Go Back   The 75 and ZT Owners Club Forums > Social Forums > Social Forum
Register FAQ Image Gallery Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read
Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 31st August 2013, 06:41   #51
rovexCDTi
This is my second home
 
MG ZT+ 135

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Exeter
Posts: 3,626
Thanks: 9
Thanked 42 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Apprenticeships do seem like cheap labour to me.

I joined my company at full wages, full contract, no 'agency'. I had some experience, but not a huge amount and because of the nature of the work and regulations no one can do actually testing work (I work in a lab) until trained and signed off as competent anyway.

We have an Apprentice who basically is going through the same procedure as I did, with the added stress of doing NVQs and whatnot as well at the same time. He gets paid less than 2/3 of what I was earning 5 years ago when i started, thats about half my current wage.

It doesn't seem very fair to me and its not hard work, physically or mentally and its not something that requires years of experience.
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
rovexCDTi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2013, 12:46   #52
FredSpencer
Passed Away
 
Typhoon ZT 190+ Saloon

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Leeds
Posts: 6,833
Thanks: 0
Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Flyer, get your flask and pack-up before you read this ..... you're going to need it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlpenn View Post
I read somewhere the annual Benefits bill is £91 bn Per Year.
Not even close. Your figure is less than half the total for last year. It would cover the pensions bill with a little left over or nearly the combined disability and low paid workers benefits.

Quote:
I also read somewhere that there are 600,000 Motability Cars in the UK.
A quick check on wikipedia shows there being 600,000 Motability customers with 3 million cars having been supplied since the scheme started in 1978. The vehicles are mostly funded out of the Disability Living Allowance paid to disabled people but vehicles are only supplied for people who qualify at a higher level. Extra funds for more expensive vehicles/modifications are provided by charity grants and are means tested. They are not provided just because someone fancies a flash motor. The finance scheme is administered by 5 banks on a not for profit basis. Insurance is done by one company only as is breakdown cover.

The scheme provides reliable motoring to allow disabled people to get about for whatever reason. This might be purely for social or recreational purposes, but it also allows people to get to educational establishments or a place of employment.

Quote:
Take into account the price range of these Cars - £8k to £20k - We can then look at an average price, so that would be £14k.

£14k x 600,000 Cars = £8400,000,000

Then after 3 Years these Cars are sold for a few Thousand (Less than half the value normally) which goes back to the Motability Scheme (From what I understand) - So technically all at a loss
You've come up with a very big figure there but haven't qualified it with a time period. One could be forgiven for thinking you mean that is the cost every year but that's simply not the case. Even at your higher figure of £20,000 per car it works out at only £1.2 billion per year.

That's still a large sum of money and some of it is, I'm sure, fiddled by those that shouldn't really qualify. However, there is no evidence that it is on a large scale and in the overall scheme of things even if there was no fiddling at all it wouldn't make a significant difference to the tax we pay.

---------------------------------

Then consider:

Quote:
How much has the War in Iraq / Afghanistan cost the UK?
I doubt anyone can really give an accurate figure about these wars and it is cost that will continue to amass and which we will be paying for many years to come, one way or another. A complete subject on its own, really.

Quote:
How many billions have we paid to the EU just for the privilige of being told how to run our Country?
Is that really all it boils down to? Have we not gained anything at all? Whether, when everything is taken into consideration, we have made a net gain or loss is open to debate. Equally, how much of a monetary value can be calculated for the gains and losses is open to debate. What is a certainty though is that we haven't just paid over X billions of pounds to the EU just to be told how to run our country. As with pretty much everything in life some things have been good and some others not. That would be the same if the EU had never existed as we would have had to find another way of getting on with other countries. We might have come up with a better way but we also might not.



Quote:
How many billions have we funded in Aid, only to be used by Corrupt Gov't of that Country.

