Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a total
cunt.
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners
2) Spectacularly broke his election tax pledges
3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for voicing their
justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-new- >hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a total
cunt.
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners
2) Spectacularly broke his election tax pledges
3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for voicing their
justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-new- hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a total
cunt.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 02:24:19 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 23/11/2024 00:36, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
Well it's not as if they could actually fix any problems, is it?
What else are they going to do...
Nearly all the problems in the world are caused by governments.
What they could do is to refrain from causing any more.
Being deprived of £200 winter fuel payment isn't going to cause me any
grief and there are are many more like me. The number seriously
affected is very small and would be smaller if those entitled claimed
pension credit.
Sometimes KIS (Keep it Simple) works. Pay every pensioner a winter fuel >allowance and without all the bureaucracy you reach those who haven't
claimed pension credits, those on low income just above thresholds and,
yes, the super rich. The policy now requires people to fill in a 24 page
form (with associated 24 additional pages of notes) and an army of civil >servants to process the information, and possibly to update year by year
as circumstances change. Will it actually save any money?
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:new-
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke his >>election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for >>voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings 4)
Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a total >>cunt.
Being deprived of £200 winter fuel payment isn't going to cause me any
grief and there are are many more like me. The number seriously affected
is very small and would be smaller if those entitled claimed pension
credit.
On 23/11/2024 in message <vhr82k$1coo7$2@dont-email.me> Cursitor Doom
wrote:
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
Good job my parents' generations weren't cowards like you or we'd be
goose stepping down the mall singing Deutschland Uber alles.
On 23/11/2024 00:36, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
Well it's not as if they could actually fix any problems, is it?
What else are they going to do...
On 23/11/2024 10:42, Peter Johnson wrote:
Being deprived of £200 winter fuel payment isn't going to cause me any
grief and there are are many more like me. The number seriously
affected is very small and would be smaller if those entitled claimed
pension credit.
Really? I know of two pensioners where their income is just above the threshold for pension credits. The winter fuel allowance did make a big differences to their finances. Pension credits also come with other
benefits such as not having to pay £100s at the dentist.
These are people in their mid 80s where pensions from 25+ years ago
really haven't kept up with inflation, and definitely not fuel price inflation. Pensions are taxed as income and this and the previous Government have chosen to freeze the threshold for paying income tax.
This also is a loss of "disposable" income and for people on relatively
low incomes a greater proportion of the money they have to spend.
Yes, we are probably a generation where many pensioners have reasonable standard of living, especially if you own your own house outright. You
don't require the winter fuel allowance and neither do I but don't
assume from that the numbers who did rely on it are small. Don't assume
that those with relatively small (pension) incomes are eligible for
pension credits.
The Government policy on winter fuel only works if the estimated
800,000 households in the UK who are eligible and are not claiming
Pension Credit don't claim it. If they all do and get the winter fuel allowance plus all the other associated benefits then the Government
finances will be worse off.
Sometimes KIS (Keep it Simple) works. Pay every pensioner a winter fuel allowance and without all the bureaucracy you reach those who haven't
claimed pension credits, those on low income just above thresholds and,
yes, the super rich. The policy now requires people to fill in a 24 page
form (with associated 24 additional pages of notes) and an army of civil servants to process the information, and possibly to update year by year
as circumstances change. Will it actually save any money?
If the Government were serious about not subsidising the well off they
should perhaps stop £7500 grants for heat pumps, (£9000 in Scotland for solar), any tax breaks on EVs etc. Those on low incomes are unlikely to
have the extra money (on top of the grants) to pay for installation or
can afford to buy an EV. In general, these grants and tax breaks only
benefit those who can afford the technology in the first place. Why are
they not means tested?
On 23 Nov 2024 08:20:43 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 23/11/2024 in message <vhr82k$1coo7$2@dont-email.me> Cursitor Doom >>wrote:
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
Good job my parents' generations weren't cowards like you or we'd be
goose stepping down the mall singing Deutschland Uber alles.
You're what the Americans call a 'chicken hawk' - happy to send others to
do your dirty work in wars around the world so long as you and yours are >safe. The lowest of the low IOW.
On 23/11/2024 in message <lqdtq5FnltkU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m wrote:
Sometimes KIS (Keep it Simple) works. Pay every pensioner a winter
fuel allowance and without all the bureaucracy you reach those who
haven't claimed pension credits, those on low income just above
thresholds and, yes, the super rich. The policy now requires people to
fill in a 24 page form (with associated 24 additional pages of notes)
and an army of civil servants to process the information, and possibly
to update year by year as circumstances change. Will it actually save
any money?
Surely pay all pensioners a living pension and scrap all other
allowances is more sensible, cut a lot of bureaucracy.
On 23 Nov 2024 08:20:43 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 23/11/2024 in message <vhr82k$1coo7$2@dont-email.me> Cursitor Doom
wrote:
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
Good job my parents' generations weren't cowards like you or we'd be
goose stepping down the mall singing Deutschland Uber alles.
You're what the Americans call a 'chicken hawk' - happy to send others to
do your dirty work in wars around the world so long as you and yours are safe. The lowest of the low IOW.
On 23/11/2024 12:00, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 23/11/2024 in message <lqdtq5FnltkU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m wrote:
Sometimes KIS (Keep it Simple) works. Pay every pensioner a winter
fuel allowance and without all the bureaucracy you reach those who
haven't claimed pension credits, those on low income just above
thresholds and, yes, the super rich. The policy now requires people to
fill in a 24 page form (with associated 24 additional pages of notes)
and an army of civil servants to process the information, and possibly
to update year by year as circumstances change. Will it actually save
any money?
Surely pay all pensioners a living pension and scrap all other
allowances is more sensible, cut a lot of bureaucracy.
"sensible, cut a lot of bureaucracy" is precisely what isn't in the
political play book, especially of Labour.
Bureaucracy *Creates Jobs*...
Ideology and social justice, creates the excuse.
Pragmatism is something only class enemies use.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 10:42:24 +0000, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
new-Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke his >>election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for >>voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings 4)
Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a total >>cunt.
Being deprived of £200 winter fuel payment isn't going to cause me any grief and there are are many more like me. The number seriously affected
is very small and would be smaller if those entitled claimed pension credit.
Unlike the number of farmers screwed by Nu Nu Labour's changes to IHT,
then. But no matter - you're alright, Jack!
In article <vhsget$1movl$1@dont-email.me>,ukraine-
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 10:42:24 +0000, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke
his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to
jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child
slayings 4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-
new-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
Being deprived of £200 winter fuel payment isn't going to cause me
any grief and there are are many more like me. The number seriously
affected is very small and would be smaller if those entitled claimed
pension credit.
Unlike the number of farmers screwed by Nu Nu Labour's changes to IHT,
then. But no matter - you're alright, Jack!
remember that DEFRA stands for "Department for Eliminating Farming"
On 23/11/2024 in message <vhsgja$1movl$2@dont-email.me> Cursitor Doom
wrote:
On 23 Nov 2024 08:20:43 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 23/11/2024 in message <vhr82k$1coo7$2@dont-email.me> Cursitor Doom >>>wrote:
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
Good job my parents' generations weren't cowards like you or we'd be >>>goose stepping down the mall singing Deutschland Uber alles.
You're what the Americans call a 'chicken hawk' - happy to send others
to do your dirty work in wars around the world so long as you and yours
are safe. The lowest of the low IOW.
You have absolutely no idea what I am or what I have done, man up
coward.
On 23/11/2024 in message <lqdtq5FnltkU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m wrote:
Sometimes KIS (Keep it Simple) works. Pay every pensioner a winter
fuel allowance and without all the bureaucracy you reach those who
haven't claimed pension credits, those on low income just above
thresholds and, yes, the super rich. The policy now requires people to
fill in a 24 page form (with associated 24 additional pages of notes)
and an army of civil servants to process the information, and possibly
to update year by year as circumstances change. Will it actually save
any money?
Surely pay all pensioners a living pension and scrap all other
allowances is more sensible, cut a lot of bureaucracy.
If the Government were serious about not subsidising the well off they
should perhaps stop £7500 grants for heat pumps, (£9000 in Scotland for solar), any tax breaks on EVs etc. Those on low incomes are unlikely to
have the extra money (on top of the grants) to pay for installation or
can afford to buy an EV. In general, these grants and tax breaks only
benefit those who can afford the technology in the first place. Why are
they not means tested?
On 23/11/2024 12:08, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On 23 Nov 2024 08:20:43 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 23/11/2024 in message <vhr82k$1coo7$2@dont-email.me> Cursitor Doom
wrote:
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
Good job my parents' generations weren't cowards like you or we'd be
goose stepping down the mall singing Deutschland Uber alles.
You're what the Americans call a 'chicken hawk' - happy to send others to
do your dirty work in wars around the world so long as you and yours are
safe. The lowest of the low IOW.
I'll fly or program a drone anyday for the Ukrainians. But I cant do anything useful in a trench. Unless I get delivered by vehicle.
