
Huffington Post
etc.
There is only one right of centre broadcast outlet.
On 10/10/2025 23:18, Recliner wrote:
ItrCOs not hard rCo just look at their declarations of donations.-a Most
actual
investigations into MPsrCO expenses have been led by the Telegraph. I
suppose
thatrCOs left-wing by your standards?
At the time of the time of the previous "expenses scandal", which I seem
to remember the Telegraph picked up from a reporter at one of the
weekly(?) political publications, there were a lot of reports of wrong
doing by Labour politicians which the mainstream media ignored because
it did not fit with what their readership wanted.-a Many were much more worse than what the Telegraph reported of the Conservatives.
On 10/10/2025 10:38 PM, Marland wrote:
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher than our >> -a consumption , not huge enough that they could-a be an unrealistic-a amount
but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour.
Cushioned us against price increases-a .
???
You could have just got the correct bill and paid more than the bottom line!
On 11/10/2025 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:18 PM, Recliner wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd >>>>> have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children
would have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie >>>> media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd >>>> think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media?-a Your favourite Wail?-a The Telegraph?-a The >>> Sun?
-a Express?-a GBNews?-a Sky News?-a The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still
with the resources to do investigations.
Print:
The Daily/Sunday Mirror (and all that it now owns locally, which is a LOT).
The Mirror is part of same group as the Express.
The Guardian.
The "Independent".
Broadcast / Online:
Broadcast news organisations have an obligation to provide a balanced
view which is more than the newspapers have.
BBC
Sky News
ITV News
Huffington Post
is not broadcast.
etc.
There is only one right of centre broadcast outlet.
See above, GB news continually breaks the law.
On 10/10/2025 23:18, Recliner wrote:
ItrCOs not hard rCo just look at their declarations of donations. Most
actual investigations into MPsrCO expenses have been led by the Telegraph. >> I suppose thatrCOs left-wing by your standards?
At the time of the time of the previous "expenses scandal", which I seem
to remember the Telegraph picked up from a reporter at one of the
weekly(?) political publications, there were a lot of reports of wrong
doing by Labour politicians which the mainstream media ignored because
it did not fit with what their readership wanted. Many were much more
worse than what the Telegraph reported of the Conservatives.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 10:38 PM, Marland wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 12:44:40 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 10.10.2025 um 10:58 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 18:22:12 +0200
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> gabbled:
Am 09.10.2025 um 17:32 schrieb boltar@caprica.universe:
Why should any government get tax on money you might not even earn? >>>>>>>> Oh sure,
you get the money back the year after if you've overpaid but that >>>>>>>> doesn't
help at the time.
In long-term business relations, some assumptions have to be taken >>>>>>> that are somewhere in between beneficial for one side and beneficial >>>>>>> for the other side.
Why should your gas company be paid for any gas that you might not >>>>>>> consume?
Huh? Not in the UK they arn't. I give them a meter reading, I get my bill.
How often do you pay your gas bills? In Germany you typically pay
monthly installments.
Monthly.
How often do you give meter readings? In Germany, the gas company reads >>>>Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then they send >>>> an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive to be >>>> honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but they'll get >>>> caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year visit. >>>>
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher than our >>> consumption , not huge enough that they could be an unrealistic amount >>> but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour.
Cushioned us against price increases .
???
You could have just got the correct bill and paid more than the bottom line! >>
That would mean having to add more to the regular DD payment, not difficult but someting I could not be bothered to do , it was just easier to add a
some kilowatts to the monthly readings which I was having to do anyway.
Some people used to stock up on Postage stamps that were just marked first and second class rather than a monetary value before an increase in postal charges using a similar mindset. The amounts were not large but enough
make a difference.
I first started doing the electric over read decades ago when living in a shared household I ended up as the one responsible for paying the gas and electric , as many who have lived in such households as students will know you cannot really apportion usage to each resident with total accuracy so a degree of give and take has to be accepted. This usually works fine till
one member moves his girlfriend in and they become the housecouple. Their room gets a heater left on all day , they use the oven a lot more as they
now stay in and cook real meals ,they decide to get a tropical fishtank
,she uses the shower twice a day so they are using more than the other residents.
As requests for extra contribution got a blank response I started to over read the meter.
When after two years and we all dispersed I got a substantial refund which was divided up between myself and the other two singletons but not the couple.
As it happens I met her by chance many years later and during the brief reunion and reminiscences she did say rCLI suppose R and I should have contributed more but we were saving for a mortgage.rCY
Thats all right I said and told her about the meter readings and I added rCLAs I left for work after you and got home before you I used to pull the fuse* for your room and put it back before you got in so the fan heater wasnrCOt on all day
You sneaky bastard she said.
* It was an unmodified 1930rCOs semi with 15 amp round pin sockets .
GH
On 11/10/2025 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:18 PM, Recliner wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd >>>>> have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children
would have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie >>>> media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd >>>> think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph?
The Sun?
Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still
with the resources to do investigations.
Print:
The Daily/Sunday Mirror (and all that it now owns locally, which is a
LOT).
The Mirror is part of same group as the Express.
The Guardian.
The "Independent".
Broadcast / Online:
Broadcast news organisations have an obligation to provide a balanced
view which is more than the newspapers have.
BBC
Sky News
ITV News
Huffington Post
is not broadcast.
etc.
There is only one right of centre broadcast outlet.
See above, GB news continually breaks the law.
On 11/10/2025 07:53, JMB99 wrote:
On 10/10/2025 23:18, Recliner wrote:
ItrCOs not hard rCo just look at their declarations of donations. Most
actual
investigations into MPsrCO expenses have been led by the Telegraph. I
suppose
thatrCOs left-wing by your standards?
At the time of the time of the previous "expenses scandal", which I
seem to remember the Telegraph picked up from a reporter at one of the
weekly(?) political publications, there were a lot of reports of wrong
doing by Labour politicians which the mainstream media ignored because
it did not fit with what their readership wanted. Many were much more
worse than what the Telegraph reported of the Conservatives.
Examples?
On 11/10/2025 01:35, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 10:38 PM, Marland wrote:
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher
than our
consumption , not huge enough that they could be an unrealistic
amount
but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour.
Cushioned us against price increases .
???
You could have just got the correct bill and paid more than the bottom
line!
That would not get the phantom consumption charged at the earlier
lower rate.
On 11/10/2025 07:53 AM, JMB99 wrote:
On 10/10/2025 23:18, Recliner wrote:
ItrCOs not hard rCo just look at their declarations of donations. Most
actual investigations into MPsrCO expenses have been led by the Telegraph. >>> I suppose thatrCOs left-wing by your standards?
At the time of the time of the previous "expenses scandal", which I seem
to remember the Telegraph picked up from a reporter at one of the
weekly(?) political publications, there were a lot of reports of wrong
doing by Labour politicians which the mainstream media ignored because
it did not fit with what their readership wanted. Many were much more
worse than what the Telegraph reported of the Conservatives.