Whilst I hate seeing those who choose Benefits as a Lifestyle, I also hate seeing my hard earned Taxes being sent to places that shouldn't get it.........?
I give up. How many? Is it every penny we spend on foreign aid? If not, what percentage is it? Do you have any real idea, or do you just object to us spending any money at all in this way? Do you not think there can be any benefits for our country? Have you no compassion at all for people a lot worse off than we are?

Quote:
Also, the Media have a great time working hand in hand with the Gov't slagging off Benefits Claimants, so we create a Social divide and all fall in love with Cameron the Benefits slasher, meanwhile Cameron is selling our Souls to the Highest bidders. We need to pay attention to what is going on behind the Scenes, not what the latest Gov't driven Media Frenzy is....
I agree with you completely on this bit ..... but it is exactly what some of your previous points seem to do in my view.

_____________________________


I've no doubt a lot of things could be done differently which would both be better and more cost effective. I would very much like that to happen. I fully accept we can't afford to do things the way we have.

I watched the 1949 benefits programs. Whilst the circumstances depicted were obviously contrived, they did give a good idea what it was like back then. It should also be remembered that the system was devised at a time of full employment so was bound to be a lot less expensive than now. In the early years we had such a labour shortage we encouraged immigration as well.

About the only thing that was universal back then was the health service. The range of medical treatments was a lot smaller then and people didn't live as long. There have been massive increases in treatments and people live a lot longer now. The NHS originally included social care for a lot of people as well, but that has become a costly entity in its own right.

Most benefits were dependent on having paid 'contributions' but, of course, it wasn't as simple as that even then. For instance, those that didn't qualify for unemployment benefit could get what was called National Assistance. So even then people who hadn't contributed could get benefits, albeit at a lesser rate.

Disabled people were assessed on their capabilities, not cast on the scrap heap and, as I've said before, businesses had to employ them if they could do an advertised job. There was a much greater hands-on involvement by Labour Exchange staff in getting people into jobs, both able-bodied and disabled (many will be pleased to know this included single mums too). That would be prohibitively expensive now if done for everyone but I think might reasonably be done for the younger unemployed. Physically going round to where they live to asses their circumstances and to check thy are doing what they are required to do to find a job is what happened then and could happen now.

Despite what anyone thinks I do believe people should be required to do things to help themselves. They were then and they should be now. I just temper this with the fact that the people now being stigmatised were put in the position they now hold, by and large, rather than just believe they all chose their way of life.

What some now would see as interference was actually genuine help then. People were expected and required to help themselves but were given real assistance. Not like the system now where hopeless people are shuffled around hopeless systems according to the latest half baked scheme someone has thought up.

Young people aren't as expensive to employ as older ones. Mention has been made of the minimum wage with no acknowledgement of the fact that it is different at different ages. It's my belief that the minimum wage is too low. I give you the fact that we spend close to £50 billion a year topping up wages for low paid working people. I fully accept that higher pay can price us out of markets but it is a simple fact that one way or another this cost has to be met. Whether or not it really needs to be as much as it is can be argued, but remember, even poor people spend money and much of our economy depends on what we spend. The measure of GDP includes this shuffling around of money in the economies of each country.

There is also the huge Elephant in the room that no-one is allowed to mention and remains pretty much untouchable - means testing. Accepting the fact that we can't afford to go on spending as we have been does, in my view, make means testing a necessity. The only argument I hear against it is that people who need the money very often wouldn't claim it to the detriment of their health and well-being. This is a valid point, but if we go back to 1949 systems we would 'interfere' in these peoples lives as well. There was an example of this with a pensioner in one of the programs and it was just as robust a system as it was for the unemployed. I would rather the state had a right and requirement to make sure everyone was alright rather than throw money at huge sections of the community, for whatever reason, whether they need it or not.

I'd be willing to bet (not something I do normally) that we could have a much better country that costs us much less if we lived on these lines. Self interest groups, whether these be employers, unions, ethnicity or gender based groups, along lines of class or heritage or any other basis that favours some over others and including the political parties shouldn't be accepted.