I could probably fire a 50 cal as well as anyone. Lets face it, even
Prince Harry could do that.
You should be rejoicing that you don't have to do anything for Ukraine
except deprive them of military aid.
While they get killed to save your sorry ass.
In article <vhr82k$1coo7$2@dont-email.me>,
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners
2) Spectacularly broke his election tax pledges
3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for voicing their
justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
A. Not a Government decision
B. Just because the alleged perpetrator wasn't white is no reason to try to take it out on all immigrants/asylum seekers.
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners
2) Spectacularly broke his election tax pledges
3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for voicing their
justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-new- hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
On 23/11/2024 11:30, charles wrote:
In article <vhr82k$1coo7$2@dont-email.me>,
   Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners
2) Spectacularly broke his election tax pledges
3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for voicing their
justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
A. Not a Government decision
B. Just because the alleged perpetrator wasn't white is no reason to
try to
take it out on all immigrants/asylum seekers.
You could have asked what any of this garbage had to do with DIY, but
that ship sailed decades ago.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 02:24:19 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 23/11/2024 00:36, Cursitor Doom wrote:
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
Well it's not as if they could actually fix any problems, is it?
What else are they going to do...
Nearly all the problems in the world are caused by governments.
What they could do is to refrain from causing any more.
On 23/11/2024 18:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 23/11/2024 11:30, charles wrote:
In article <vhr82k$1coo7$2@dont-email.me>,
   Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke
his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to
jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child
slayings
A. Not a Government decision B. Just because the alleged perpetrator
wasn't white is no reason to try to take it out on all
immigrants/asylum seekers.
You could have asked what any of this garbage had to do with DIY, but
that ship sailed decades ago.
The clue was in the OT: prefix!
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners
2) Spectacularly broke his election tax pledges
3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for voicing their
justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-new- >hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a total
cunt.
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners
2) Spectacularly broke his election tax pledges
3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for voicing their
justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-new- hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a total
cunt.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:new-
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke his >>election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for >>voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings 4)
Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a total >>cunt.
As a foreigner why are you concerned so much about UK politics?
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:Can't argue with that. It's the prime quality for getting elected in the
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners
2) Spectacularly broke his election tax pledges
3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for voicing their
justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-new- >> hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a total
cunt.
Which probably accounts for this:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143
Not sure what good it will do.
I don’t follow these petitions and doubt their value but I suspect this one must be one for the record books.
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners
2) Spectacularly broke his election tax pledges
3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-new- hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
Which probably accounts for this:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143
Not sure what good it will do.
I don’t follow these petitions and doubt their value but I suspect
this one must be one for the record books.
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners
2) Spectacularly broke his election tax pledges
3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for voicing their
justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-new- >> hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a total
cunt.
Which probably accounts for this:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143
Not sure what good it will do.
I don’t follow these petitions and doubt their value but I suspect this one must be one for the record books.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 10:42:24 +0000, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doomnew-
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke his
election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for
voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings 4)
Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a total
cunt.
Being deprived of £200 winter fuel payment isn't going to cause me any
grief and there are are many more like me. The number seriously affected
is very small and would be smaller if those entitled claimed pension
credit.
Unlike the number of farmers screwed by Nu Nu Labour's changes to IHT,
then. But no matter - you're alright, Jack!
On 23/11/2024 12:05, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 10:42:24 +0000, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doomnew-
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke
his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to
jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child
slayings 4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
Being deprived of £200 winter fuel payment isn't going to cause me any
grief and there are are many more like me. The number seriously
affected is very small and would be smaller if those entitled claimed
pension credit.
Unlike the number of farmers screwed by Nu Nu Labour's changes to IHT, then. But no matter - you're alright, Jack!
There were an awful lot of very expensive (German made) tractors at that rally.
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to find £150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new combine, and
similar eye-watering prices for implements.
In article <vhvj1k$27t50$1@dont-email.me>, Andrewukraine-
<Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2024 12:05, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 10:42:24 +0000, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke
his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to
jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child
slayings 4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-
new-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
Being deprived of £200 winter fuel payment isn't going to cause me
any grief and there are are many more like me. The number seriously
affected is very small and would be smaller if those entitled
claimed pension credit.
Unlike the number of farmers screwed by Nu Nu Labour's changes to
IHT,
then. But no matter - you're alright, Jack!
There were an awful lot of very expensive (German made) tractors at
that rally.
their alternative being very, very expensive (American made) ones.
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to find
£150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new combine, and
similar eye-watering prices for implements.
I doubt if they paid cash.
Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:new-
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke
his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail
for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-anyWhich probably accounts for this:
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143
Not sure what good it will do.
I don’t follow these petitions and doubt their value but I suspect this
one must be one for the record books.
At 16:03 the number of signatories passed 1 million.
It won’t have any effect, of course.
Thanks for posting the link.
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to
find £150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new
combine, and similar eye-watering prices for implements.
On 24 Nov 2024 16:05:29 GMT, Spike wrote:
Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:new-
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke
his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail >>>> for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-anyWhich probably accounts for this:
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143
Not sure what good it will do.
I don’t follow these petitions and doubt their value but I suspect this >>> one must be one for the record books.
At 16:03 the number of signatories passed 1 million.
It won’t have any effect, of course.
Thanks for posting the link.
It won't remove Starmer but at least come the next election, the
opposition will be able to use it to embarrass Labour and score points out
of it. Hopefully that will give voters a reminder to think twice before
ever electing these despicable cunts again.
It won't remove Starmer but at least come the next election, the
opposition will be able to use it to embarrass Labour and score
points out of it. Hopefully that will give voters a reminder to think
twice before ever electing these despicable cunts again.
On 24 Nov 2024 at 16:08:20 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to
find £150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new
combine, and similar eye-watering prices for implements.
You've obviously been nodding off. Kit of that nature is required to run the farm. As has been said a number of times - asset rich, cash poor. Getting a clue now?
And FYI - combines tend to be shared, unlike tractors. I don't know what the arrangements are, but round here you'll see one combine which works on the fields of one farmer for a couple of days and then moves onto the next farm.
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to
find £150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new
combine, and similar eye-watering prices for implements.
On 24/11/2024 14:53, Davey wrote:
. It would beIndeed it would.
interesting if the number of signatures exceeded the number of total
votes the Labour party got at the election.
At least it would stop them waffling on about their 'mandate'
On 24/11/2024 14:53, Davey wrote:
. It would beIndeed it would.
interesting if the number of signatures exceeded the number of total
votes the Labour party got at the election.
At least it would stop them waffling on about their 'mandate'
. It would beIndeed it would.
interesting if the number of signatures exceeded the number of total
votes the Labour party got at the election.
In article <vhvj1k$27t50$1@dont-email.me>, Andrew
<Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2024 12:05, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 10:42:24 +0000, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke
his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to
jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child
slayings 4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine- >>> new-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
Being deprived of £200 winter fuel payment isn't going to cause me any >>>> grief and there are are many more like me. The number seriously
affected is very small and would be smaller if those entitled claimed
pension credit.
Unlike the number of farmers screwed by Nu Nu Labour's changes to IHT,
then. But no matter - you're alright, Jack!
There were an awful lot of very expensive (German made) tractors at that
rally.
their alternative being very, very expensive (American made) ones.
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to find
£150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new combine, and
similar eye-watering prices for implements.
I doubt if they paid cash.
On 24/11/2024 20:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/2024 14:53, Davey wrote:
. It would beIndeed it would.
interesting if the number of signatures exceeded the number of total
votes the Labour party got at the election.
At least it would stop them waffling on about their 'mandate'
Why? Lets get real. Any one can sign, you don't need any ID. At present
its approaching the number of green party voters.
This is a job that could easily have more automation ladled
onto it. Some day, an AI will look out the windows of the cab.
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to
find £150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new
combine, and similar eye-watering prices for implements.
Meanwhile, all the 'hobby' farmers who have bought a smallholding
or smaller farm to avoid IHT on money accumulated elsewhere
(full SIPP's ??) will not be affected, unlike me where my SIPP
will now be liable for 40%, plus potentially another 40+% on
the remainder. Not that I really care because I will be dead !.
And that 40% will need to be paid fairly quickly, not 20% spread over
10 years, and I cannot (easily) give my SIPP to any dependents
within the 7 year period.
They still need an "operator", but the operator is there, only
to handle unusual conditions (axle snaps maybe). The operator
is a pair of eyes and ears, and the operator does not need
any skills as such.
This is a job that could easily have more automation ladled
onto it. Some day, an AI will look out the windows of the cab.
their alternative being very, very expensive (American made) ones.
Which would be unaffordable for the vast majority of farms.
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to find >>>£150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new combine, and >>>similar eye-watering prices for implements.
I doubt if they paid cash.
I hope not! Andrew has conveniently omitted the fact that all that capital >outlay generates such a small income. Most of those farmers would do far >better to sell-up and put the proceeds on deposit and just live off the >interest. The fact that they choose to work and feed the country should be >supported and applauded, not undermined and attacked.