As far as I remember, the only Conservative Parliamentarian who received
a custodial sentence was a Conservative peer (Lord Taylor of Warwick).
However, five Labour members or ex-members of the House of Commons were imprisoned: Jim Devine, Eric Illsley, David Chaytor and Elliot Morley.
On 11/10/2025 09:06 AM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2025 07:53, JMB99 wrote:
On 10/10/2025 23:18, Recliner wrote:
ItrCOs not hard rCo just look at their declarations of donations. Most >>>> actual
investigations into MPsrCO expenses have been led by the Telegraph. I
suppose
thatrCOs left-wing by your standards?
At the time of the time of the previous "expenses scandal", which I
seem to remember the Telegraph picked up from a reporter at one of the
weekly(?) political publications, there were a lot of reports of wrong
doing by Labour politicians which the mainstream media ignored because
it did not fit with what their readership wanted. Many were much more
worse than what the Telegraph reported of the Conservatives.
Examples?
See my post near here. The ratio is 1:6 (Conservative : Labour).
Admittedly, it deals only with a list of the six parliamentarians who
were imprisoned. I suppose that makes them "the worst".
On 11/10/2025 09:05 AM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:18 PM, Recliner wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd >>>>>> have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children
would have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie >>>>> media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd >>>>> think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph?
The Sun?
Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still >>>> with the resources to do investigations.
Print:
The Daily/Sunday Mirror (and all that it now owns locally, which is a
LOT).
The Mirror is part of same group as the Express.
You mean that the Express is owned by the Mirror Group, or, as some of >remember it, The Maxwell Press.
The Guardian.
The "Independent".
Broadcast / Online:
Broadcast news organisations have an obligation to provide a balanced
view which is more than the newspapers have.
But they don't comply and have not at least as far back as the late 1970s.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 14:04:54 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 09:05 AM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:18 PM, Recliner wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd >>>>>>> have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children
would have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie >>>>>> media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd >>>>>> think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph?
The Sun?
Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still >>>>> with the resources to do investigations.
Print:
The Daily/Sunday Mirror (and all that it now owns locally, which is a
LOT).
The Mirror is part of same group as the Express.
You mean that the Express is owned by the Mirror Group, or, as some of
remember it, The Maxwell Press.
Maxwell died in 1991, and the Mirror Group has not existed since 1999. You're living in the last century.
The Guardian.
The "Independent".
Broadcast / Online:
Broadcast news organisations have an obligation to provide a balanced
view which is more than the newspapers have.
But they don't comply and have not at least as far back as the late 1970s.
Of course they do. You're simply showing that you're an elderly right-winger who probably thinks the Telegraph is a
commie rag.
Maxwell died in 1991, and the Mirror Group has not existed since 1999. You're living in the last century.
There are still people who won't buy The Times because they remember it
as "the Murdoch press".
I seem to remember all because The Sun reported what they had been told
by a senior police officer.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then they send >> an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive to be
honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but they'll get
caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year visit.
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher than our
consumption , not huge enough that they could be an unrealistic amount
but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour. >Cushioned us against price increases .
On 10 Oct 2025 21:38:27 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then they send >>> an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive to be >>> honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but they'll get >>> caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year visit.
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher than our >> consumption , not huge enough that they could be an unrealistic amount
but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour.
Cushioned us against price increases .
Your logic doesn't work. If you used 10 quid of gas but paid 20 then the price goes up, that 10 quid credit isn't going to buy you gas at the old rate I'm afraid, it'll simply offset what you owe at the new one. All you've done is given the gas company your money to invest instead of investing it yourself.
Not clever.
On 11/10/2025 02:58 PM, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 14:04:54 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 09:05 AM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:18 PM, Recliner wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd >>>>>>>> have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children >>>>>>>> would have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie >>>>>>> media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd >>>>>>> think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph?
The Sun?
Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still >>>>>> with the resources to do investigations.
Print:
The Daily/Sunday Mirror (and all that it now owns locally, which is a >>>>> LOT).
The Mirror is part of same group as the Express.
You mean that the Express is owned by the Mirror Group, or, as some of
remember it, The Maxwell Press.
Maxwell died in 1991, and the Mirror Group has not existed since 1999.
You're living in the last century.
QUOTE (with added emphasis):
...the Mirror Group, or, as some of [us] *remember* it, The Maxwell Press. ENDQUOTE
There are still people who won't buy The Times because they remember it
as "the Murdoch press".
I can remember online Guardian chat when the TV series "Mad Men"
transferred from BBC to Sky Atlantic.
There were people prepared never to see any more of it rather than
patronise the Murdoch empire.
Of course, that was then. As was The Mirror being part of the Maxwell Press.
Of course they do. You're simply showing that you're an elderly
The Guardian.
The "Independent".
Broadcast / Online:
Broadcast news organisations have an obligation to provide a balanced
view which is more than the newspapers have.
But they don't comply and have not at least as far back as the late 1970s. >>
right-winger who probably thinks the Telegraph is a
commie rag.
Why the ad hominem? I haven't insulted you or anyone else here. Why not converse in civil terms?
I can remember online Guardian chat when the TV series "Mad Men"
transferred from BBC to Sky Atlantic.
On 10 Oct 2025 21:38:27 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then they send >>> an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive to be >>> honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but they'll get >>> caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year visit.
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher than our >> consumption , not huge enough that they could be an unrealistic amount
but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour.
Cushioned us against price increases .
Your logic doesn't work. If you used 10 quid of gas but paid 20 then the price goes up, that **10 quid credit** isn't going to buy you gas at the old rate
I'm afraid, it'll simply offset what you owe at the new one. All you've done is given the gas company your money to invest instead of investing it yourself.
Not clever.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 21:38:27 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then they send >>>> an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive to be >>>> honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but they'll get >>>> caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year visit. >>>>
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher than our >>> consumption , not huge enough that they could be an unrealistic amount >>> but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour. >>> Cushioned us against price increases .
Your logic doesn't work. If you used 10 quid of gas but paid 20 then the
price goes up, that 10 quid credit isn't going to buy you gas at the old rate
I'm afraid, it'll simply offset what you owe at the new one. All you've done >> is given the gas company your money to invest instead of investing it >yourself.
Not clever.
Nope. It is indeed a way to consume future fuel at todayrCOs prices (but you >do lose interest on the unnecessarily large balance, so the saving may be >marginal).
Ask someone who knows simple arithmetic to explain it to you.
On 11/10/2025 16:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 21:38:27 GMTNo, Boltar.
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then they send >>>> an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive to be >>>> honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but they'll get >>>> caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year visit. >>>>
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher than our >>> consumption , not huge enough that they could be an unrealistic amount >>> but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour.
Cushioned us against price increases .
Your logic doesn't work. If you used 10 quid of gas but paid 20 then the
price goes up, that **10 quid credit** isn't going to buy you gas at the old >rate
I'm afraid, it'll simply offset what you owe at the new one. All you've done >> is given the gas company your money to invest instead of investing it >yourself.