Some will, by now, have me down as a Communist but that's not the case. People should be allowed, encouraged and helped to do the best they can. They should be able to keep as much of what they earn as the country can afford, but the country is the People, in my view, and not just a plot of land where the resources, including people, can be exploited. If it's not right that people should be allowed to exploit the system to get something for nothing at the bottom of the pile it's equally right that people at the top shouldn't be allowed to exploit it to get more than they are entitled to.

I'm going to leave it at that for now because if Flyer hasn't nodded off he must be in danger of wetting himself.
FredSpencer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2013, 13:58   #53
FredSpencer
Passed Away
 
Typhoon ZT 190+ Saloon

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Leeds
Posts: 6,833
Thanks: 0
Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryM1BYT View Post
At least those being paid a pension have earned it and paid into the system - Too be honest, I don't really know what arrangements are made for those who have never paid into it.
Not everyone who is getting a state pension has earned it, in as much as many haven't made the full contributions and some none at all. The number who have made no, or very little, contributions is also going to increase a lot as those that have been constantly or mostly unemployed are switched into the pension system. It's also the case that some people, because of higher earnings, will be in the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme. At the moment they get a higher pension than the basic state pension. People who haven't made enough contributions get pension credits to lift them up. This isn't just to the basic level, as that is judged not to be enough to live on. The actual figure ends up about £145 a week. Some people on SERPS are getting more than this but they have contributed more. The present government are changing all this though in 2016 (if they stay on their schedule) to do away with the pension credits and make the basic rate £143 (in today's money). This sounds like a good idea, streamlining the system and making it more simple, but there is a fly in the ointment. The extra SERPS part is being done away with, so those who have contributed more won't actually benefit from doing so. There is an exception to that where people who diverted their SERPS contributions to a private pension scheme will still have that extra money to buy a pension.

What starts out as seemingly a sensible way of streamlining the pension system at no increased cost ends up being a money saver at the expense of those who paid more in. This will not be a vote winner amongst some which, to my cynical mind, is why they aren't bringing it in till after the next election. Then they do it as quickly as they can, the start of the following tax year, and hope that people have forgotten or got used to it before the next election in 2020.

Quote:
During the depression, the US implemented big schemes like the Hoover Dam to give people something to do. We maybe have no need for similar, but there are plenty of minor jobs locally which could occupy some of those claiming for at least a few hours a week, without putting anyone out of a full time job. Sitting about doing nothing isn't good for anyone.
I would suggest a comprehensive house building program. The cost of owning or renting property is very high. It consumes far to high a percentage of income (earned or given as benefits). It drives down living standards and/or drives up wages. It takes money out of other sectors of commerce and industry.

The government have used quantitive easing to give money to the finance industry to get them into a healthier financial state and I see no reason why they can't do that in the housing sector. We need significantly more housing stock in the country (whether we have immigrants coming in or not, so don't anybody go there clouding the issue). Money to the construction industry would help finance a building program. At significant levels of building, such as we really need, this would cause a drop in property values. This, of course, would be disastrous, effectively trapping many, many, people in negative equity and having a detrimental affect on the economy. This is, effectively, the bad debt that was such a contribution to the poor state of the economy now. If this bad debt was bought up as necessary by the government with further easing I believe the problem would be nullified. The alternative would be to remain as we are now where the state pays an awful lot of tax-payers money to the private sector to rent largely uncontrolled housing stock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryM1BYT View Post
The problem with that at the moment, is the minimum wage. I served a proper apprenticeship in the early 1960's. I was paid little more than pocket money when I started and whilst I learned to be useful - I could have got other jobs earning much more, but I chose an apprenticeship. Modern kids would not do it, few understand investing in their future.
The minimum wage, as I've said before, isn't the same for everyone. Apprenticeships/training schemes don't have to be full-time. Unemployment benefits would be part of the figure paid, so any increased costs wouldn't be a totally new figure. That's all a bit overly simplified but I do believe if there was a will there could be a way found. If nothing else it would address the issue of unemployed people not doing anything at all.
FredSpencer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2013, 14:37   #54
HarryM1BYT
This is my second home
 
HarryM1BYT's Avatar
 
75 Contemporary SE Mk II 2004 Man. Sal. CDTi 135ps, FBH on red diesel, WinCE6 DD

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Leeds
Posts: 17,273
Thanks: 2,160
Thanked 2,061 Times in 1,586 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sikelsh View Post
Actually, that's not quite true, there are about 35 school leavers competing for one apprenticeship.