On 24/11/2024 21:34, Paul wrote:
They still need an "operator", but the operator is there, only
to handle unusual conditions (axle snaps maybe). The operator
is a pair of eyes and ears, and the operator does not need
any skills as such.
This is a job that could easily have more automation ladled
onto it. Some day, an AI will look out the windows of the cab.
You will usually find that the tractor drivers on family run farms are multi-skilled and more so if it is a mixed farm.
The technology isn't that expensive these days and is of the same type being fitted to mid and upper specified cars.
On 24/11/2024 in message <vhvomd$2ar1i$2@dont-email.me> Cursitor Doom wrote:
their alternative being very, very expensive (American made) ones.
Which would be unaffordable for the vast majority of farms.
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to find
£150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new combine, and
similar eye-watering prices for implements.
I doubt if they paid cash.
I hope not! Andrew has conveniently omitted the fact that all that capital >> outlay generates such a small income. Most of those farmers would do far
better to sell-up and put the proceeds on deposit and just live off the
interest. The fact that they choose to work and feed the country should be >> supported and applauded, not undermined and attacked.
That worries me. A farm is a business like any other, wouldn't the country
be better off if they were run by hard headed businessmen?
On 24 Nov 2024 at 21:05:15 GMT, "David Wade" <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
On 24/11/2024 20:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/2024 14:53, Davey wrote:
. It would beIndeed it would.
interesting if the number of signatures exceeded the number of total
votes the Labour party got at the election.
At least it would stop them waffling on about their 'mandate'
Why? Lets get real. Any one can sign, you don't need any ID. At present
its approaching the number of green party voters.
You need a valid, working, email address.
Over 1.6 million now.
On 24/11/2024 21:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 24 Nov 2024 at 21:05:15 GMT, "David Wade" <g4ugm@dave.invalid>I have a virtually unlimited supply of those.
wrote:
On 24/11/2024 20:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/2024 14:53, Davey wrote:
. It would be interesting if the number of signatures exceeded theIndeed it would.
number of total votes the Labour party got at the election.
At least it would stop them waffling on about their 'mandate'
Why? Lets get real. Any one can sign, you don't need any ID. At
present its approaching the number of green party voters.
You need a valid, working, email address.
Over 1.6 million now.Now at 1.7. I suspect at some point the bots will drive it so its higher
than the actual number of voters...
Dave
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 20:29:31 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 24/11/2024 14:53, Davey wrote:
. It would beIndeed it would.
interesting if the number of signatures exceeded the number of total
votes the Labour party got at the election.
At least it would stop them waffling on about their 'mandate'
Well, they still bang on about the mythical £22B 'black hole', so I
doubt that anything will stop them waffling on about an equally
mythical 'mandate'.
On 24 Nov 2024 at 22:22:37 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 24/11/2024 in message <vhvomd$2ar1i$2@dont-email.me> Cursitor Doom >>wrote:
their alternative being very, very expensive (American made) ones.
Which would be unaffordable for the vast majority of farms.
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to find >>>>>£150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new combine, and >>>>>similar eye-watering prices for implements.
I doubt if they paid cash.
I hope not! Andrew has conveniently omitted the fact that all that >>>capital
outlay generates such a small income. Most of those farmers would do far >>>better to sell-up and put the proceeds on deposit and just live off the >>>interest. The fact that they choose to work and feed the country should >>>be
supported and applauded, not undermined and attacked.
That worries me. A farm is a business like any other, wouldn't the country >>be better off if they were run by hard headed businessmen?
No, because in general such people would have no experience of farming and >how
to make best use of the land for farming. As a plain old asset they should >just sell it all for housing. There are, however, overriding
considerations,
of which food security is one.
Two page interview of Clarkson in the Times yesterday. He said that when he >lived in London he never thought about farmers either (any more than the >metropolitan elite does), but having moved to the countryside he now knows >better. He claims to be a journalist rather than a farmer.
On 24/11/2024 in message <vhvomd$2ar1i$2@dont-email.me> Cursitor Doom wrote:
their alternative being very, very expensive (American made)Â ones.
Which would be unaffordable for the vast majority of farms.
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to find
£150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new combine, and
similar eye-watering prices for implements.
I doubt if they paid cash.
I hope not! Andrew has conveniently omitted the fact that all that capital >> outlay generates such a small income. Most of those farmers would do far
better to sell-up and put the proceeds on deposit and just live off the
interest. The fact that they choose to work and feed the country should be >> supported and applauded, not undermined and attacked.
That worries me. A farm is a business like any other, wouldn't the country be better off if they were run by hard headed businessmen?
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 23:21:21 +0000, David Wade wrote:
On 24/11/2024 21:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 24 Nov 2024 at 21:05:15 GMT, "David Wade" <g4ugm@dave.invalid>I have a virtually unlimited supply of those.
wrote:
On 24/11/2024 20:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/2024 14:53, Davey wrote:
. It would be interesting if the number of signatures exceeded the >>>>>> number of total votes the Labour party got at the election.Indeed it would.
At least it would stop them waffling on about their 'mandate'
Why? Lets get real. Any one can sign, you don't need any ID. At
present its approaching the number of green party voters.
You need a valid, working, email address.
Over 1.6 million now.Now at 1.7. I suspect at some point the bots will drive it so its higher
than the actual number of voters...
Still better control over fraudulent voting than the US election had.
On 24/11/2024 in message <lqhqimFck0aU1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater wrote:
On 24 Nov 2024 at 22:22:37 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 24/11/2024 in message <vhvomd$2ar1i$2@dont-email.me> Cursitor Doom
wrote:
their alternative being very, very expensive (American made) ones.
Which would be unaffordable for the vast majority of farms.
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to find >>>>>> £150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new combine, and >>>>>> similar eye-watering prices for implements.
I doubt if they paid cash.
I hope not! Andrew has conveniently omitted the fact that all that
capital
outlay generates such a small income. Most of those farmers would do far >>>> better to sell-up and put the proceeds on deposit and just live off the >>>> interest. The fact that they choose to work and feed the country should >>>> be
supported and applauded, not undermined and attacked.
That worries me. A farm is a business like any other, wouldn't the country >>> be better off if they were run by hard headed businessmen?
No, because in general such people would have no experience of farming and >> how
to make best use of the land for farming. As a plain old asset they should >> just sell it all for housing. There are, however, overriding
considerations,
of which food security is one.
Two page interview of Clarkson in the Times yesterday. He said that when he >> lived in London he never thought about farmers either (any more than the
metropolitan elite does), but having moved to the countryside he now knows >> better. He claims to be a journalist rather than a farmer.
But the hard headed businessmen who owned the farms would employ farmers
to do that as any business employs experts surely?
That worries me. A farm is a business like any other, wouldn't the >>>country
be better off if they were run by hard headed businessmen?
No, because in general such people would have no experience of farming >>>and
how
to make best use of the land for farming. As a plain old asset they >>>should
just sell it all for housing. There are, however, overriding >>>considerations,
of which food security is one.
Two page interview of Clarkson in the Times yesterday. He said that when >>>he
lived in London he never thought about farmers either (any more than the >>>metropolitan elite does), but having moved to the countryside he now >>>knows
better. He claims to be a journalist rather than a farmer.
But the hard headed businessmen who owned the farms would employ farmers
to do that as any business employs experts surely?
See Paul's response. It's unclear to me why you think your addition of an >extra layer of bureaucracy would improve matters.
Round here at harvest time we don't see hordes of peasants suddenly
appearing
and doing the threshing by hand. We see the large (and I mean large) grain >bins towed by large tractors, turn up. Several, placed around the fields.
The
next day (say), or afternoon, the combine turns up and starts harvesting.
The
details then depend upon the crop, but generally when the combine is full,
a
tractor towing one of the grain bins drives side-by-side as the combine >discharges its load into the bin, all the while continuing to harvest. When >that bin is full the tractor drives it off to, I assume, a grain store
where I
expect its moisture content is measured and if too damp it undergoes
drying.
Meanwhile the combine continues and the next tractor towing a grain bin is >following the combine. It's a process requiring planning and coordination. >And
this is just one aspect, as Paul points out.
One of the farmers locally puts a two-page article in the village magazine >every month detailing what they are doing, what problems they are seeing
with
prices, regulations, yields, the weather, whether their prize bull is
getting
past it. It's really quite educational.
You'll have to explain why you think any of this could be improved by a
hard
head.
One of the farmers locally puts a two-page article in the village magazine every month detailing what they are doing, what problems they are seeing with prices, regulations, yields, the weather, whether their prize bull is getting past it. It's really quite educational.
On 25/11/2024 in message <lqj7rfFjfv7U1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater wrote:
That worries me. A farm is a business like any other, wouldn't the
country
be better off if they were run by hard headed businessmen?
No, because in general such people would have no experience of farming >>>> and
how
to make best use of the land for farming. As a plain old asset they
should
just sell it all for housing. There are, however, overriding
considerations,
of which food security is one.