Not clever.
By reporting extra gas consumption via a fake over-read works as described.
There's no "10 quid credit", there's just extra gas in hand at the
billing date.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 15:38:59 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 21:38:27 GMTyourself.
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then they send
an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive to be >>>>> honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but they'll get >>>>> caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year visit. >>>>>
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher than our
consumption , not huge enough that they could be an unrealistic amount >>>> but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour. >>>> Cushioned us against price increases .
Your logic doesn't work. If you used 10 quid of gas but paid 20 then the >>> price goes up, that 10 quid credit isn't going to buy you gas at the old rate
I'm afraid, it'll simply offset what you owe at the new one. All you've done
is given the gas company your money to invest instead of investing it
Not clever.
Nope. It is indeed a way to consume future fuel at todayrCOs prices (but you >> do lose interest on the unnecessarily large balance, so the saving may be
marginal).
Ask someone who knows simple arithmetic to explain it to you.
He pays an extra 10 quid of gas he didnt use. Price goes up. Say next time he gives a proper reading the company sees he's used 20 quid of gas at the new price. They take 10 quid off as he overpaid last time and he pays 10.
If he hadn't overpaid they'd be charging him 20.
ie It makes no difference. Perhaps revisit your basic logic skills.
On 11/10/2025 15:23, JNugent wrote:
There are still people who won't buy The Times because they remember
it as "the Murdoch press".
I seem to remember all because The Sun reported what they had been told
by a senior police officer.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 02:58 PM, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 14:04:54 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 09:05 AM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:18 PM, Recliner wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd >>>>>>>>> have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children >>>>>>>>> would have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie >>>>>>>> media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd >>>>>>>> think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph? >>>>>>> The Sun?
Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still >>>>>>> with the resources to do investigations.
Print:
The Daily/Sunday Mirror (and all that it now owns locally, which is a >>>>>> LOT).
The Mirror is part of same group as the Express.
You mean that the Express is owned by the Mirror Group, or, as some of >>>> remember it, The Maxwell Press.
Maxwell died in 1991, and the Mirror Group has not existed since 1999.
You're living in the last century.
QUOTE (with added emphasis):
...the Mirror Group, or, as some of [us] *remember* it, The Maxwell Press. >> ENDQUOTE
There are still people who won't buy The Times because they remember it
as "the Murdoch press".
You donrCOt need a long memory rCo it still is.
I can remember online Guardian chat when the TV series "Mad Men"
transferred from BBC to Sky Atlantic.
There were people prepared never to see any more of it rather than
patronise the Murdoch empire.
Of course, that was then. As was The Mirror being part of the Maxwell Press.
Yes, until almost 35 years ago. ItrCOs time to move on.
Of course they do. You're simply showing that you're an elderly
The Guardian.
The "Independent".
Broadcast / Online:
Broadcast news organisations have an obligation to provide a balanced >>>>> view which is more than the newspapers have.
But they don't comply and have not at least as far back as the late 1970s. >>>
right-winger who probably thinks the Telegraph is a
commie rag.
Why the ad hominem? I haven't insulted you or anyone else here. Why not
converse in civil terms?
I didnrCOt insult you in any way. I simply stated facts. You clearly *are* an elderly right-winger.
On 11/10/2025 16:38, Recliner wrote:
I can remember online Guardian chat when the TV series "Mad Men"
transferred from BBC to Sky Atlantic.
So you are the one who reads the Guardian!
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 16:47:13 +0100
Peter Able <stuck@home.com> gabbled:
On 11/10/2025 16:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 21:38:27 GMTrate
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then
they send
an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive >>>>> to be
honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but
they'll get
caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year
visit.
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher
than our
consumption , not huge enough that they could-a be an unrealistic
amount
but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour. >>>> Cushioned us against price increases-a .
Your logic doesn't work. If you used 10 quid of gas but paid 20 then the >>> price goes up, that **10 quid credit** isn't going to buy you gas at
the old
I'm afraid, it'll simply offset what you owe at the new one. Allyourself.
you've done
is given the gas company your money to invest instead of investing it
Not clever.No, Boltar.
Yes Peter.
By reporting extra gas consumption via a fake over-read works as
described.
No, it doesn't. See my reply to recliner.
There's no "10 quid credit", there's just extra gas in hand at the
billing date.
There's no "gas in hand".
On 2025-10-11 16:57, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:Q1*P1 + Q2*P2
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 16:47:13 +0100
Peter Able <stuck@home.com> gabbled:
On 11/10/2025 16:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 21:38:27 GMTrate
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then
they send
an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good
incentive to be
honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but
they'll get
caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year
visit.
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher
than our
consumption , not huge enough that they could-a be an unrealistic
amount
but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our
favour.
Cushioned us against price increases-a .
Your logic doesn't work. If you used 10 quid of gas but paid 20 then
the
price goes up, that **10 quid credit** isn't going to buy you gas at
the old
I'm afraid, it'll simply offset what you owe at the new one. Allyourself.
you've done
is given the gas company your money to invest instead of investing it
Not clever.No, Boltar.
Yes Peter.
By reporting extra gas consumption via a fake over-read works as
described.
No, it doesn't. See my reply to recliner.
There's no "10 quid credit", there's just extra gas in hand at the
billing date.
There's no "gas in hand".
Do you really need a worked example to see what you've missed?
Think not about the money credit but how how Q1*P1 + Q2+P2 works, where
Qs are quantity and Ps are prices, if P2>P1 and Q1+Q2 = constant but
some of Q2 can be moved to be in Q1 instead...
nib
On 10 Oct 2025 21:38:27 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then they send >>> an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive to be >>> honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but they'll get >>> caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year visit.
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher than our >> consumption , not huge enough that they could be an unrealistic amount
but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour.
Cushioned us against price increases .
Your logic doesn't work. If you used 10 quid of gas but paid 20 then the price goes up, that 10 quid credit isn't going to buy you gas at the old rate I'm afraid, it'll simply offset what you owe at the new one. All you've done is given the gas company your money to invest instead of investing it yourself.
Not clever.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 16:47:13 +0100
Peter Able <stuck@home.com> gabbled:
On 11/10/2025 16:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 21:38:27 GMTrate
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then
they send
an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive >>>>> to be
honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but
they'll get
caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year
visit.
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher
than our
consumption , not huge enough that they could-a be an unrealistic
amount
but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour. >>>> Cushioned us against price increases-a .
Your logic doesn't work. If you used 10 quid of gas but paid 20 then the >>> price goes up, that **10 quid credit** isn't going to buy you gas at
the old
I'm afraid, it'll simply offset what you owe at the new one. Allyourself.
you've done
is given the gas company your money to invest instead of investing it
Not clever.No, Boltar.
Yes Peter.
By reporting extra gas consumption via a fake over-read works as
described.
No, it doesn't. See my reply to recliner.