And that's using the term apprenticeship loosely, I have been going through it with my son, 17, amazing how many apprenticeships there are in "business admin". for real apprenticeships, like mechanic, plumbing, sparky etc, I would say it must be more like 50 candidates to 1 position

Current rate for a 40 hour week seems to be about £100 a week, compared to mine that I did in joinery at £35 a week some 24 years ago.

I also recall, when I did mine, I had 7 companies I could choose to work for, so it was more like 1 candidate to 7 jobs, rather than 35 candidates to 1 job as it is today.

Simon
I started on around £2 - 10s a week. The qualified wage was around £16. So taking your £100 as the apprentice rate, the qualified rate would need to be around £600 per week.

In my day, it was expected that you would be paid just a token, rather than a living wage whilst you were taught a trade and gained your qualifications. The modern apprenticeships are just no longer viable on cost grounds.
__________________
Harry

How To's and items I offer for free, or just to cover the cost of my expenses...

http://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/foru...40#post1764540

Fix a poor handbrake; DIY ABS diagnostic unit; Loan of the spanner needed to change the CDT belts; free OBD diagnostics +MAF; Correct Bosch MAF cheap; DVB-T install in an ex-hi-line system; DD install with a HK amp; FBH servicing.

I've taken a vow of poverty. To annoy me, send money.
HarryM1BYT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2013, 15:44   #55
carlpenn
This is my second home
 
2000 Wedgey Blue 2.5V6 Beauty

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bilston
Posts: 4,486
Thanks: 36
Thanked 29 Times in 16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FredSpencer View Post
Flyer, get your flask and pack-up before you read this ..... you're going to need it.



Not even close. Your figure is less than half the total for last year. It would cover the pensions bill with a little left over or nearly the combined disability and low paid workers benefits.

A quick check on wikipedia shows there being 600,000 Motability customers with 3 million cars having been supplied since the scheme started in 1978. The vehicles are mostly funded out of the Disability Living Allowance paid to disabled people but vehicles are only supplied for people who qualify at a higher level. Extra funds for more expensive vehicles/modifications are provided by charity grants and are means tested. They are not provided just because someone fancies a flash motor. The finance scheme is administered by 5 banks on a not for profit basis. Insurance is done by one company only as is breakdown cover.

The scheme provides reliable motoring to allow disabled people to get about for whatever reason. This might be purely for social or recreational purposes, but it also allows people to get to educational establishments or a place of employment.

You've come up with a very big figure there but haven't qualified it with a time period. One could be forgiven for thinking you mean that is the cost every year but that's simply not the case. Even at your higher figure of £20,000 per car it works out at only £1.2 billion per year.

That's still a large sum of money and some of it is, I'm sure, fiddled by those that shouldn't really qualify. However, there is no evidence that it is on a large scale and in the overall scheme of things even if there was no fiddling at all it wouldn't make a significant difference to the tax we pay.

---------------------------------

Then consider:

I doubt anyone can really give an accurate figure about these wars and it is cost that will continue to amass and which we will be paying for many years to come, one way or another. A complete subject on its own, really.

Is that really all it boils down to? Have we not gained anything at all? Whether, when everything is taken into consideration, we have made a net gain or loss is open to debate. Equally, how much of a monetary value can be calculated for the gains and losses is open to debate. What is a certainty though is that we haven't just paid over X billions of pounds to the EU just to be told how to run our country. As with pretty much everything in life some things have been good and some others not. That would be the same if the EU had never existed as we would have had to find another way of getting on with other countries. We might have come up with a better way but we also might not.



