Posts by OLD BOY

    He did say when elected it's America first so that's what he is doing literally....f**k the rest of the world. Now what the rest of world needs to do is say F**k America. So don't do any business with them as it's not a two way street and is one way with a dead end.

    We don't need a trade deal to trade with the US. If they are prepared only to accept a trade deal that benefits them at our expense, we don't have to agree it.

    We don't need the virus here. We've got the norovirus that has pretty well closed down our hospital.

    I wonder if the virus spreads here if the NHS could cope

    Last Friday I dropped a urine sample into my surgery for testing. Today the surgery phoned, "Nothing to worry about but a doctor would like to call you to discuss the result" "Ok, I'll be in all this afternoon"

    "Oh no, I want to make an appointment for him to call, would next Wednesday be convenient"

    This is what the NHS has come to

    Yes, I'm afraid 'our precious NHS' really isn't up to it. I hear horror stories all the time from people with experience of using the service. I don't know why peoplerate it so highly.

    It is free, that's the only good thing I can say about it.

    Most of the doctors and consultants are excellent, but many nurses are lazy and spend too much time huddled in groups rather than tending to patients who need them, and the administration is appalling.

    Boris needs to sort it out. Let's have a Royal Commission and deal with these problems before the whole service collapses.

    Somebody mentioned professional qualifications. This makes no difference. There are people coming out of university with degrees and are having to settle for bar and waiting work and other min wage jobs because they can't get a job even with qualifications. Qualifications mean nothing now because the competition is so high. Sadly it comes down to population numbers again. An employer can easily say take it or leave it as you are expendable as there are a queue of others waiting to fill the space. It's not what you know it's who you know.

    A university degree is not a professional qualification, though, Nora. A professional qualification is something like RICS, CIPD, etc.

    When I was not long out of school and in work, we were advertising for basic level meteorologists (Scientific Assistants they were called) and a university graduate called and wanted one of these jobs. Now, pretty well everyone who did their research would have known that Maths and Physics were the two subjects that were needed for this kind of work. I asked what was the subject of the degree and he said 'Zoology'.

    Way back then, and even today, many parents believe that a university degree is the key to employment, but it is not. It can be of course, if it is part of a thought out plan, but it is no good getting a degree in any old subject and expecting to find work. If you do manage it, it will be at a much more junior level than people think.

    I have seen so many disillusioned university graduates in my time, all of whom thought that they were better than everyone else of their age who were not only in work, but being paid more than they were.

    What I cannot understand is why there is not better careers advice available to older schoolchildren to help them to map out their way into suitable employment.

    We did have a careers advice service at my school, which was lousy. I had to devise a plan of my own and it worked. I have rarely relied on anyone else to advise me on my career path. I know what I am good at and what not.

    If Trump doesn't get his way then we will suffer

    We are no longer part of a secure federation of a group of countries, we have become the long described "little Englanders" all on our own at the mercy of the USA

    I trust you are not running away with the idea that the EU is immune from President Trump's mood swings? He doesn't like the EU. Not one bit, and the feeling is mutual. Best be out of that argument when it gets to be in full swing.

    If Trump doesn't get his way then we will suffer

    We are no longer part of a secure federation of a group of countries, we have become the long described "little Englanders" all on our own at the mercy of the USA

    The whole world suffers when Trumpy throws a tantrum. Insulting him is counter-productive.

    But according to the Leavers we are going to negotiate a wonderful trade deal with the EU

    When will they learn to wake up and smell the coffee, we need them - they don't need us

    What the Brexiteers mean by that is that they export more to us than we do to them. Therefore, tariffs will benefit us and penalise them. That's why we won't get tariffed!

    But Cameron was never serious about reform, so why should they have entertained his minor requests?

    I'm glad we're leaving too, but we won't know how things pan out until we've properly left next year.

    The fact they wouldn't even consider these small requests was humiliating both for Cameron and the country. What it showed was the EU's total disregard for the UK, which resonated with the British people. A lesson that the EU has learned too late.

    I quoted this as an example, the start of how it will be here

    Trump demands that any of his trading partners obey his commands, we have seen it over Iran and now out tax laws

    NHS takeover has been denied, I don;t believe them. If Trump want it he will get it

    You are ignoring the fact that if the UK doesn't agree, then Trump doesn't get his way.

    This is a non-issue. Corbyn just made this up. There is no evidence to support it and our Government has confirmed that the NHS is not for sale.