There's no "10 quid credit", there's just extra gas in hand at the
billing date.
There's no "gas in hand".
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 21:38:27 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher than our >>> consumption , not huge enough that they could be an unrealistic amount >>> but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour. >>> Cushioned us against price increases .
Your logic doesn't work. If you used 10 quid of gas but paid 20 then the
price goes up, that 10 quid credit isn't going to buy you gas at the old rate
I'm afraid, it'll simply offset what you owe at the new one. All you've done >> is given the gas company your money to invest instead of investing it yourself.
Not clever.
Nope. It is indeed a way to consume future fuel at todayrCOs prices (but you do lose interest on the unnecessarily large balance, so the saving may be marginal).
On 11/10/2025 04:38 PM, Recliner wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 02:58 PM, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 14:04:54 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 11/10/2025 09:05 AM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:18 PM, Recliner wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd
have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children >>>>>>>>>> would have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie
media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd
think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph? >>>>>>>> The Sun?
Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still
with the resources to do investigations.
Print:
The Daily/Sunday Mirror (and all that it now owns locally, which is a >>>>>>> LOT).
The Mirror is part of same group as the Express.
You mean that the Express is owned by the Mirror Group, or, as some of >>>>> remember it, The Maxwell Press.
Maxwell died in 1991, and the Mirror Group has not existed since 1999. >>>> You're living in the last century.
QUOTE (with added emphasis):
...the Mirror Group, or, as some of [us] *remember* it, The Maxwell Press. >>> ENDQUOTE
There are still people who won't buy The Times because they remember it
as "the Murdoch press".
You donrCOt need a long memory rCo it still is.
I can remember online Guardian chat when the TV series "Mad Men"
transferred from BBC to Sky Atlantic.
There were people prepared never to see any more of it rather than
patronise the Murdoch empire.
Of course, that was then. As was The Mirror being part of the Maxwell Press.
Yes, until almost 35 years ago. ItrCOs time to move on.
The Guardian.
The "Independent".
Broadcast / Online:
Broadcast news organisations have an obligation to provide a balanced >>>>>> view which is more than the newspapers have.
But they don't comply and have not at least as far back as the late 1970s.
Of course they do. You're simply showing that you're an elderly
right-winger who probably thinks the Telegraph is a
commie rag.
Why the ad hominem? I haven't insulted you or anyone else here. Why not
converse in civil terms?
I didnrCOt insult you in any way. I simply stated facts. You clearly *are* an
elderly right-winger.
Oh well... if that's the way you need to play things...
It's a shame you can't argue on the basis of what is being discussed, though.
On 11/10/2025 16:57, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 16:47:13 +0100
Peter Able <stuck@home.com> gabbled:
On 11/10/2025 16:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On 10 Oct 2025 21:38:27 GMTrate
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Monthly. I don't have to give them a reading but if I don't then
they send
an estimated bill which is usually too high so its a good incentive >>>>>> to be
honest. No doubt some people give dishonest low readings but
they'll get
caught eventually when the meter reader man does his once a year
visit.
Dishonest probably but I used to send in readings that were higher
than our
consumption , not huge enough that they could-a be an unrealistic
amount
but still large enough that we had a substantial balance in our favour. >>>>> Cushioned us against price increases-a .
Your logic doesn't work. If you used 10 quid of gas but paid 20 then the >>>> price goes up, that **10 quid credit** isn't going to buy you gas at
the old
I'm afraid, it'll simply offset what you owe at the new one. Allyourself.
you've done
is given the gas company your money to invest instead of investing it
Not clever.No, Boltar.
Yes Peter.
By reporting extra gas consumption via a fake over-read works as
described.
No, it doesn't. See my reply to recliner.
There's no "10 quid credit", there's just extra gas in hand at the
billing date.
There's no "gas in hand".
Remember how long it took for me to get you to flush your mental cache
when telling you how 3rd rail DC is derived from HV AC?
Let's try harder.
If you report, on a particular date, a reading that is greater than the actual meter reading, the energy company will raise a bill that charges
you for the amount of energy that you have reported at the rate
applicable on that billing date.
This means that you have a 'gas credit'. Definitely not a cash credit.
They think that you've burnt the gas, you know that it is still in their pipes.
Can I guess that your response is "Right, but when that gas IS burnt
you'll be charged for it 'cos it'll have to go through the meter in
order to be burnt"? Take a deep breath. If you put in the true meter reading the next time you report in, then the difference between that
true reading and the previous,faked,higher reading will be LESS.
Do this just ahead of a price rise and you'll save.
It's the same story as when, in the 1950's, on Budget day, the price of petrol would increase at "6pm this evening". Folk would rush to the
filling stations and fill up. Some would take out old beer bottles, and fill them up, too.
They saved by banking the fuel ahead of the price rise. With gas and electric you're on dodgier ground because you are misleading the energy company - but if you get away with it, you've saved some money and the
risk of your getting caught out by a real meter reader knocking on your
door is pretty low - and you can always pretend you're not in !
Not much, but everyone gets a kick out of beating the system.
Now, rinse and THINK
On 11/10/2025 04:42 PM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2025 16:38, Recliner wrote:
I can remember online Guardian chat when the TV series "Mad Men"
transferred from BBC to Sky Atlantic.
So you are the one who reads the Guardian!
Er... online.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 04:38 PM, Recliner wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2025 02:58 PM, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 14:04:54 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 11/10/2025 09:05 AM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2025 01:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2025 11:18 PM, Recliner wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd
have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children >>>>>>>>>>> would have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie
media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd
think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph? >>>>>>>>> The Sun?
Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still
with the resources to do investigations.
Print:
The Daily/Sunday Mirror (and all that it now owns locally, which is a >>>>>>>> LOT).
The Mirror is part of same group as the Express.
You mean that the Express is owned by the Mirror Group, or, as some of >>>>>> remember it, The Maxwell Press.
Maxwell died in 1991, and the Mirror Group has not existed since 1999. >>>>> You're living in the last century.
QUOTE (with added emphasis):
...the Mirror Group, or, as some of [us] *remember* it, The Maxwell Press. >>>> ENDQUOTE
There are still people who won't buy The Times because they remember it >>>> as "the Murdoch press".
You donrCOt need a long memory rCo it still is.
I can remember online Guardian chat when the TV series "Mad Men"
transferred from BBC to Sky Atlantic.
There were people prepared never to see any more of it rather than
patronise the Murdoch empire.
Of course, that was then. As was The Mirror being part of the Maxwell Press.
Yes, until almost 35 years ago. ItrCOs time to move on.
The Guardian.
The "Independent".
Broadcast / Online:
Broadcast news organisations have an obligation to provide a balanced >>>>>>> view which is more than the newspapers have.
But they don't comply and have not at least as far back as the late 1970s.
Of course they do. You're simply showing that you're an elderly
right-winger who probably thinks the Telegraph is a
commie rag.
Why the ad hominem? I haven't insulted you or anyone else here. Why not >>>> converse in civil terms?
