Loz

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As long as customers are prepared to pay > exorbitant rates the credit card companies will > continue to charge them. > > I gave up using credit cards nearly thirty years > ago - I came to the conclusion that they were a > thinly disguised scam. > > I'm amazed that so many customers and merchants > are still willing to be skimmed every time anyone > buys anything - and those hole-in-the-wall cash > withdrawal charges are just madness. > > Debit and cash cards provide the same convenience > yet cost virtually nothing. Used properly, credit cards offer a lot of advantages - free credit, extra consumer protection, etc. For instance - paying for something in another country with my Nationwide credit card not only costs me nothing, but the exchange rate is better than anything you'll get anywhere. Big plus. Saves me loads of wonga. Like a lot of things, banks rely on people misusing them. Get one with an interest free period and pay it by direct debit and you get all the advantages and little to nothing in the way of disadvantages. And yes, anyone who gets money from an ATM with a CC needs their head read. Mind you ditto with those private cash machines that charge ?1.50 for debit cards as well. People make a lot of money out of other people's laziness and stupidity.

Many years ago I made a pact with myself to always give a small percentage of my income to charity. I realised the other day I have fallen behind on that pledge. So, to get back on track I figure have about ?20 a month to allot to a charity. At the moment my two main charities are Plan ('sponsoring' a child in Thailand) and St Mungo's homeless shelter. Plan because I loved Thailand when I was travelling and St Mungos because they had a very gender-neutral shelter policy (which was unusual in homeless shelters, as far as I could see). Don't want any more children's charities, unless they are bit 'left field' in which case I will consider them. I don't like 'big' charities as a rule. Any ideas?

On the other side of the coin - if anyone responsible for the party on (or near) the St Francis Estate on Saturday, all I can say is: great band guys. I gardened happily to pretty much every Beatles' no 1, Stones, Van Morrison, Kinks and even some Kings of Leon for good measure. My only gripe was the wind spoilt the sound quality somewhat. Move it all a bit closer next time!

Forewarned is forearmed where petty scams and thieves are concerned, so it's worth reading this link. These are practised all over the place - London included - so don't let them put you off Barcelona - it's a great city. But Las Ramblas is a pretty heavy on this sort of stuff. Be alert. (Oh, and another vote for the Sagrada Familia!)

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > or you could e mail the producers. it does depend > how well you store it too. We did the same as you > - but asked when we bought the wine and they > advised 2 years- it was lovely.:)-D For Australia (and most new world wines) this is the best advice. In France, most appellations are quite small areas and so the vintage chart works. Not so in Oz. It depends entirely on the winemaker. They are the best to advise you. Also, unless you have had them in a cellar or somewhere very that's dark and a constant 10-15 degrees they probably want drinking ASAP.

Nope, LM. Champers for me tonight. B)

Ladymuck Wrote: > > So you honestly don't believe that the LDs have > breached your trust? At all? > > Hmmmmmmm...interesting... I'm pragmatic enough to know that all governments will disappoint sooner or later, but 'breached my trust'? No, not in the least. In fact, they've rather impressed me at the deal they struck. The coalition has a majority if about 350, of which 52 are Lib Dem MPs, so if the LibDems have more that about 15% influence on government they will be doing their job. So far, I think they are doing better than that. In fact, the way the coalition came together was really rather impressive. Both sides sat down and thrashed out a deal with some pretty grown-up politics. Yes, there are things in the manifesto I don't like, but there are lots of things in there that exist because of the Lib Dems. And if good enough voting reform goes through then the whole exercise will be invaluable. So, I think you should think about it this way: would you prefer: a) Brendan to punch you in the face, or b) Brendan to punch you in the face and give you ?100? The Tories were always going to do what Tories do, and had there been a second election they would probably have gained majority (mainly as they were the only ones with enough money for a second campaign) so all the bad stuff would have happened anyway. This way, at least we get some LibDemness in to offset the pain. So have they breached my trust? No, they are just making the best of what they can and giving the UK a stable government - uncertainty is a killer for markets and economies. They've had to stand up in public and back things that, yes, they probably do through gritted teeth, but that's not a lot different to what the Brownites and Blairites have been doing or the Labour left wingers (some cabinet members) have been doing throughout the New Labour years.

Odyssey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why Odyssey - how do you see this > 'privatisation' > > happening? > > I can see this working in the same way as with > some GPs' surgeries privatising "out of hours" > work. I think that the same formula will be used > when PCTs are moved to GPs who will then form > private companies to take up the role of the PCTs. I've not seen that. Do you have a link to some announcement or is this just speculation on your part?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Someone on the > politics show made a point in which he said that > there wasn't anything like the amount of > inneficiency in the public sector that the > government thinks there is - that a process of > improved efficiency has already been going on for > years, so the only thing that can be cut are jobs > and even that was limited because if you cut all > of the youth provision and local community funding > and services, you still wouldn't get to anywhere > near the level of cuts that the government wants. I disagree. I'll give you an example that I think is not uncommon. On Horseferry Road in Pimlico stands a building housing the quango CEOP (the child online protection agency). Why is this situated in such a high rent area? Does it really need to be in central London? In fact, little of the prime land between Victoria station and Westminster ISN'T some government department or quango. Some of them, like the FCO or the Treasury are probably in buildings owned by the government, but I reckon there are a lot of rents being paid out at sky-high rates. And don't get me started on what Portcullis House cost.