    Corbyn had to come up with something because although he wanted to use an argument that the NHS was suffering from creeping privatisation under the Conservatives, his own party's record on this was no better, and the 'creep' was actually very small anyway.

    You make some really good points there, Jenny.

    Another example of the USA's trade negotiating tactics. It's all do as I want or else

    And we are hoping to trade with them

    I look forward to hearing Brexiters comments when we are asked for our credit cards when seeking medical help. at the moment they will claim this is "project fear"

    You haven't fallen for that Corbyn porkie, have you, bryanluc?

    Cameron has a lot to answer for.

    If the EU had granted the minor concessions he asked for, we would not be in the position we are today. I don't blame Cameron. I blame the EU, and I think they have come to realise that there stubborn rejection of Cameron's request was a mistake.

    However, I am glad we are where we are. I, too, voted to join the Common Market, but I have become extremely disappointed with the EU.

    But if this ultimately resulted in the death of the BBC, would we regret this move in the future.

    I agree, that would be a great shame, but why would this happen? The BBC is a jolly good brand which is respected the world over.

    The future is streaming. Streaming requires subscriptions or commercials. If the BBC migrated from a compulsory fee to voluntary subscriptions, why would this be a bad thing?

    I am confident, highly confident, that most people would pay for the BBC voluntarily to get the content they want if the licence fee was abolished. I don't buy the idea that BBC audience figures would fall dramatically, as some seem to think.

    Even if UK income did decrease, the Beeb could very easily make up for it by way of overseas sales and by cutting out more waste.

    An interesting article here from the Telegraph. Looks like the resignation of Lord Hall will give added urgency to the move towards a subscription BBC.…ep-bbcs-director-general/

    The Telegraph understands that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are mulling over several names to replace Sir David.

    Ministers have been visiting other broadcasters and have been impressed by the efficient way they are run with a comparatively small number of staff. One Conservative source said they wanted to see the BBC learn from commercial rivals about how to cut the costs of programme-making.

    Elsewhere, the Telegraph comments:

    The BBC is trapped by its funding mechanism. As long as the licence fee is compulsory, “something for everyone” has to be offered. Thus, the schedules are packed with daytime “fillers”, which have little value after first transmission (unlike premium drama). Also, the BBC feels it has to spend £236 million a year on its online provision, as part of its licence fee obligations.

    The BBC cannot escape this trap until it switches to subscription itself. Instantly, it would be free of any future argument with politicians about the licence fee level. Like Sky, it could reshape its offerings into packages at different prices (all output, BBC One only, BBC Sport, BBC Arts, BBC Documentaries etc). It could offer these packages abroad, and earn much more than it derives from selling single programmes, territory by territory. Netflix has subscribers in 140 countries. The BBC brand remains hugely powerful abroad, and would be a great competitive advantage.

    Of course, many households would have to upgrade their TV equipment to install conditional access systems. We would have to find a different way of funding most public service TV content, and all public service radio: a long overdue task. But we already have ITV, Channel 4 and Five required to supply some public service content in exchange for their gifted privileges (such as public spectrum): even a subscription-funded BBC might be required to provide, say, unencrypted news broadcasts in a similar exchange.

    Perhaps the over-75s might be the first test bed of voluntary subscription (which would save the BBC the giant headache of selective prosecution). Interestingly, the BBC estimates that decriminalisation would only cost it £200 million a year, which suggests it believes, even without the benefit of encryption technology, that over 90 per cent of current licence holders would continue to pay voluntarily.

    So Lord Hall’s successor should use the mid-term review process to secure enough time to convert the BBC to all the advantages of voluntary payment, thereafter deciding its own future, and removing all its internal problems from the harsh scrutiny that accompanies compulsory public funding (who asks about pay equality at Netflix, or ITV?). It is an enticing prospect for the right person.

    I had forgotten that little Greta made it the front cover of Time magazine

    Trump hasn't

    I'm not quite sure what the significance is. Are you suggesting that President Trump wasn't being outrageous enough to make the front cover?

    He won't be very happy with himself, being beaten by a girl.

    True but how many employers would willingly do that

    Harold Wilson had a Prices and Income policy where the government decided how much pay people would get, and how much the goods produced would be priced at

    Corbyn proposed something similar in the recent election - soundly rejected by the voters

    There is a little thing called the Equal Pay Act, as well as the Minimum Wage.