I didnrCOt insult you in any way. I simply stated facts. You clearly *are* an
elderly right-winger.
Oh well... if that's the way you need to play things...
It's a shame you can't argue on the basis of what is being discussed,
though.
I did. I provided facts to back-up my assertion that government ministers
get showered with desirable freebies, while backbenchers and opposition leaders generally donrCOt (unless theyrCOre expected to get into power soon). You then brought in spurious party political arguments.
On 11/10/2025 17:26, JNugent wrote:
On 11/10/2025 04:42 PM, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/10/2025 16:38, Recliner wrote:
I can remember online Guardian chat when the TV series "Mad Men"
transferred from BBC to Sky Atlantic.
So you are the one who reads the Guardian!
Er... online.
That makes a difference?
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatAs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyAd have been >>> offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have >>> been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie
media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd
think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph? The Sun?
Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still
with the resources to do investigations.
boltar wrote:It's still fraud though ...
There's no "gas in hand".
Do you really need a worked example to see what you've missed?
Think not about the money credit but how how Q1*P1 + Q2+P2 works, where
Qs are quantity and Ps are prices, if P2>P1 and Q1+Q2 = constant but
some of Q2 can be moved to be in Q1 instead...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:18:15 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
That-As nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, they-Ad have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have >>>> been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie
media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd
think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph? The Sun? >> Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still
with the resources to do investigations.
The Guardian is not, and has never been, left wing. It's solidly
centre-ledt and social democratic, Blair/Starmer rather than Foot/Benn/Corby. The fact that it prints opinion pieces from across
the spectrum, including the far left but sometimes, seems to confuse
those who never read it.
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:18:15 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
That-As nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, they-Ad have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie >>>> media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd >>>> think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph? The Sun? >>> Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still
with the resources to do investigations.
The Guardian is not, and has never been, left wing. It's solidly
centre-ledt and social democratic, Blair/Starmer rather than
Foot/Benn/Corby. The fact that it prints opinion pieces from across
the spectrum, including the far left but sometimes, seems to confuse
those who never read it.
IrCOd say the current editor has moved it much more to the left than her predecessor did. This includes not just in party political terms, but stuff like Trans rights (over which many of the GuardianrCOs long-standing female correspondents have been driven out).
IrCOve hardly looked at the Observer since it separated from the Guardian, so I donrCOt know where it now is on the political spectrum. I get the impression it may have moved more towards the central position it occupied before the Guardian takeover?
IrCOd say the current editor has moved it much more to the left than her predecessor did. This includes not just in party political terms, but stuff like Trans rights (over which many of the GuardianrCOs long-standing female correspondents have been driven out).
On 12/10/2025 12:10, Recliner wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:18:15 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
That-As nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, they-Ad have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie >>>>> media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd >>>>> think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph? The Sun?
Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still >>>> with the resources to do investigations.
The Guardian is not, and has never been, left wing. It's solidly
centre-ledt and social democratic, Blair/Starmer rather than
Foot/Benn/Corby. The fact that it prints opinion pieces from across
the spectrum, including the far left but sometimes, seems to confuse
those who never read it.
IrCOd say the current editor has moved it much more to the left than her
predecessor did. This includes not just in party political terms, but stuff >> like Trans rights (over which many of the GuardianrCOs long-standing female >> correspondents have been driven out).
IrCOve hardly looked at the Observer since it separated from the Guardian, so
I donrCOt know where it now is on the political spectrum. I get the
impression it may have moved more towards the central position it occupied >> before the Guardian takeover?
As an anti-political person I would say the Guardian has stayed where
they were and society in general has shifted sharply to the right.
On 12/10/2025 12:10, Recliner wrote:
IrCOd say the current editor has moved it much more to the left than her
predecessor did. This includes not just in party political terms, but stuff >> like Trans rights (over which many of the GuardianrCOs long-standing female >> correspondents have been driven out).
Not looked at it for ages but it was the hypocrisy of the Guardian that
I disliked most.
It was very greenie and anti-car but for many years it only existed
because of the subsidy from a car magazine.
Always quick to criticise anyone or business operating offshore but for
many years kept all their money in the Cayman Islands.
Quick to criticise 'zero hour' workers but relied heavily on unpaid interns.
It was good newspaper when it was the Manchester Guardian but went
downhill when it moved South.
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:18:15 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
ThatrCOs nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, theyrCOd have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have >>>> been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie
media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd
think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph? The Sun? >> Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still >>with the resources to do investigations.
The Guardian is not, and has never been, left wing. It's solidly
centre-ledt and social democratic, Blair/Starmer rather than >Foot/Benn/Corby.
The fact that it prints opinion pieces from across
the spectrum, including the far left but sometimes, seems to confuse
those who never read it.
On 2025-10-11 16:57, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
There's no "10 quid credit", there's just extra gas in hand at the
billing date.
There's no "gas in hand".
Do you really need a worked example to see what you've missed?
Think not about the money credit but how how Q1*P1 + Q2+P2 works, where
Qs are quantity and Ps are prices, if P2>P1 and Q1+Q2 = constant but
some of Q2 can be moved to be in Q1 instead...
On 11/10/2025 16:57, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
There's no "10 quid credit", there's just extra gas in hand at the
billing date.
There's no "gas in hand".
Remember how long it took for me to get you to flush your mental cache
when telling you how 3rd rail DC is derived from HV AC?
If you report, on a particular date, a reading that is greater than the >actual meter reading, the energy company will raise a bill that charges
you for the amount of energy that you have reported at the rate
applicable on that billing date.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 12:10, Recliner wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:18:15 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
That?s nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, they?d have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie >>>>>> media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd >>>>>> think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph? The Sun?
Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still >>>>> with the resources to do investigations.
The Guardian is not, and has never been, left wing. It's solidly
centre-ledt and social democratic, Blair/Starmer rather than
Foot/Benn/Corby. The fact that it prints opinion pieces from across
the spectrum, including the far left but sometimes, seems to confuse
those who never read it.
IAd say the current editor has moved it much more to the left than her
predecessor did. This includes not just in party political terms, but stuff >>> like Trans rights (over which many of the GuardianAs long-standing female >>> correspondents have been driven out).
IAve hardly looked at the Observer since it separated from the Guardian, so >>> I donAt know where it now is on the political spectrum. I get the
impression it may have moved more towards the central position it occupied >>> before the Guardian takeover?
As an anti-political person I would say the Guardian has stayed where
they were and society in general has shifted sharply to the right.
Actually, thatAs the exact opposite of the truth. Both Labour and the
Tories in government moved sharply to the left, leaving a gap on the right >for Reform. But even that party has relatively left-wing economic policies >combined with very right-wing social policies. Indeed, itAs best described
as a national socialist party.
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 18:02:47 +0100
Peter Able <stuck@home.com> gabbled:
On 11/10/2025 16:57, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
There's no "10 quid credit", there's just extra gas in hand at the
billing date.