Two page interview of Clarkson in the Times yesterday. He said that when >>>> he
lived in London he never thought about farmers either (any more than the >>>> metropolitan elite does), but having moved to the countryside he now
knows
better. He claims to be a journalist rather than a farmer.
But the hard headed businessmen who owned the farms would employ farmers >>> to do that as any business employs experts surely?
See Paul's response. It's unclear to me why you think your addition of an
extra layer of bureaucracy would improve matters.
Round here at harvest time we don't see hordes of peasants suddenly
appearing
and doing the threshing by hand. We see the large (and I mean large) grain >> bins towed by large tractors, turn up. Several, placed around the fields.
The
next day (say), or afternoon, the combine turns up and starts harvesting.
The
details then depend upon the crop, but generally when the combine is full, >> a
tractor towing one of the grain bins drives side-by-side as the combine
discharges its load into the bin, all the while continuing to harvest. When >> that bin is full the tractor drives it off to, I assume, a grain store
where I
expect its moisture content is measured and if too damp it undergoes
drying.
Meanwhile the combine continues and the next tractor towing a grain bin is >> following the combine. It's a process requiring planning and coordination. >> And
this is just one aspect, as Paul points out.
I assumed from his terminology Paul is from America so not necessarily relevant to British farming.
One of the farmers locally puts a two-page article in the village magazine >> every month detailing what they are doing, what problems they are seeing
with
prices, regulations, yields, the weather, whether their prize bull is
getting
past it. It's really quite educational.
You'll have to explain why you think any of this could be improved by a
hard
head.
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra layer
of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide policy
and employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be highly
efficient and provide a good return for their shareholders. If they
returned £20K on assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am
beginning to wonder if farmers actually need more business experience/training.
On 24 Nov 2024 at 21:05:15 GMT, "David Wade" <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
On 24/11/2024 20:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/2024 14:53, Davey wrote:
. It would beIndeed it would.
interesting if the number of signatures exceeded the number of total
votes the Labour party got at the election.
At least it would stop them waffling on about their 'mandate'
Why? Lets get real. Any one can sign, you don't need any ID. At present
its approaching the number of green party voters.
You need a valid, working, email address.
Over 1.6 million now.
On 23 Nov 2024 at 13:04:57 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher" ><tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 23/11/2024 12:00, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 23/11/2024 in message <lqdtq5FnltkU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m wrote: >>>
Sometimes KIS (Keep it Simple) works. Pay every pensioner a winter
fuel allowance and without all the bureaucracy you reach those who
haven't claimed pension credits, those on low income just above
thresholds and, yes, the super rich. The policy now requires people to >>>> fill in a 24 page form (with associated 24 additional pages of notes)
and an army of civil servants to process the information, and possibly >>>> to update year by year as circumstances change. Will it actually save
any money?
Surely pay all pensioners a living pension and scrap all other
allowances is more sensible, cut a lot of bureaucracy.
"sensible, cut a lot of bureaucracy" is precisely what isn't in the
political play book, especially of Labour.
Bureaucracy *Creates Jobs*...
Ideology and social justice, creates the excuse.
Pragmatism is something only class enemies use.
Labour's policy on the boats is a typical example. Instead of threatening that >all small-boat-arrivals *will* be deported (and derogating from enough of the >human rights stuff to make that possible), they have gone for an "activity" >approach.
The former policy is a single point of attack, and can be made to work. The >consequence will be that everything else falls into place. The boats will stop >because the customers will see that it's not worth the certain risk. So the >people smugglers will dry up also.
The latter policy requires lots of trips to many countries where the asylum >seekers are, lots of discussions with lots of governments and payments of lots >of money, and lots of activity by border force etc. Lots of activity with >little effect - but which can be pointed to in press releases and bigged up.
No wonder the mayors of northern French towns think were being weak - they're >right!
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra layer >>of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide policy
and employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be highly >>efficient and provide a good return for their shareholders. If they >>returned £20K on assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am
beginning to wonder if farmers actually need more business >>experience/training.
I doubt if they're only returning £20k on £8 million. The £20k is what
is left
over from the profit once all outgoings have been paid. As has been pointed >out, that will include HP costs on all the kit, salaries, input costs such
as
seed, pesticides, diesel, repairs to equipment, costs of maintaining
rights of
way and hedgerows, and prolly lots of others I'm not aware of.
I'm beginning to wonder whether you shouldn't get out more.
Now: what value doe the HH busnessman add? What would he do that the
farmer is
not already doing - as Paul explained. And yes, most of what happens on a >Yankee farm will translate to here.
On 24 Nov 2024 21:35:14 GMT, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 24 Nov 2024 at 21:05:15 GMT, "David Wade" <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
On 24/11/2024 20:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/11/2024 14:53, Davey wrote:
. It would beIndeed it would.
interesting if the number of signatures exceeded the number of total >>>>> votes the Labour party got at the election.
At least it would stop them waffling on about their 'mandate'
Why? Lets get real. Any one can sign, you don't need any ID. At present
its approaching the number of green party voters.
You need a valid, working, email address.
Over 1.6 million now.
I have approx 10 valid, working, email addresses. How many times can
I vote?
On 25/11/2024 in message <lqj7rfFjfv7U1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater wrote:
That worries me. A farm is a business like any other, wouldn't the
country
be better off if they were run by hard headed businessmen?
No, because in general such people would have no experience of
farming and
how
to make best use of the land for farming. As a plain old asset they
should
just sell it all for housing. There are, however, overriding
considerations,
of which food security is one.
Two page interview of Clarkson in the Times yesterday. He said that
when he
lived in London he never thought about farmers either (any more than
the
metropolitan elite does), but having moved to the countryside he now
knows
better. He claims to be a journalist rather than a farmer.
But the hard headed businessmen who owned the farms would employ farmers >>> to do that as any business employs experts surely?
See Paul's response. It's unclear to me why you think your addition of an
extra layer of bureaucracy would improve matters.
Round here at harvest time we don't see hordes of peasants suddenly
appearing
and doing the threshing by hand. We see the large (and I mean large)
grain
bins towed by large tractors, turn up. Several, placed around the
fields. The
next day (say), or afternoon, the combine turns up and starts
harvesting. The
details then depend upon the crop, but generally when the combine is
full, a
tractor towing one of the grain bins drives side-by-side as the combine
discharges its load into the bin, all the while continuing to harvest.
When
that bin is full the tractor drives it off to, I assume, a grain store
where I
expect its moisture content is measured and if too damp it undergoes
drying.
Meanwhile the combine continues and the next tractor towing a grain
bin is
following the combine. It's a process requiring planning and
coordination. And
this is just one aspect, as Paul points out.
I assumed from his terminology Paul is from America so not necessarily relevant to British farming.
One of the farmers locally puts a two-page article in the village
magazine
every month detailing what they are doing, what problems they are
seeing with
prices, regulations, yields, the weather, whether their prize bull is
getting
past it. It's really quite educational.
You'll have to explain why you think any of this could be improved by
a hard
head.
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra
layer of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide
policy and employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be
highly efficient and provide a good return for their shareholders. If
they returned £20K on assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am beginning to wonder if farmers actually need more business experience/training.
On 25/11/2024 in message <lqj90rFjmjkU1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater wrote:
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra
layer
of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide policy
and employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be highly
efficient and provide a good return for their shareholders. If they
returned £20K on assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am
beginning to wonder if farmers actually need more business
experience/training.
I doubt if they're only returning £20k on £8 million. The £20k is what
is left
over from the profit once all outgoings have been paid. As has been
pointed
out, that will include HP costs on all the kit, salaries, input costs
such as
seed, pesticides, diesel, repairs to equipment, costs of maintaining
rights of
way and hedgerows, and prolly lots of others I'm not aware of.
Loads of figures have been thrown about, many showing laughable returns,
I haven't found a definitive source.
I'm beginning to wonder whether you shouldn't get out more.
Now: what value doe the HH busnessman add? What would he do that the
farmer is
not already doing - as Paul explained. And yes, most of what happens on a
Yankee farm will translate to here.
I think that supports what I said, if the company get a return of £30k
on assets of £8m it should do something else with the assets, the HH businessman would ensure that happens.
On 25/11/2024 13:13, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 25/11/2024 in message <lqj90rFjmjkU1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater >>wrote:I think you probably resemble the girl in this picture
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra >>>>layer
of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide policy >>>>and employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be highly >>>>efficient and provide a good return for their shareholders. If they >>>>returned £20K on assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am >>>>beginning to wonder if farmers actually need more business >>>>experience/training.
I doubt if they're only returning £20k on £8 million. The £20k is what >>>is left
over from the profit once all outgoings have been paid. As has been >>>pointed
out, that will include HP costs on all the kit, salaries, input costs >>>such as
seed, pesticides, diesel, repairs to equipment, costs of maintaining >>>rights of
way and hedgerows, and prolly lots of others I'm not aware of.