I give up. How many? Is it every penny we spend on foreign aid? If not, what percentage is it? Do you have any real idea, or do you just object to us spending any money at all in this way? Do you not think there can be any benefits for our country? Have you no compassion at all for people a lot worse off than we are?

I agree with you completely on this bit ..... but it is exactly what some of your previous points seem to do in my view.

_____________________________


I've no doubt a lot of things could be done differently which would both be better and more cost effective. I would very much like that to happen. I fully accept we can't afford to do things the way we have.

I watched the 1949 benefits programs. Whilst the circumstances depicted were obviously contrived, they did give a good idea what it was like back then. It should also be remembered that the system was devised at a time of full employment so was bound to be a lot less expensive than now. In the early years we had such a labour shortage we encouraged immigration as well.

About the only thing that was universal back then was the health service. The range of medical treatments was a lot smaller then and people didn't live as long. There have been massive increases in treatments and people live a lot longer now. The NHS originally included social care for a lot of people as well, but that has become a costly entity in its own right.

Most benefits were dependent on having paid 'contributions' but, of course, it wasn't as simple as that even then. For instance, those that didn't qualify for unemployment benefit could get what was called National Assistance. So even then people who hadn't contributed could get benefits, albeit at a lesser rate.

Disabled people were assessed on their capabilities, not cast on the scrap heap and, as I've said before, businesses had to employ them if they could do an advertised job. There was a much greater hands-on involvement by Labour Exchange staff in getting people into jobs, both able-bodied and disabled (many will be pleased to know this included single mums too). That would be prohibitively expensive now if done for everyone but I think might reasonably be done for the younger unemployed. Physically going round to where they live to asses their circumstances and to check thy are doing what they are required to do to find a job is what happened then and could happen now.

Despite what anyone thinks I do believe people should be required to do things to help themselves. They were then and they should be now. I just temper this with the fact that the people now being stigmatised were put in the position they now hold, by and large, rather than just believe they all chose their way of life.

What some now would see as interference was actually genuine help then. People were expected and required to help themselves but were given real assistance. Not like the system now where hopeless people are shuffled around hopeless systems according to the latest half baked scheme someone has thought up.

Young people aren't as expensive to employ as older ones. Mention has been made of the minimum wage with no acknowledgement of the fact that it is different at different ages. It's my belief that the minimum wage is too low. I give you the fact that we spend close to £50 billion a year topping up wages for low paid working people. I fully accept that higher pay can price us out of markets but it is a simple fact that one way or another this cost has to be met. Whether or not it really needs to be as much as it is can be argued, but remember, even poor people spend money and much of our economy depends on what we spend. The measure of GDP includes this shuffling around of money in the economies of each country.

There is also the huge Elephant in the room that no-one is allowed to mention and remains pretty much untouchable - means testing. Accepting the fact that we can't afford to go on spending as we have been does, in my view, make means testing a necessity. The only argument I hear against it is that people who need the money very often wouldn't claim it to the detriment of their health and well-being. This is a valid point, but if we go back to 1949 systems we would 'interfere' in these peoples lives as well. There was an example of this with a pensioner in one of the programs and it was just as robust a system as it was for the unemployed. I would rather the state had a right and requirement to make sure everyone was alright rather than throw money at huge sections of the community, for whatever reason, whether they need it or not.

I'd be willing to bet (not something I do normally) that we could have a much better country that costs us much less if we lived on these lines. Self interest groups, whether these be employers, unions, ethnicity or gender based groups, along lines of class or heritage or any other basis that favours some over others and including the political parties shouldn't be accepted.

Some will, by now, have me down as a Communist but that's not the case. People should be allowed, encouraged and helped to do the best they can. They should be able to keep as much of what they earn as the country can afford, but the country is the People, in my view, and not just a plot of land where the resources, including people, can be exploited. If it's not right that people should be allowed to exploit the system to get something for nothing at the bottom of the pile it's equally right that people at the top shouldn't be allowed to exploit it to get more than they are entitled to.