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brendan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As someone who has supported them for the last > 8 > > years (not that I?d describe myself as a > ?libdem? > > but because I see then as the best option in a > bad > > bunch) I don?t feel let down. > > > Seriously Brendan? You don't feel let down? (Not > even a bit?). You are the first LD voter I have > heard say that. There's also me... wasn't that obvious? (?)

Odyssey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz, they have betrayed their voters when it comes > to the health service. No-one voted for the > wholesale privatisation of part of the NHS. Privatisation is a fantastically scary buzzword which is always good for scaring the horses - but is it the truth? Seems to me all the 'reforms' are doing is moving funding from PCTs to groups of GPs. Yes, NHS hospitals will be allowed to do more private work - but hey, if they want to charge lots of money to insurance companies to fund NHS work then fine. Personally I don't think the changes will work and will probably cost as much as it 'saves'. But hey, like managers, that's what governments do - rearrange things unnecessarily to make it look like they are doing something. Why Odyssey - how do you see this 'privatisation' happening?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't worry about Brendan, he's just grumpy..... > 'cos he's moved to Surrey...right among 'em. ... and he's doing a law degree. I'm betting he'll be a card carrying Tory by the time the London Olympics hits town.

May I be the first to say... fnarr, fnarr!

MitchK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What do you think about this Graduate Tax that is > being floated, equality fans? Only a Lib Dem could > come up with that. Let's punish you for trying to > educate yourself and improve your qualifications. > It's a tax on intelligence, unlike the lottery > which is a tax on stupidity. > > It will (if ever implemented) just increase the > brain drain from this country. Providing they stay true to where they nicked the idea from - Australia - it's a pretty good system. No university fees up front, but you get taxed extra until you have paid them off. Surely the current system of student loans/fees is a bigger disincentive?

Ladymuck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The LDs have breached the trust of those who voted > for them - big time. I disagree LM. It's probably the party's own fault, but people projected onto the LibDems what they wanted to, without really understanding where the party stood. Like all political parties, the people involved often made statements designed to attract voters which also muddied the waters. People think LibDem is just a nice cuddly, non-threatening form of Labour. In reality it actually straddles centre ground (i.e. borrows a bit from both) on economy and, as the name implies, takes a liberal view on the authoritarian/liberal axis. It's clear that the current LibDem leadership is dominated by Orange Book authors, and that is where the Libdems of the coalition sit. To borrow someone else's words, "Liberal economics trusts the individual citizens. Socialists see them as dupes of advertisers and victims of rapacious bosses, but Liberals take a more confident view." I believe that, politically, LibDems are equidistant from both Labour and the Tories, which is why they could have partnered with either. But, as Mandy's book confirms, Labour had really no interest in this, so the Tories were then the only game in town. So, if people who voted LibDem feel their trust has been breached, it because they didn't really understand what they were voting for. Which is not terribly dissimilar to when New Labout was voted back in last time.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I find most right wing views are easily shot down > anyway. It's very hard to win an argument for self > interest. But I understand Brendan's frustration > at the lack conscience by the 'I'm alright jack' > brigade without a care for the consequences. > Thankfully there are enough people not like that > otherwise what kind of a cruel society would we be > living in. I find most extreme right-wing and left-wing views easy to counter, usually as they are generally based on ideology that doesn't hold up in the real world. Right and left wing views close around the centre ground are usually the best for a good debate, as there is generally merit in both. Providing Brendan doesn't punch all and sundry in the face. That would dampen debate somewhat.

It's used to be handy to have both as some countries do have a marked preference, though I think most places take either these days. Except Austria, which seems to just not take any credit cards at all.

Epic fail...!

Interestingly, an article in the British Medical Journal has recommended social services get involved with chronically obese children, with the possibility that the parents be charged with neglect. Parents of obese children may be guilty of neglect

Now I find this amusing. Those "LibDems" would have almost certainly been refugees from Labour, seeing the LibDems as a cuddly, friendly, accessible version of Labour, which isn't what it is at all. But that's also why I expected the ship-jumping rats to swim to Labour, as they woke up to find what they had projected onto the party was not the reality. Mind you, they'll be back when they realise that New Labour is nowhere near dead as an party-leading ideology. If I was a socialist in the UK, I would be in despair. There is really nowhere to go any more.

I've just found a poll released today: The Conservatives on 42 per cent - up six points since polling day on May 6 and their highest rating this year. Labour is also up six points at 35 per cent now that ex-leader Gordon Brown has stood down. Lib Dems are down eight points to just 15 per cent. So if a poll was held tomorrow the country would probably have a Tory-only government.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jennifer Aniston. If I was the richest man in the world I would pay Ms Aniston to bugger off and never make another movie or TV series again. I find her really annoying.

Snakes on a Treadmill? Get these Mother*&%$?*ing snakes offa my Mother*&%$?*ing treadmill!

I've had REO Speedwagon's "I Can't Fight This Feeling" in my head for ages because of the (frankly rather hilarious) "Mary the Cow" ad for Muller Corner. "Go on girl - gallop!"

Odyssey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think so somehow. I think the liberals > will be damaged for a generation through their > coalition with the conservative party. I think > Nick Clegg is leading the Liberal Party quite > swiftly to the right and once these cuts which > they are making (in my opinion too soon) start to > take effect, the ordinary liberal voter will not > fogive them for it. So I think that what will > happen in 5 years' time, or maybe even sooner, is > the election of another labour government. I saw some of the latest polling the other day (which I can't find now, grrr) which suggests that the LibDems have lost support - but it seems to be mainly going to the Tories. What's going on there? I thought it would be the I'll'-vote-libdem-this-time-cos-Labour-are-crap voter that would be off.