Loads of figures have been thrown about, many showing laughable returns,
I haven't found a definitive source.
I'm beginning to wonder whether you shouldn't get out more.
Now: what value doe the HH busnessman add? What would he do that the >>>farmer is
not already doing - as Paul explained. And yes, most of what happens on a >>>Yankee farm will translate to here.
I think that supports what I said, if the company get a return of £30k
on assets of £8m it should do something else with the assets, the HH >>businessman would ensure that happens.
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/main-qimg-c0860ee0ee8b1ba9f31824ba34c7572e.jpeg
My mother's family did sell a lot of their farmland back in the 1930s.
They never got it back
The money is all gone now
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra layer >>of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide policy >>and employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be highly >>efficient and provide a good return for their shareholders. If they >>returned £20K on assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am
beginning to wonder if farmers actually need more business >>experience/training.
You have no clue. What determines a business is net profits after costs - >nothing to do with assets.
On 25/11/2024 in message <vi1u7t$2pbcd$7@dont-email.me> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra
layer of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies
decide policy and employ staff to carry them out. They are expected
to be highly efficient and provide a good return for their
shareholders. If they returned £20K on assets of £8 million they
would be fired. I am beginning to wonder if farmers actually need
more business experience/training.
You have no clue. What determines a business is net profits after
costs - nothing to do with assets.
It's everything to do with how much you invest i.e. assets. You don't
invest to get 1% if you can get 5%.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners
2) Spectacularly broke his election tax pledges
3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for voicing their
justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-new- >> hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a total
cunt.
Being deprived of £200 winter fuel payment isn't going to cause me any
grief and there are are many more like me. The number seriously
affected is very small and would be smaller if those entitled claimed
pension credit.
No wonder the mayors of northern French towns think were being weak - they're
right!
Yes but I mean stopping criminals solves lots of problems doesn't it?
On 25/11/2024 in message <lqj90rFjmjkU1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater wrote:
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra layer >>> of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide policy
and employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be highly
efficient and provide a good return for their shareholders. If they
returned £20K on assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am
beginning to wonder if farmers actually need more business
experience/training.
I doubt if they're only returning £20k on £8 million. The £20k is what
is left over from the profit once all outgoings have been paid. As has been >> pointed out, that will include HP costs on all the kit, salaries, input costs
such as seed, pesticides, diesel, repairs to equipment, costs of maintaining >> rights of way and hedgerows, and prolly lots of others I'm not aware of.
Loads of figures have been thrown about, many showing laughable returns, I haven't found a definitive source.
I'm beginning to wonder whether you shouldn't get out more.
Now: what value doe the HH busnessman add? What would he do that the
farmer is not already doing - as Paul explained. And yes, most of what happens
on a Yankee farm will translate to here.
I think that supports what I said, if the company get a return of £30k on assets of £8m it should do something else with the assets, the HH businessman would ensure that happens.
But the hard headed businessmen who owned the farms would employ farmers
to do that as any business employs experts surely?
Round here at harvest time we don't see hordes of peasants suddenly appearing and doing the threshing by hand. We see the large (and I mean large) grain bins towed by large tractors, turn up. Several, placed around the fields. The next day (say), or afternoon, the combine turns up and starts harvesting. The details then depend upon the crop, but generally when the combine is full, a tractor towing one of the grain bins drives side-by-side as the combine discharges its load into the bin, all the while continuing to harvest. When that bin is full the tractor drives it off to, I assume, a grain store where I
expect its moisture content is measured and if too damp it undergoes drying. Meanwhile the combine continues and the next tractor towing a grain bin is following the combine. It's a process requiring planning and coordination. And
this is just one aspect, as Paul points out.
On 25/11/2024 08:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:
But the hard headed businessmen who owned the farms would employ
farmers to do that as any business employs experts surely?
The main debate is about small family run farms paying IHT when the
business is passed to (usually) younger family members because a sudden change of rules. The debate seems to have been hi-jacked by rich
celebrities and mega land owners.
Many (all) of the hobby farmers do employ expert farm or estate
managers. In general family farms are managed by the farmers that get
their hands dirty and work the long hours.
On 25 Nov 2024 at 13:13:39 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 25/11/2024 in message <lqj90rFjmjkU1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater >>wrote:
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra >>>>layer
of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide policy >>>>and employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be highly >>>>efficient and provide a good return for their shareholders. If they >>>>returned £20K on assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am >>>>beginning to wonder if farmers actually need more business >>>>experience/training.
I doubt if they're only returning £20k on £8 million. The £20k is what >>>is left over from the profit once all outgoings have been paid. As has >>>been
pointed out, that will include HP costs on all the kit, salaries, input >>>costs
such as seed, pesticides, diesel, repairs to equipment, costs of >>>maintaining
rights of way and hedgerows, and prolly lots of others I'm not aware of.
Loads of figures have been thrown about, many showing laughable returns, I >>haven't found a definitive source.
What has this to do with anything.
I'm beginning to wonder whether you shouldn't get out more.
Now: what value doe the HH busnessman add? What would he do that the >>>farmer is not already doing - as Paul explained. And yes, most of what >>>happens
on a Yankee farm will translate to here.
I think that supports what I said, if the company get a return of £30k on >>assets of £8m it should do something else with the assets, the HH >>businessman would ensure that happens.
Are you incapable of reading, or something. A few lines above you'll see
that
I explained that the return is much greater, but that most of it goes in >costs.
On 25/11/2024 14:05, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 25/11/2024 in message <vi1u7t$2pbcd$7@dont-email.me> The Natural >>Philosopher wrote:You really have not got a clue.
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra >>>>layer of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide >>>>policy and employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be >>>>highly efficient and provide a good return for their shareholders. If >>>>they returned £20K on assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am >>>>beginning to wonder if farmers actually need more business >>>>experience/training.
You have no clue. What determines a business is net profits after costs - >>>nothing to do with assets.
It's everything to do with how much you invest i.e. assets. You don't >>invest to get 1% if you can get 5%.
Its not about ROI. Its barely about ROW
On 25/11/2024 in message <lqjg6sFkqd8U1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater wrote:
On 25 Nov 2024 at 13:13:39 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 25/11/2024 in message <lqj90rFjmjkU1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater >>> wrote:
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra
layer
of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide
policy
and employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be highly
efficient and provide a good return for their shareholders. If they
returned £20K on assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am
beginning to wonder if farmers actually need more business
experience/training.
I doubt if they're only returning £20k on £8 million. The £20k is what >>>> is left over from the profit once all outgoings have been paid. As
has been
pointed out, that will include HP costs on all the kit, salaries,
input costs
such as seed, pesticides, diesel, repairs to equipment, costs of
maintaining
rights of way and hedgerows, and prolly lots of others I'm not aware
of.
Loads of figures have been thrown about, many showing laughable
returns, I
haven't found a definitive source.
What has this to do with anything.
Everything, this thread is about return on investment.
Everything, this thread is about return on investment.
On 25/11/2024 in message <vi213v$2pbcd$13@dont-email.me> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/11/2024 14:05, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 25/11/2024 in message <vi1u7t$2pbcd$7@dont-email.me> The NaturalYou really have not got a clue.
Philosopher wrote:
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra
layer of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies
decide policy and employ staff to carry them out. They are
expected to be highly efficient and provide a good return for
their shareholders. If they returned £20K on assets of £8 million >>>>> they would be fired. I am beginning to wonder if farmers actually
need more business experience/training.
You have no clue. What determines a business is net profits after
costs - nothing to do with assets.
It's everything to do with how much you invest i.e. assets. You don't
invest to get 1% if you can get 5%.
Its not about ROI. Its barely about ROW
Of course it's about ROI for goodness sake!
In article <vhvj1k$27t50$1@dont-email.me>, Andrew
<Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 23/11/2024 12:05, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 10:42:24 +0000, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke
his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to
jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child
slayings 4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine- >>> new-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
Being deprived of £200 winter fuel payment isn't going to cause me any >>>> grief and there are are many more like me. The number seriously
affected is very small and would be smaller if those entitled claimed
pension credit.
Unlike the number of farmers screwed by Nu Nu Labour's changes to IHT,
then. But no matter - you're alright, Jack!
There were an awful lot of very expensive (German made) tractors at that
rally.
their alternative being very, very expensive (American made) ones.
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to find
£150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new combine, and
similar eye-watering prices for implements.
I doubt if they paid cash.
On 25/11/2024 15:40, alan_m wrote:
On 25/11/2024 08:11, Jeff Gaines wrote:All farms employ agricultural consultants, though not generally full time
But the hard headed businessmen who owned the farms would employ
farmers to do that as any business employs experts surely?
The main debate is about small family run farms paying IHT when the
business is passed to (usually) younger family members because a
sudden change of rules. The debate seems to have been hi-jacked by
rich celebrities and mega land owners.