I'm going to leave it at that for now because if Flyer hasn't nodded off he must be in danger of wetting himself.

It would appear that I had over edited my Post (Shouldn't post when Drinking lol) - The Point I was making is that, the Gov't hand in hand with the Media have us all "Believing" in what they want us to believe in, in order for us to segregate ourselves from one group, the British Public, into a bunch of Haters.

All the Points made in the Post have come from Newspapers within the last few weeks that I had read. Something I omitted to write in

Once we all fall into the trap of believing what is said, written etc, be it about Benefit 'scroungers', Corrupt Gov'ts (One article claimed the Argentinians bought Fighter jets with our Foreign Aid Monies and a 'Corrupt' African President bought a £350 Million Private Plane etc ) then we are on a gentle and slippery slope into Chaos, which is where the Gov't want us to be, so we do not focus on what is really happening in the Country.

Hope I made myself clearer that time and shall refrain from trying to write sensible things when my Mind is infused with Alcohol, or at least Alcohol that has not been Watered Down as per the suggested Gov't authorities in order to encourage me not to drink too much
__________________
2.5V6 Auto:
Work carried out so far: Crankcase Breather Pipe replaced, O/S CV Joint replaced, Starter Motor Repair Kit Fitted, Front Suspension Overhauled.
carlpenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2013, 17:33   #56
FredSpencer
Passed Away
 
Typhoon ZT 190+ Saloon

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Leeds
Posts: 6,833
Thanks: 0
Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlpenn View Post
It would appear that I had over edited my Post (Shouldn't post when Drinking lol) - The Point I was making is that, the Gov't hand in hand with the Media have us all "Believing" in what they want us to believe in, in order for us to segregate ourselves from one group, the British Public, into a bunch of Haters.

All the Points made in the Post have come from Newspapers within the last few weeks that I had read. Something I omitted to write in

Once we all fall into the trap of believing what is said, written etc, be it about Benefit 'scroungers', Corrupt Gov'ts (One article claimed the Argentinians bought Fighter jets with our Foreign Aid Monies and a 'Corrupt' African President bought a £350 Million Private Plane etc ) then we are on a gentle and slippery slope into Chaos, which is where the Gov't want us to be, so we do not focus on what is really happening in the Country.

Hope I made myself clearer that time and shall refrain from trying to write sensible things when my Mind is infused with Alcohol, or at least Alcohol that has not been Watered Down as per the suggested Gov't authorities in order to encourage me not to drink too much
Can't say I've read any such newspaper articles and it does depend on which ones you read - in my case I buy none and only occasionally look at some that might be lying around somewhere.

I've done a quick Google about Argentina and aid and can only come up with the usual suspects, Mail, Telegraph, Sun. The essence of what I've had a quick look at though isn't that we are giving Argentina any aid. All I can see is an EU funded donation of aid, of which they have worked out we have contributed £7 million over a period of 6 years. And, of course, their opinion is that the EU shouldn't give them this money because they don't recognise our sovereignty of the Falklands (no doubt reason aplenty for us to leave the EU for some people). But the EU doesn't do anything just on the say so of one country and I doubt the money went directly to the Argentine government. They also talk about an International Monetary Fund loan and because we are a member of that organisation we are guilty of giving them money. They cite the fact that America votes against this because they consider Argentina to be wealthy enough. Note, not because of any territory sovereignty question. They say we should vote against it as well, which draws one to conclude we haven't. I don't know if that's true but maybe there is a reason. Possibly it's that the Argentines are sabre-rattling at the moment to deflect attention from their economic conditions, which are not great at present. That's one reason suggested, so who knows.

I found nothing to do with buying jets of any sort, but it was only a quick look I had. However, I'm of the opinion the stories wouldn't really match up to the bare facts of the headlines.