There's no "gas in hand".
Remember how long it took for me to get you to flush your mental cache
when telling you how 3rd rail DC is derived from HV AC?
Huh? You must be thinking of someone else. Obviously 3rd rail substations
are powered from the grid, I never thought otherwise.
If you report, on a particular date, a reading that is greater than
the actual meter reading, the energy company will raise a bill that
charges you for the amount of energy that you have reported at the
rate applicable on that billing date.
As I've said in another post, I misread what he wrote. I thought he was overpaying the bill, not overreading the meter.
On 12/10/2025 16:24, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 18:02:47 +0100I'm astounded. Two Boltars with the same flamboyant habit of shooting >themselves in the foot.
Peter Able <stuck@home.com> gabbled:
On 11/10/2025 16:57, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
There's no "10 quid credit", there's just extra gas in hand at the
billing date.
There's no "gas in hand".
Remember how long it took for me to get you to flush your mental cache
when telling you how 3rd rail DC is derived from HV AC?
Huh? You must be thinking of someone else. Obviously 3rd rail substations
are powered from the grid, I never thought otherwise.
If you report, on a particular date, a reading that is greater than
the actual meter reading, the energy company will raise a bill that
charges you for the amount of energy that you have reported at the
rate applicable on that billing date.
As I've said in another post, I misread what he wrote. I thought he was
overpaying the bill, not overreading the meter.
Iesi Mawr!
So you are the one who reads the Guardian!
Er... online.
That makes a difference?
I would say so.
I am nothing allied to the Guardian or its worldview.
It is one among several online news and opinion sources which I read,
for free.
According to JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>:
So you are the one who reads the Guardian!
Er... online.
That makes a difference?
I would say so.
I am nothing allied to the Guardian or its worldview.
It is one among several online news and opinion sources which I read,
for free.
I read the Guardian, the Financial Times, and the Economist. If it matters, the first
online, the latter two both online and on paper.
What are my politics.
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 13:02:50 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:That depends how far back you are comparing with. The practices of
On 12/10/2025 12:10, Recliner wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:18:15 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 10/10/2025 09:52, Recliner wrote:
That?s nothing to do with it. If the Tories were in power, they?d have been
offered the same freebie tickets, and any with Swiftie children would have
been happy to accept.
I would not be too sure, they would know that the predominately Leftie >>>>>>> media would jump on a story like that whereas the current Labour crowd >>>>>>> think they can get away with anything.
Predominantly Leftie media? Your favourite Wail? The Telegraph? The Sun?
Express? GBNews? Sky News? The Spectator?
The Guardian is probably the only remaining left-wing media organ still >>>>>> with the resources to do investigations.
The Guardian is not, and has never been, left wing. It's solidly
centre-ledt and social democratic, Blair/Starmer rather than
Foot/Benn/Corby. The fact that it prints opinion pieces from across
the spectrum, including the far left but sometimes, seems to confuse >>>>> those who never read it.
I-Ad say the current editor has moved it much more to the left than her >>>> predecessor did. This includes not just in party political terms, but stuff
like Trans rights (over which many of the Guardian-As long-standing female >>>> correspondents have been driven out).
I-Ave hardly looked at the Observer since it separated from the Guardian, so
I don-At know where it now is on the political spectrum. I get the
impression it may have moved more towards the central position it occupied >>>> before the Guardian takeover?
As an anti-political person I would say the Guardian has stayed where
they were and society in general has shifted sharply to the right.
Actually, that-As the exact opposite of the truth. Both Labour and the
Tories in government moved sharply to the left, leaving a gap on the right >> for Reform. But even that party has relatively left-wing economic policies >> combined with very right-wing social policies. Indeed, it-As best described >> as a national socialist party.
many Tory councils before the 1960s might be seen as more "socialist"
than those of a lot of current Labour councils although even now there
can be a bit of a contrast between local and central government
practices involving the same party.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 12:10, Recliner wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:18:15 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
As an anti-political person I would say the Guardian has stayed where
they were and society in general has shifted sharply to the right.
Actually, thatAs the exact opposite of the truth. Both Labour and the
Tories in government moved sharply to the left, leaving a gap on the right >for Reform. But even that party has relatively left-wing economic policies >combined with very right-wing social policies. Indeed, itAs best described
as a national socialist party.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 13:02:50 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
That depends how far back you are comparing with. The practices of
many Tory councils before the 1960s might be seen as more "socialist"
than those of a lot of current Labour councils although even now there
can be a bit of a contrast between local and central government
practices involving the same party.
Local councils donAt have much freedom, so you really need to judge it by >higher tiers of government.
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 09:49:31 +0100, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
with the resources to do investigations.
The Guardian is not, and has never been, left wing. It's solidly >>centre-ledt and social democratic, Blair/Starmer rather than >>Foot/Benn/Corby.
Really? Why did Corbyn recruit the associate editor of the Guardian to be his Executive Director of Strategy and
Communications, initially on leave from the paper. So Seumas Milne was for a while both the associate editor of the
Guardian and Corbyn's brain. The Guardian also employs Owen Jones as a columnist (he was in the Corbyn wing of the
Labour party, but cancelled his membership when Starmer became leader). So I'd say the Guardian these days is very much
in line with Corbyn rather than Blair.
The fact that it prints opinion pieces from across
the spectrum, including the far left but sometimes, seems to confuse
those who never read it.
Does it include any opinion pieces from people not on the left? I thought its writers varied from soft-left to
extreme-left. So it's definitely a left-wing publication, just as the Telegraph is right-wing. If anything, both have
become more extreme.
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 13:02:50 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 12:10, Recliner wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:18:15 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
As an anti-political person I would say the Guardian has stayed where
they were and society in general has shifted sharply to the right.
Actually, thatrCOs the exact opposite of the truth. Both Labour and the >>Tories in government moved sharply to the left, leaving a gap on the right >>for Reform. But even that party has relatively left-wing economic policies >>combined with very right-wing social policies. Indeed, itrCOs best described >>as a national socialist party.
I completely disagree. The type of things Reform (and Badenoch,
Jenrick) comes out with would have been considered outrageous a few
years ago, by most Tories as well as others.
As to the Telegraphm it was always seen as the voice of the
Conservative Party, in particular the sensible, considered wing. Now
it runs culture war stories that would have been beneath it a few
years ago. So does the current Conservative leadership, but the
Telegraph would once have been adult and not joined in.
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 15:11:09 +0100, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 09:49:31 +0100, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
That last statement is categorically not true. Yes, it employs Jones.with the resources to do investigations.
The Guardian is not, and has never been, left wing. It's solidly >>>centre-ledt and social democratic, Blair/Starmer rather than >>>Foot/Benn/Corby.
Really? Why did Corbyn recruit the associate editor of the Guardian to be his Executive Director of Strategy and
Communications, initially on leave from the paper. So Seumas Milne was for a while both the associate editor of the
Guardian and Corbyn's brain. The Guardian also employs Owen Jones as a columnist (he was in the Corbyn wing of the
Labour party, but cancelled his membership when Starmer became leader). So I'd say the Guardian these days is very much
in line with Corbyn rather than Blair.