Many (all) of the hobby farmers do employ expert farm or estate
managers. In general family farms are managed by the farmers that get
their hands dirty and work the long hours.
On 25/11/2024 16:05, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Everything, this thread is about return on investment.
It depends on how long it takes for the investment to pay off. An
investment of millions could initially show a loss on the books but over
a period of 10 years could result in the doubling of profits.
On a farm there is also the risk factor, weather could decimate a crop
or future market prices for something a farmer has taken a year to raise could slash profits or even create a loss.
On 25/11/2024 12:11, Tim Streater wrote:
Round here at harvest time we don't see hordes of peasants suddenly
appearing
and doing the threshing by hand. We see the large (and I mean large)
grain
bins towed by large tractors, turn up. Several, placed around the
fields. The
next day (say), or afternoon, the combine turns up and starts
harvesting. The
details then depend upon the crop, but generally when the combine is
full, a
tractor towing one of the grain bins drives side-by-side as the combine
discharges its load into the bin, all the while continuing to harvest.
When
that bin is full the tractor drives it off to, I assume, a grain store
where I
expect its moisture content is measured and if too damp it undergoes
drying.
Meanwhile the combine continues and the next tractor towing a grain
bin is
following the combine. It's a process requiring planning and
coordination. And
this is just one aspect, as Paul points out.
Exactly what happens on a smaller family farm but maybe with a smaller combine but with the same rotation of trailers, The combine or tractor
is often driven by a school age family member.
On 24/11/2024 16:08, Andrew wrote:
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to
find £150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new
combine, and similar eye-watering prices for implements.
All mortgaged I am afraid. The bank owns every one of em.
The interest on the kit is a major part of the outgoings
On 24 Nov 2024 at 16:08:20 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to
find £150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new
combine, and similar eye-watering prices for implements.
You've obviously been nodding off. Kit of that nature is required to run the farm. As has been said a number of times - asset rich, cash poor. Getting a clue now?
And FYI - combines tend to be shared, unlike tractors. I don't know what the arrangements are, but round here you'll see one combine which works on the fields of one farmer for a couple of days and then moves onto the next farm.
On 25/11/2024 16:45, alan_m wrote:
On 25/11/2024 16:05, Jeff Gaines wrote:You never hear from (mostly arable) farmers when they have had a
Everything, this thread is about return on investment.
It depends on how long it takes for the investment to pay off. An
investment of millions could initially show a loss on the books but
over a period of 10 years could result in the doubling of profits.
On a farm there is also the risk factor, weather could decimate a crop
or future market prices for something a farmer has taken a year to
raise could slash profits or even create a loss.
really good year thanks to unusually high prices for a particular
commodity,
the city),
They
are allowed to go out and spend the lot on new combines or tractors
and get 100% tax write down, something that few (if any) other
types of business enjoy.
Naturally, the likes of John Deere and Claas love this, because they
just develop even more expensive combines and tractors with bonkers electronics knowing that a combination of EU area payments and
occasional windfalls from exceptional harvests will pay for them.
* Notice that Farage was also at that rally, wearing muddy boots
to make out that he is a 'farmer'. What an utter prat. He made millions
from playing poker with oil prices in the city and has spent his
largesse from that on farmland, precisely to avoid IHT (ditto
Clarkson, Dyson and others).
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:55:26 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doomnew-
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke his >>>election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail for >>>voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings 4)
Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a total >>>cunt.
As a foreigner why are you concerned so much about UK politics?
As an R Soul, what's it to you?
On 24/11/2024 18:37, Tim Streater wrote:
On 24 Nov 2024 at 16:08:20 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>https://www.youtube.com/@harrysfarmvids
wrote:
Odd that the people who claim to earn so little still manage to
find £150,000++ for a modern tractor or £300,000+ for a new
combine, and similar eye-watering prices for implements.
You've obviously been nodding off. Kit of that nature is required to
run the
farm. As has been said a number of times - asset rich, cash poor.
Getting a
clue now?
And FYI - combines tend to be shared, unlike tractors. I don't know
what the
arrangements are, but round here you'll see one combine which works on
the
fields of one farmer for a couple of days and then moves onto the next
farm.
Notice the regular appearance of really expensive cars
in previous videos that 'sponsors' lend him for presumably
product placement.
On 24 Nov 2024 16:05:29 GMT, Spike wrote:
Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:Which probably accounts for this:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke
his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail >>>> for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine- >new-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143
Not sure what good it will do.
I don’t follow these petitions and doubt their value but I suspect this
one must be one for the record books.
At 16:03 the number of signatories passed 1 million.
It won’t have any effect, of course.
Thanks for posting the link.
It won't remove Starmer but at least come the next election, the
opposition will be able to use it to embarrass Labour and score points out
of it. Hopefully that will give voters a reminder to think twice before
ever electing these despicable cunts again.
You never hear from (mostly arable) farmers when they have had a
really good year thanks to unusually high prices for a particular
commodity, (invariably driven high by speculators like Farage* in
the city), and instead of paying tax on that years windfall they
are allowed to go out and spend the lot on new combines or tractors
and get 100% tax write down, something that few (if any) other
types of business enjoy.
Naturally, the likes of John Deere and Claas love this, because they
just develop even more expensive combines and tractors with bonkers electronics knowing that a combination of EU area payments and
occasional windfalls from exceptional harvests will pay for them.
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:58:42 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:55:26 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke
his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail >>>>for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings >>>>4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine- >>new-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
As a foreigner why are you concerned so much about UK politics?
As an R Soul, what's it to you?
I just believe that foreigners should keep their nose out of our
business. Especially when the foreigner is a know-nothing gammon
nonentity.
On 25/11/2024 16:00, alan_m wrote:
On 25/11/2024 12:11, Tim Streater wrote:
Exactly what happens on a smaller family farm but maybe with a smaller
combine but with the same rotation of trailers, The combine or tractor
is often driven by a school age family member.
I was driving grey fergies when I was about 10.
The Health and Safety police have made that utterly illegal now
and even riding on(in) a tractor is now banned for kids under a
certain age.
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:ukraine-
On 24 Nov 2024 16:05:29 GMT, Spike wrote:
Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke
his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to
jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child
slayings 4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-
new-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-anyWhich probably accounts for this:
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143
Not sure what good it will do.
I donÂ’t follow these petitions and doubt their value but I suspect
this one must be one for the record books.
At 16:03 the number of signatories passed 1 million.
It wonÂ’t have any effect, of course.
Thanks for posting the link.
It won't remove Starmer but at least come the next election, the
opposition will be able to use it to embarrass Labour and score points
out of it. Hopefully that will give voters a reminder to think twice
before ever electing these despicable cunts again.
As a foreigner why does it bother you so much?
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:35:09 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:58:42 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:55:26 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke >>>>his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail >>>>for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings >>>>4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-anyhttps://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine- >>new-
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a >>>>total cunt.
As a foreigner why are you concerned so much about UK politics?
As an R Soul, what's it to you?
I just believe that foreigners should keep their nose out of our
business. Especially when the foreigner is a know-nothing gammon
nonentity.
You are the ghost of Dave Plowman and ICTFP.
RIP Plowman, killed by the covid vaccine poor fucker.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:48:35 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doomukraine-
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On 24 Nov 2024 16:05:29 GMT, Spike wrote:
Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke >>>>>> his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to
jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child
slayings 4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-
new-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-anyWhich probably accounts for this:
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143
Not sure what good it will do.
I don?t follow these petitions and doubt their value but I suspect
this one must be one for the record books.
At 16:03 the number of signatories passed 1 million.
It won?t have any effect, of course.
Thanks for posting the link.
It won't remove Starmer but at least come the next election, the >>>opposition will be able to use it to embarrass Labour and score points >>>out of it. Hopefully that will give voters a reminder to think twice >>>before ever electing these despicable cunts again.
As a foreigner why does it bother you so much?
I'd like to see my home country restored to sanity at some point so I and
my fellow tax-conscious gammons can return and thump some sense into any >gobby Commies like you.
In article <vi31vc$32jfc$3@dont-email.me>,
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:35:09 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:58:42 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:55:26 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke
his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail >> >>>>for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine- >> >>new-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
As a foreigner why are you concerned so much about UK politics?
As an R Soul, what's it to you?
I just believe that foreigners should keep their nose out of our
business. Especially when the foreigner is a know-nothing gammon
nonentity.
You are the ghost of Dave Plowman and ICTFP.
RIP Plowman, killed by the covid vaccine poor fucker.
was he?Of course he wasn't. As usual Doom is making things up.
RIP Plowman, killed by the covid vaccine poor fucker.
On Tue, 26 Nov 24 08:45:03 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>ukraine-
wrote:
In article <vi31vc$32jfc$3@dont-email.me>,
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:35:09 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:58:42 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:55:26 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly
broke his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned
citizens to jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the
Southport child slayings 4) Made Britain a priority target for a
nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-
new-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
As a foreigner why are you concerned so much about UK politics?