And finally ..... you must be rich or on benefits if you can afford to drink alcohol.
FredSpencer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2013, 18:22   #57
carlpenn
This is my second home
 
2000 Wedgey Blue 2.5V6 Beauty

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bilston
Posts: 4,486
Thanks: 36
Thanked 29 Times in 16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FredSpencer View Post
Can't say I've read any such newspaper articles and it does depend on which ones you read - in my case I buy none and only occasionally look at some that might be lying around somewhere.

I've done a quick Google about Argentina and aid and can only come up with the usual suspects, Mail, Telegraph, Sun. The essence of what I've had a quick look at though isn't that we are giving Argentina any aid. All I can see is an EU funded donation of aid, of which they have worked out we have contributed £7 million over a period of 6 years. And, of course, their opinion is that the EU shouldn't give them this money because they don't recognise our sovereignty of the Falklands (no doubt reason aplenty for us to leave the EU for some people). But the EU doesn't do anything just on the say so of one country and I doubt the money went directly to the Argentine government. They also talk about an International Monetary Fund loan and because we are a member of that organisation we are guilty of giving them money. They cite the fact that America votes against this because they consider Argentina to be wealthy enough. Note, not because of any territory sovereignty question. They say we should vote against it as well, which draws one to conclude we haven't. I don't know if that's true but maybe there is a reason. Possibly it's that the Argentines are sabre-rattling at the moment to deflect attention from their economic conditions, which are not great at present. That's one reason suggested, so who knows.

I found nothing to do with buying jets of any sort, but it was only a quick look I had. However, I'm of the opinion the stories wouldn't really match up to the bare facts of the headlines.

And finally ..... you must be rich or on benefits if you can afford to drink alcohol.
That's right, the monies did allegedly go through those channels, my Bad (again)............

I don't buy Newspapers, the Drivers and Overnight Security staff leave them for me when they are finished. I don't normally read them, but flick through now and again during the Day - I tend mostly to read the sillier stuff in them

Not rich and definitely not getting Benefits (Unless you can count my 5 a day and Fibre rich breakfast?)
__________________
2.5V6 Auto:
Work carried out so far: Crankcase Breather Pipe replaced, O/S CV Joint replaced, Starter Motor Repair Kit Fitted, Front Suspension Overhauled.
carlpenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2013, 18:29   #58
FredSpencer
Passed Away
 
Typhoon ZT 190+ Saloon

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Leeds
Posts: 6,833
Thanks: 0
Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlpenn View Post
Not rich and definitely not getting Benefits (Unless you can count my 5 a day and Fibre rich breakfast?)
You've given yourself away - you must be rich ..... not only can you afford to eat every day but you know about eating 5 a day.
FredSpencer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2013, 19:53   #59
Jay
This is my second home
 
Small....Far away

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Norwich
Posts: 9,473
Thanks: 2,707
Thanked 2,060 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYER View Post
What ya got jay ????.

Uppers . Downers. Or even sidewayers....
Be my guest George. Although I warn you that the side effects can make you feel like this for a few months

__________________
~Karma will help or hinder you. Therefore look positive for this day~
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2013, 20:20   #60
trebor
This is my second home
 
trebor's Avatar
 
Rover 75 CDTi Connoisseur SE & MG ZT Saloon 190

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Coven
Posts: 12,516
Thanks: 526
Thanked 1,877 Times in 885 Posts
Default

Dont forget we are all in this together, now tell me how the recession and austerity measures have affected those mentioned in the article below

And yes I know its the Daily Mail but nothing in the story is made up as far as i can see

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Club-2013.html
__________________
www.midlandsnanomeets.co.uk

Robs Car Gallery

Coven near Wolverhampton WV9

2000 Cowley Built Rover 75 2.0 V6 Club SE/ Atlantic Blue/ Sandstone/Walnut (daily driver)
2003 Land Rover Freelander 1 TD4 HSE Helsinki Blue/Black Leather (swmbo daily driver)
trebor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:45.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 2006-2023, The Rover 75 & MG ZT Owners Club Ltd