It allows a range of opinions. Simon Jenkin's columns hardly read as a >chapter of the Marxist manifesto.
And if the paper were Corbynite then I'd expect to see articles or
even editorials supporting those views. I don't.
The fact that it prints opinion pieces from across
the spectrum, including the far left but sometimes, seems to confuse >>>those who never read it.
Does it include any opinion pieces from people not on the left? I thought its writers varied from soft-left to
extreme-left. So it's definitely a left-wing publication, just as the Telegraph is right-wing. If anything, both have
become more extreme.
I've seen columns by Conservative politicians, including prime
ministers, presumably when the editor thought that it would inform
readers. Isn't the belief that alternative views should be heard one
of the characteristics the left is derided for?
The characterisation of either paper as -wing is unhelpful and used
mainly by detractors, espcially those who never read them but only see >curated excerpts in their particular echo chamber.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 10:28:44 +0100, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 13:02:50 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 12:10, Recliner wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:18:15 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
As an anti-political person I would say the Guardian has stayed where
they were and society in general has shifted sharply to the right.
Actually, thatrCOs the exact opposite of the truth. Both Labour and the
Tories in government moved sharply to the left, leaving a gap on the right >>> for Reform. But even that party has relatively left-wing economic policies >>> combined with very right-wing social policies. Indeed, itrCOs best described
as a national socialist party.
I completely disagree. The type of things Reform (and Badenoch,
Jenrick) comes out with would have been considered outrageous a few
years ago, by most Tories as well as others.
Note that I said, "Both Labour and the Tories *in government* moved sharply to the left..."
On 13/10/2025 12:48, Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 10:28:44 +0100, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote: >>
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 13:02:50 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 12:10, Recliner wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:18:15 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
As an anti-political person I would say the Guardian has stayed where >>>>> they were and society in general has shifted sharply to the right.
Actually, thatrCOs the exact opposite of the truth. Both Labour and the >>>> Tories in government moved sharply to the left, leaving a gap on the right >>>> for Reform. But even that party has relatively left-wing economic policies >>>> combined with very right-wing social policies. Indeed, itrCOs best described
as a national socialist party.
I completely disagree. The type of things Reform (and Badenoch,
Jenrick) comes out with would have been considered outrageous a few
years ago, by most Tories as well as others.
Note that I said, "Both Labour and the Tories *in government* moved sharply to the left..."
Under May and Boris the tories moved substantially right. Truss
attempted to go even further.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 10:43:24 +0100, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 15:11:09 +0100, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 09:49:31 +0100, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote: >>That last statement is categorically not true. Yes, it employs Jones.
with the resources to do investigations.
The Guardian is not, and has never been, left wing. It's solidly
centre-ledt and social democratic, Blair/Starmer rather than
Foot/Benn/Corby.
Really? Why did Corbyn recruit the associate editor of the Guardian to
be his Executive Director of Strategy and
Communications, initially on leave from the paper. So Seumas Milne was
for a while both the associate editor of the
Guardian and Corbyn's brain. The Guardian also employs Owen Jones as a
columnist (he was in the Corbyn wing of the
Labour party, but cancelled his membership when Starmer became leader).
So I'd say the Guardian these days is very much
in line with Corbyn rather than Blair.
It allows a range of opinions. Simon Jenkin's columns hardly read as a
chapter of the Marxist manifesto.
He's moved to the left as he's got older.
From Wiki:
Opinions
In April 2009, The Guardian withdrew one of Jenkins's articles from its website after African National Congress leader
and South African president-elect Jacob Zuma sued the paper for defamation.[11] The Guardian issued an apology,[12][13]
and settled the libel case for an undisclosed sum.[14][15]
In February 2010, Jenkins argued in a Guardian article that British
control over the Falkland Islands was an "expensive
legacy of empire" and should be handed over to the Argentinean government.[16] He argued that they could be leased back
under the supervision of the United Nations and that the 2,500 or so
Falkland Islanders should not have "an unqualified
veto on British government policy".[16]
In a piece in The Guardian in June 2010 he wrote that the government
should "cut [defence], all -u45 billion of it. ...
With the end of the Cold War in the 1990s that threat [of global
communism] vanished."[17] In August 2016 he wrote in
The Guardian in support of NATO membership, saying: "It is a real
deterrent, and its plausibility rests on the assurance
of collective response".[18]
Jenkins claims to have voted for the UK to remain within the European
Union in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union
membership referendum, arguing in The Guardian that leaving would provide Germany with dominance over the remainder of
the union: "It would leave Germany effectively alone at the head of
Europe, alternately hesitant and bullying".[19]
Soon after Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister, Jenkins wrote that his
aides were "young, sneakered, tieless image-makers,
and fiercely loyal to him." They were "special advisers, think tanks and lobby groups isolated from the world
outside."[20]
Jenkins has consistently argued against Western military intervention in
and support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian
War. Before the outbreak of the Russian invasion in January 2022, amid heightened tensions, Jenkins wrote a pair of
columns arguing that the United Kingdom should stay out of the "border dispute", one he argues is a direct result of
'NATO expansionism'.[21][22] In 2023, he wrote a column discouraging the supplying of jets as military aid.[23] In early
2024, he wrote that NATO was growing reckless in the conflict, as the war reached a "predictable stalemate".[24] Jenkins
has been criticized for his opinions on Ukraine by many journalists and commentators, examples including Mark Laity[25]
and Oz Katerji.[26]
In May 2024, following the local elections, he wrote calling metro mayors
a "farce of local democracy" advocating their
abolition.[27]
And if the paper were Corbynite then I'd expect to see articles or
even editorials supporting those views. I don't.
The fact that it prints opinion pieces from across
the spectrum, including the far left but sometimes, seems to confuse
those who never read it.
Does it include any opinion pieces from people not on the left? I
thought its writers varied from soft-left to
extreme-left. So it's definitely a left-wing publication, just as the
Telegraph is right-wing. If anything, both have
become more extreme.
I've seen columns by Conservative politicians, including prime
ministers, presumably when the editor thought that it would inform
readers. Isn't the belief that alternative views should be heard one
of the characteristics the left is derided for?
The characterisation of either paper as -wing is unhelpful and used
mainly by detractors, espcially those who never read them but only see
curated excerpts in their particular echo chamber.
The Guardian has always been left of centre, but has moved leftwards
under the current editor. Similarly, the Telegraph
has always been right of centre, but has moved rightwards in recent
years. It's perfectly OK to describe them as
left-wing and right-wing.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 13:01:23 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:48, Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 10:28:44 +0100, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote: >>>
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 13:02:50 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 12:10, Recliner wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:18:15 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
As an anti-political person I would say the Guardian has stayed where >>>>>> they were and society in general has shifted sharply to the right.