As an R Soul, what's it to you?
I just believe that foreigners should keep their nose out of our
business. Especially when the foreigner is a know-nothing gammon
nonentity.
You are the ghost of Dave Plowman and ICTFP.
RIP Plowman, killed by the covid vaccine poor fucker.
was he?
Of course he wasn't. As usual Doom is making things up.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 23:47:10 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:48:35 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:49:50 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On 24 Nov 2024 16:05:29 GMT, Spike wrote:
Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:new-
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly
broke his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned
citizens to jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the
Southport child slayings 4) Made Britain a priority target for a >>>>>>> nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit- >>ukraine-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-anyWhich probably accounts for this:
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a >>>>>>> total cunt.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143
Not sure what good it will do.
I don?t follow these petitions and doubt their value but I suspect >>>>>> this one must be one for the record books.
At 16:03 the number of signatories passed 1 million.
It won?t have any effect, of course.
Thanks for posting the link.
It won't remove Starmer but at least come the next election, the >>>>opposition will be able to use it to embarrass Labour and score points >>>>out of it. Hopefully that will give voters a reminder to think twice >>>>before ever electing these despicable cunts again.
As a foreigner why does it bother you so much?
I'd like to see my home country restored to sanity at some point so I
and my fellow tax-conscious gammons can return and thump some sense into >>any gobby Commies like you.
Will you be prepared to pay your taxes? Do you expect to be welcomed?
In article <vi31vc$32jfc$3@dont-email.me>,
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:35:09 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:58:42 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:55:26 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly broke
his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned citizens to jail >> >>>>for voicing their justifiable anger over the Southport child slayings
4) Made Britain a priority target for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-ukraine- >> >>new-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
As a foreigner why are you concerned so much about UK politics?
As an R Soul, what's it to you?
I just believe that foreigners should keep their nose out of our
business. Especially when the foreigner is a know-nothing gammon
nonentity.
You are the ghost of Dave Plowman and ICTFP.
RIP Plowman, killed by the covid vaccine poor fucker.
was he?
In article <5bc5bf52accharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> scribeth thusukraine-
In article <vi31vc$32jfc$3@dont-email.me>,
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:35:09 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:58:42 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:55:26 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly
broke his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned
citizens to jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the
Southport child slayings 4) Made Britain a priority target for a
nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit-
No, Dave is around just doesn't post to usenet anymore!...new-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
As a foreigner why are you concerned so much about UK politics?
As an R Soul, what's it to you?
I just believe that foreigners should keep their nose out of our
business. Especially when the foreigner is a know-nothing gammon
nonentity.
You are the ghost of Dave Plowman and ICTFP.
RIP Plowman, killed by the covid vaccine poor fucker.
was he?
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 19:37:05 +0000, tony sayer wrote:
In article <5bc5bf52accharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> scribeth thus
In article <vi31vc$32jfc$3@dont-email.me>,No, Dave is around just doesn't post to usenet anymore!...
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:35:09 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:58:42 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:55:26 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doomnew-
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly
broke his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned
citizens to jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the
Southport child slayings 4) Made Britain a priority target
for a nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit- ukraine-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for
being a total cunt.
As a foreigner why are you concerned so much about UK
politics?
As an R Soul, what's it to you?
I just believe that foreigners should keep their nose out of our
business. Especially when the foreigner is a know-nothing gammon
nonentity.
You are the ghost of Dave Plowman and ICTFP.
RIP Plowman, killed by the covid vaccine poor fucker.
was he?
Not even to prove he's not dead? Sorry, not buying it.
The Government policy on winter fuel only works if the estimated
800,000 households in the UK who are eligible and are not claiming
Pension Credit don't claim it. If they all do and get the winter fuel allowance plus all the other associated benefits then the Government
finances will be worse off.
If the 4K figure is anywhere near correct its another one of those cases where people on pension credit benefits are better off that those just
above the threshold but still not well off and are struggling with
heating costs.
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 19:37:05 +0000, tony sayer wrote:
In article <5bc5bf52accharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> scribeth thus
In article <vi31vc$32jfc$3@dont-email.me>,No, Dave is around just doesn't post to usenet anymore!...
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:35:09 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:58:42 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:55:26 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doomnew-
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly
broke his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned
citizens to jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the
Southport child slayings 4) Made Britain a priority target for a
nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit- >ukraine-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being a
total cunt.
As a foreigner why are you concerned so much about UK politics?
As an R Soul, what's it to you?
I just believe that foreigners should keep their nose out of our
business. Especially when the foreigner is a know-nothing gammon
nonentity.
You are the ghost of Dave Plowman and ICTFP.
RIP Plowman, killed by the covid vaccine poor fucker.
was he?
Not even to prove he's not dead? Sorry, not buying it.
Well i spoke to him on the phone recently about a matter of mutual
interest and it wasn't a seance;!...
In article <vi8f8i$80us$1@dont-email.me>, Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> scribeth thus
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 19:37:05 +0000, tony sayer wrote:
In article <5bc5bf52accharles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> scribeth thus
In article <vi31vc$32jfc$3@dont-email.me>,No, Dave is around just doesn't post to usenet anymore!...
Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 19:35:09 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:58:42 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:55:26 +0000, R Souls wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:36:37 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doomnew-
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
Not bad for his first few months as PM:
1) Took a great big *shit* on the pensioners 2) Spectacularly
broke his election tax pledges 3) Sent a bunch of concerned
citizens to jail for voicing their justifiable anger over the
Southport child slayings 4) Made Britain a priority target for a >>>>> >>>>nuclear strike
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-confirms-it-hit- >>ukraine-
hypersonic-oreshnik-missile-capable-reaching-any
Each new prime minister just seems to out-do the last for being
a total cunt.
As a foreigner why are you concerned so much about UK politics?
As an R Soul, what's it to you?
I just believe that foreigners should keep their nose out of our
business. Especially when the foreigner is a know-nothing gammon
nonentity.
You are the ghost of Dave Plowman and ICTFP.
RIP Plowman, killed by the covid vaccine poor fucker.
was he?
Not even to prove he's not dead? Sorry, not buying it.
interest and it wasn't a seance;!...at
If Dave Plowman (RIP) were really still alive, he wouldn't hesitate to let
us all know by just posting a quick message to reassure us he's alive and well. But he's brown bread and here we are. Nothing to be ashamed of;
comes to us all in the end.
On 25/11/2024 in message <vi1u7t$2pbcd$7@dont-email.me> The Natural Philosopher wrote:return for their shareholders. If they returned £20K on assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am beginning to wonder if farmers actually need more business experience/training.
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra layer of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide policy and employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be highly efficient and provide a good
You have no clue. What determines a business is net profits after costs - nothing to do with assets.
It's everything to do with how much you invest i.e. assets. You don't invest to get 1% if you can get 5%.
On Mon, 11/25/2024 9:05 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 25/11/2024 in message <vi1u7t$2pbcd$7@dont-email.me> The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra layer >>>> of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide policy and
employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be highly efficient >>>> and provide a good return for their shareholders. If they returned £20K on
assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am beginning to wonder if >>>> farmers actually need more business experience/training.
You have no clue. What determines a business is net profits after costs - >>> nothing to do with assets.
It's everything to do with how much you invest i.e. assets. You don't invest >> to get 1% if you can get 5%.
Farming is not primarily a Daddy Warbucks profession.
A farmer has a weird mix of skills now. But you have to be
good at welding. Or you'll blow the schedule for the planting.
On 30 Nov 2024 at 09:49:34 GMT, "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 11/25/2024 9:05 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 25/11/2024 in message <vi1u7t$2pbcd$7@dont-email.me> The Natural >>>Philosopher wrote:
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra >>>>>layer
of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide policy >>>>>and
employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be highly >>>>>efficient
and provide a good return for their shareholders. If they returned £20K >>>>>on
assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am beginning to wonder if >>>>>farmers actually need more business experience/training.
You have no clue. What determines a business is net profits after costs >>>>-
nothing to do with assets.
It's everything to do with how much you invest i.e. assets. You don't >>>invest
to get 1% if you can get 5%.
Farming is not primarily a Daddy Warbucks profession.
[snip useful info]
A farmer has a weird mix of skills now. But you have to be
good at welding. Or you'll blow the schedule for the planting.
AISB, what is the added value provided by an HH businessman.
I think what Our Jeff is overlooking is the intangible assets.
On 30/11/2024 in message <lr06o1Fm6a6U1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater wrote:
On 30 Nov 2024 at 09:49:34 GMT, "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 11/25/2024 9:05 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 25/11/2024 in message <vi1u7t$2pbcd$7@dont-email.me> The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
I'm struggling to understand why you think I am suggesting an extra >>>>>> layer
of bureaucracy, the boards of directors who run companies decide policy >>>>>> and
employ staff to carry them out. They are expected to be highly
efficient
and provide a good return for their shareholders. If they returned £20K >>>>>> on
assets of £8 million they would be fired. I am beginning to wonder if >>>>>> farmers actually need more business experience/training.