    The back drop to this so called E European cheap labour id the fact that they manage to live her on their wages and still send money back home to support their family there

    I hear that Africans are even cheaper.

    However, that's not the point. We should only be employing those who are willing to do jobs the British won't. Whoever is employed deserves to be paid the rate for the job.

    It's not quite the same...:/

    You have just endorsed my case for immigration :)

    I take your point, but two things. Firstly, we need to educate better at school, and secondly, the Government's points-based system will take account of genuine skills shortage areas (eg fruit pickers, nurses, care staff, etc).

    Nothing wrong with immigration if people are coming here for good reasons that benefit this country.

    Now there is an urban myth if ever there was, the lazy Brits that won't do certain types of work. This is one of the big lies peddled by Globalists to justify mass immigration. It's not true now and never has been. Brits are perfectly happy to do all the work but they won't do it if they are being undercut in a race to the bottom on wages caused by mass immigration from Eastern Europe and Asia.

    That's not what employers think. One responded recently that the reason he had more migrants on his workforce than the native population was that he couldn't rely on the British workforce to be capable of giving change from a tenner.

    Says it all, really. Many of them are bone idle and just want to rely on benefits.

    Cars are only a drop in the ocean. And talking about ocean what about all the shipping. Do you realise if you purchased something in Scotland and wanted to have it delivered to say Dorset, it's cheaper to put it on a container ship and have it shipped to Shanghai and then have it shipped back to the South of England than to send it from Scotland by road to the South. How mad is that. Then there's the air industry. And don't forget we are only one small country. Our country is not going to impact the planet. How about the fashion industry. Apparently the second biggest polluter. The cotton industry is not good. We have everything being bought online now. How much goes into all that packaging, plus delivery. We can go on and on and on, but unless the whole planet does the same then we will have no affect whatsoever.

    To make any real difference to the planet we need about 5 Billion if not more people to be made extinct which is an impossible decision to make so our only hope is that nature does it's job a bit quicker. Maybe driving more folk into poverty is a way of getting numbers down. Starve people to death, make them live in horrible conditions, drive them to drugs and eventually people will die off. Add some extreme leftism into the mix and promote same sex relationships and that cuts down on babies. It can even be promoted in schools. Get them while they are young. Work on both ends of the scale to cut numbers down. So there will be the odd few that have a hormone imbalance and will naturally be gay and those that choose it as a lifestyle choice.

    Who lives and who dies will come down to how much money one has. Then there's wars, start wars to wipe out some more. Have a look at the population charts and look at the sudden increase from around the 1800's onwards. The industrial revolution is what changed this world for the worse. As a species we are too clever for our own good. We can't keep having babies and keep people alive longer. The sums don't add up.

    Steady on, Nora! That is a very fatalistic approach! 😂

    Yes, I was only talking about cars as an obvious example of how ordinary people would be impacted by an earlier 'carbon neutral' date.

    There are solutions to all these issues, but some will be costly. The government will need to motivate industry to change its ways and provide sufficient money to fund the research necessary to resolve some of these problems.

    If the world pulled together on this, things would be easier. Trouble is, if we go it alone, our industries will be less competitive and everyone will be blaming Brexit!

    None of it is actually going to help the planet and in the long term it's going to make life worse for the majority of people who will for example have to abandon a perfectly working vehicle on the tip to buy an electric one. There will be no resale value only scrap value. And if you refuse then you get hit with emissions tax and high petrol and diesel prices so it's catch 22. People are struggling to survive now and needing food banks, so what happens when they are forced to spend more money on stuff they don't need.

    Nail on head! Once supporters of Greta understand this, they will turn off the idea, at least if they are the ones paying the bills!

    As for cars, I think the government need to give the car industry notice that from 2025, they will not be able to sell cars that fail to meet the new 'carbon neutral' requirements. That means that from 2025, people will no longer be able to purchase petrol or diesel cars. Most people change their cars after about 10 years anyway, and in the meantime, all cars purchased after 2025 are polluting less, so the real reductions start to hit home as older cars are scrapped. By 2040, the Government could start increasing petrol and diesel prices significantly, nudging people to ditch their polluting cars naturally. There will be so few polluting cars on the road by 2050, we can either safely put up with them or ban them altogether.

    To impose new drastic restrictions on the population by 2030 is simply impractical and nonsensical. Common sense will prevail in the end - it is up to the politicians to debunk the protestations of the extremists.