Actually, thatrCOs the exact opposite of the truth. Both Labour and the >>>>> Tories in government moved sharply to the left, leaving a gap on the right
for Reform. But even that party has relatively left-wing economic policies
combined with very right-wing social policies. Indeed, itrCOs best described
as a national socialist party.
I completely disagree. The type of things Reform (and Badenoch,
Jenrick) comes out with would have been considered outrageous a few
years ago, by most Tories as well as others.
Note that I said, "Both Labour and the Tories *in government* moved sharply to the left..."
Under May and Boris the tories moved substantially right. Truss
attempted to go even further.
Economically, Boris behaved as a Labour PM, with lavish spending, rapidly increasing immigration and increasing
deficits. He was also socially very liberal.
Am 13.10.2025 um 14:04 schrieb Recliner:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 13:01:23 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:48, Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 10:28:44 +0100, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote: >>>>
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 13:02:50 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 12:10, Recliner wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:18:15 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Actually, thatrCOs the exact opposite of the truth. Both Labour and the >>>>>> Tories in government moved sharply to the left, leaving a gap on the right
As an anti-political person I would say the Guardian has stayed where >>>>>>> they were and society in general has shifted sharply to the right. >>>>>>
for Reform. But even that party has relatively left-wing economic policies
combined with very right-wing social policies. Indeed, itrCOs best described
as a national socialist party.
I completely disagree. The type of things Reform (and Badenoch,
Jenrick) comes out with would have been considered outrageous a few
years ago, by most Tories as well as others.
Note that I said, "Both Labour and the Tories *in government* moved sharply to the left..."
Under May and Boris the tories moved substantially right. Truss
attempted to go even further.
Economically, Boris behaved as a Labour PM, with lavish spending, rapidly increasing immigration and increasing
deficits. He was also socially very liberal.
In what sense is "increasing immigration" economically left in the >traditional left-right schema?
On the contrary, I would place "provide cheap immigrant laborers"
squarely towards the "economic right-wing" as in "taking decisions that >benefit employers rather than employees".
This is an internal conflict with "culturally right-wing" "try to keep
our daily lives the way they were before WWII" (without foreigners).
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 14:52:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 13.10.2025 um 14:04 schrieb Recliner:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 13:01:23 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 12:48, Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 10:28:44 +0100, Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 13:02:50 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 12/10/2025 12:10, Recliner wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:18:15 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Actually, thatrCOs the exact opposite of the truth. Both Labour and the >>>>>>> Tories in government moved sharply to the left, leaving a gap on the right
As an anti-political person I would say the Guardian has stayed where >>>>>>>> they were and society in general has shifted sharply to the right. >>>>>>>
for Reform. But even that party has relatively left-wing economic policies
combined with very right-wing social policies. Indeed, itrCOs best described
as a national socialist party.
I completely disagree. The type of things Reform (and Badenoch,
Jenrick) comes out with would have been considered outrageous a few >>>>>> years ago, by most Tories as well as others.
Note that I said, "Both Labour and the Tories *in government* moved sharply to the left..."
Under May and Boris the tories moved substantially right. Truss
attempted to go even further.
Economically, Boris behaved as a Labour PM, with lavish spending, rapidly increasing immigration and increasing
deficits. He was also socially very liberal.
In what sense is "increasing immigration" economically left in the
traditional left-right schema?
On the contrary, I would place "provide cheap immigrant laborers"
squarely towards the "economic right-wing" as in "taking decisions that
benefit employers rather than employees".
In Britain, Labour has always been much keener on immigration than the Tories (possibly because immigrants who settle
tend to become Labour voters). One of the right-wing arguments for Brexit was that it would allegedly reduce
immigration. Instead, it had the opposite effect, both legal and illegal, but particularly the latter.
On 13/10/2025 14:01, Recliner wrote:
In Britain, Labour has always been much keener on immigration than the Tories (possibly because immigrants who settle
tend to become Labour voters). One of the right-wing arguments for Brexit was that it would allegedly reduce
immigration. Instead, it had the opposite effect, both legal and illegal, but particularly the latter.
We don't actually know what effect it had on illegal emigration as
It allows a range of opinions. Simon Jenkin's columns hardly read as a chapter of the Marxist manifesto.
On 13/10/2025 10:43, Trolleybus wrote:
It allows a range of opinions. Simon Jenkin's columns hardly read as a
chapter of the Marxist manifesto.
I've long suspected his columns are just there to reinforce a left wing audience's view that it is possible for a right winger to be wrong about literally everything.
On 13/10/2025 10:43, Trolleybus wrote:
It allows a range of opinions. Simon Jenkin's columns hardly read as a
chapter of the Marxist manifesto.
I've long suspected his columns are just there to reinforce a left wing audience's view that it is possible for a right winger to be wrong about literally everything.
On 13/10/2025 10:43, Trolleybus wrote:
It allows a range of opinions. Simon Jenkin's columns hardly read as a
chapter of the Marxist manifesto.
I've long suspected his columns are just there to reinforce a left wing >audience's view that it is possible for a right winger to be wrong about >literally everything.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 18:43:55 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 10:43, Trolleybus wrote:
It allows a range of opinions. Simon Jenkin's columns hardly read as a
chapter of the Marxist manifesto.
I've long suspected his columns are just there to reinforce a left wing >>audience's view that it is possible for a right winger to be wrong about >>literally everything.
That's possible!
Sums up the whole of The Guardian. I bet there was no praise of Trumps peace deal even though they've probably be campaigning for that. If Biden had done the same it would probably had have a 3 page splash.
On 15/10/2025 16:18, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Sums up the whole of The Guardian. I bet there was no praise of Trumps peace >> deal even though they've probably be campaigning for that. If Biden had done >> the same it would probably had have a 3 page splash.
I think I saw a similar comment on somewhere else where they could not
bring themselves to give any recognition of what Trump had achieved.
I don't like him but he sometimes can get things done.
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 09:37:21 +0100
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 18:43:55 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 10:43, Trolleybus wrote:
It allows a range of opinions. Simon Jenkin's columns hardly read as a >>>> chapter of the Marxist manifesto.
I've long suspected his columns are just there to reinforce a left wing
audience's view that it is possible for a right winger to be wrong about >>> literally everything.
That's possible!
Sums up the whole of The Guardian. I bet there was no praise of Trumps peace deal even though they've probably be campaigning for that. If Biden had done the same it would probably had have a 3 page splash.
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 09:37:21 +0100
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> gabbled:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 18:43:55 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
On 13/10/2025 10:43, Trolleybus wrote:
It allows a range of opinions. Simon Jenkin's columns hardly read as a >>>> chapter of the Marxist manifesto.
I've long suspected his columns are just there to reinforce a left wing >>>audience's view that it is possible for a right winger to be wrong about >>>literally everything.
That's possible!
Sums up the whole of The Guardian. I bet there was no praise of Trumps peace >deal even though they've probably be campaigning for that. If Biden had done >the same it would probably had have a 3 page splash.