You have no clue. What determines a business is net profits after costs >>>>> -
nothing to do with assets.
It's everything to do with how much you invest i.e. assets. You don't
invest
to get 1% if you can get 5%.
Farming is not primarily a Daddy Warbucks profession.
[snip useful info]
A farmer has a weird mix of skills now. But you have to be
good at welding. Or you'll blow the schedule for the planting.
AISB, what is the added value provided by an HH businessman.
I think what Our Jeff is overlooking is the intangible assets.
All the things mentioned by Paul happen in any business, supply, demand, weather, other natural occurrences and, indeed, man made occurrences. The successful businesses handle them better than the less successful business.
That's how all businesses work and my premise that nobody invests for a return of 1% when they can get 5% or more still holds.
1% is all you can expect, given that the real power does not lie with the farmer, it lies with the supermarket. From which one concludes that the farmer
are in fact first class businessmen in their domain: they manage to survive, for the most part, and on wafer thin margins.
That's how all businesses work and my premise that nobody invests for a return of 1% when they can get 5% or more still holds.
On 30/11/2024 12:00, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That's how all businesses work and my premise that nobody invests for a >>return of 1% when they can get 5% or more still holds.
But many businesses make a loss on paper perhaps for a few years if the >investment is for a longer term gain.
On 30/11/2024 in message <lr0flgFnf1aU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m wrote:
On 30/11/2024 12:00, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That's how all businesses work and my premise that nobody invests for a
return of 1% when they can get 5% or more still holds.
But many businesses make a loss on paper perhaps for a few years if the
investment is for a longer term gain.
Indeed but I think we are currently talking about farms that have been in families for generations (Jeremy Clarkson excluded).
On 30/11/2024 12:21, Tim Streater wrote:
1% is all you can expect, given that the real power does not lie with the
farmer, it lies with the supermarket. From which one concludes that the farmer
are in fact first class businessmen in their domain: they manage to survive, >> for the most part, and on wafer thin margins.
The discussion seems to be about all farmers making a 1% return on
millions of investment. Common sense says this is unlikely to be true.
We also have to make a distinction between the Clarksons of this world,
who is just a landowner ...
On 30 Nov 2024 at 13:41:58 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 30/11/2024 in message <lr0flgFnf1aU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m wrote:
On 30/11/2024 12:00, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That's how all businesses work and my premise that nobody invests for a >>>>return of 1% when they can get 5% or more still holds.
But many businesses make a loss on paper perhaps for a few years if the >>>investment is for a longer term gain.
Indeed but I think we are currently talking about farms that have been in >>families for generations (Jeremy Clarkson excluded).
In which case there isn't any "investment" because they already own the
land.
And the bank owns the tractors.
On 30/11/2024 in message <lr0oq6Fp15pU1@mid.individual.net> Tim
Streater wrote:
On 30 Nov 2024 at 13:41:58 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/11/2024 in message <lr0flgFnf1aU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m
wrote:
On 30/11/2024 12:00, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That's how all businesses work and my premise that nobody invests
for a return of 1% when they can get 5% or more still holds.
But many businesses make a loss on paper perhaps for a few years
if the investment is for a longer term gain.
Indeed but I think we are currently talking about farms that have
been in families for generations (Jeremy Clarkson excluded).
In which case there isn't any "investment" because they already own
the land.
And the bank owns the tractors.
But the option exists to sell up and invest elsewhere for better
return.
On 30 Nov 2024 15:33:09 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/11/2024 in message <lr0oq6Fp15pU1@mid.individual.net> TimWhat, like in this kind of can't-possibly-lose investment which is
Streater wrote:
On 30 Nov 2024 at 13:41:58 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 30/11/2024 in message <lr0flgFnf1aU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m >>>>wrote:
On 30/11/2024 12:00, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That's how all businesses work and my premise that nobody invests >>>>>>for a return of 1% when they can get 5% or more still holds.
But many businesses make a loss on paper perhaps for a few years
if the investment is for a longer term gain.
Indeed but I think we are currently talking about farms that have
been in families for generations (Jeremy Clarkson excluded).
In which case there isn't any "investment" because they already own
the land.
And the bank owns the tractors.
But the option exists to sell up and invest elsewhere for better
return.
dependent on government whims?
https://www.reuters.com/technology/northvolt-files-chapter-11-bankruptcy-us-2024-11-21/
On 25/11/2024 17:55, Andrew wrote:
On 25/11/2024 16:45, alan_m wrote:
On 25/11/2024 16:05, Jeff Gaines wrote:You never hear from (mostly arable) farmers when they have had a
Everything, this thread is about return on investment.
It depends on how long it takes for the investment to pay off. An
investment of millions could initially show a loss on the books but
over a period of 10 years could result in the doubling of profits.
On a farm there is also the risk factor, weather could decimate a
crop or future market prices for something a farmer has taken a year
to raise could slash profits or even create a loss.
really good year thanks to unusually high prices for a particular
commodity,
If they have a lot of grain to sell, the price drops,. It its a bad year
and there isn't much to sell the price rises.
In neither year do they make a lot of money
 (invariably driven high by speculators like Farage* in
the city),
Class hatred. Take it somewhere else arsehole.
 and instead of paying tax on that years windfall
There is no windfall.
TheySheesh. You have never ever run a business have you?
are allowed to go out and spend the lot on new combines or tractors
and get 100% tax write down, something that few (if any) other
types of business enjoy.
All capital outlay is subject to depreciation.
Typically after 5 years that shiny new tractor is scrap.
Naturally, the likes of John Deere and Claas love this, because theyNo wonder the country is going to the dogs if people actually believe
just develop even more expensive combines and tractors with bonkers
electronics knowing that a combination of EU area payments and
occasional windfalls from exceptional harvests will pay for them.
this pseudo Marxist shite
* Notice that Farage was also at that rally, wearing muddy boots
to make out that he is a 'farmer'. What an utter prat. He made millions
from playing poker with oil prices in the city and has spent his
largesse from that on farmland, precisely to avoid IHT (ditto
Clarkson, Dyson and others).
The class hatred is strong in this one.
Labour you are. Off you must fuck.
We also have to make a distinction between the Clarksons of this world,
who is just a landowner ...
He is also a pig farmer.
On 30/11/2024 in message <lr0flgFnf1aU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m wrote:
On 30/11/2024 12:00, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That's how all businesses work and my premise that nobody invests for
a return of 1% when they can get 5% or more still holds.
But many businesses make a loss on paper perhaps for a few years if
the investment is for a longer term gain.
Indeed but I think we are currently talking about farms that have been
in families for generations (Jeremy Clarkson excluded).
On 30/11/2024 13:41, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/11/2024 in message <lr0flgFnf1aU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m wrote:
On 30/11/2024 12:00, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That's how all businesses work and my premise that nobody invests for a >>>>return of 1% when they can get 5% or more still holds.
But many businesses make a loss on paper perhaps for a few years if the >>>investment is for a longer term gain.
Indeed but I think we are currently talking about farms that have been in >>families for generations (Jeremy Clarkson excluded).
And that doesn't mean that they don't make a loss for that year or two
when investing in expensive machinery.
On 30/11/2024 in message <lr0oq6Fp15pU1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater wrote:
On 30 Nov 2024 at 13:41:58 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 30/11/2024 in message <lr0flgFnf1aU1@mid.individual.net> alan_m
wrote:
On 30/11/2024 12:00, Jeff Gaines wrote:
That's how all businesses work and my premise that nobody invests
for a
return of 1% when they can get 5% or more still holds.
But many businesses make a loss on paper perhaps for a few years if the >>>> investment is for a longer term gain.
Indeed but I think we are currently talking about farms that have
been in
families for generations (Jeremy Clarkson excluded).
In which case there isn't any "investment" because they already own
the land.
And the bank owns the tractors.
But the option exists to sell up and invest elsewhere for better return.
But the option exists to sell up and invest elsewhere for better return.
The option exists, but for the genuine family farm, it will likely have
been "home" for generations and there is a strong emotional attachment.
On 03/12/2024 in message <vilije$3l85v$1@dont-email.me> SteveW wrote:
But the option exists to sell up and invest elsewhere for better
return.
The option exists, but for the genuine family farm, it will likely
have been "home" for generations and there is a strong emotional
attachment.
Perhaps the mixing of the home and the land is the cause of the problem.
If they were separated then the home could be treated as any other home
and the land could be treated differently.
On 03/12/2024 in message <vilije$3l85v$1@dont-email.me> SteveW wrote:
But the option exists to sell up and invest elsewhere for better return. >>The option exists, but for the genuine family farm, it will likely have >>been "home" for generations and there is a strong emotional attachment.
Perhaps the mixing of the home and the land is the cause of the problem.
If they were separated then the home could be treated as any other home
and the land could be treated differently.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 496 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 56:05:54 |
| Calls: | 9,760 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,742 |
| Messages: | 6,185,212 |
