Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In those days it was programming using punch cards. These cards were sent to a nearby computer centre and the following week I received a pile of computer printouts. Yep, my teacher wasn't exactly happy with my first ever program. Fortunately for EDF my computer skills improved.

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

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

> katie1997 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I can use Excel. Does that make me a computer

> > programmer?

>

> Excel has VBA. So the real question is can you use

> VBA?


Can I use VBA? I practically invented it.



When I was twelve.

UDT I have to confess I was programming in assembler from a very young age, practically from when I was an embryo in fact. This included coding the moves for chess pieces, of course, mainly on IBM PDP-11s.

If I needed to drop some code in in straight Hex, not a problem either.

By comparison your computing skills seem ordinary. Bless.

Parkdrive Wrote:

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

> Damian H Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Parkdrive Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Damian H

> > > But what about the millions of 'Ordinary

> Joes'

> > who

> > > lied through their teeth to get mortgages and

> > > cynically exploited a lax financial system to

> > get

> > > hands on properties they knew they could not

> > > afford to pay for? What about them? I am sure

> > each

> > > of them would say they are small fry - too

> > > insignificant to have had any impact. Yet

> they

> > > lied and falisifed declarations of income

> > > nonetheless, significantly contributing en

> > masse

> > > to the collapse of the sub-prime market which

> > was

> > > the catalyst for the global financial

> collapse.

> > >

> > > First of all why was such a lax system

> allowed

> > to

> > > be implemented? Probably because those that

> > > implemented it thought there was money to be

> > made

> > > from the poor sods who saw this as the only

> way

> > on

> > > to to the property ladder. As for the

> comments

> > on

> > > here that many of us are jealous of these

> high

> > > earners, yes probably. But it doesn't alter

> the

> > > fact that the culture of paying people for

> > failure

> > > HAS to end. Are these people vilified

> unjustly?

> > > Perhaps, but then I'm sure their salaries

> will

> > > more then compensate for the grief and I'm

> sure

> > it

> > > goes with the territory.

> >

> > Parkdrive,

> > Your response buys into exactly the

> scapegoating

> > mentality that has been described and that I

> > challenged. Effectively you are saying that

> the

> > 'poor sods' are so desperate that no-one can

> > expect them to behave honestly when they are

> given

> > the opportunity to engage in a scam. This

> > completely absolves those who lied and cheated

> > from any moral culpability for their actions

> and

> > blames those they lied to. That is absurd! It

> is

> > the same mentality that says we should

> write-off

> > third world debt as it's unreasonable to expect

> > such countries to repay the loans they took out

> > and promised to repay. It's the same mentality

> > that says it's ok for people to shoplift from

> > Sainsburys because its a victimless crime and

> > Sainsburys are a b****rd corporate so they

> deserve

> > it.

> >

> > Yes, I have no doubt that banks entered the

> > sub-prime market in order to make money. In

> fact,

> > of course they did, they are commercial

> > organisations. That does NOT excuse the

> > exploitation of their products by dishonest

> > people. If we take this sort of mentality of

> > allowing people to shrug off any responsibility

> > for their actions and simply claim 'victim'

> status

> > there are going to be consequences (apart from

> the

> > obvious financial meltdown). One, if we

> write-off

> > third world debt there is just about zero

> prospect

> > of anyone lending these countries a penny in

> > future. They have got out of their current

> > obligations but have made themselves credit

> > pariahs in the eyes of the world. In terms of

> > sub-prime defaulters - go ahead, blame the

> banks

> > and march on Wall Street. The fact is that no

> > financial institution will touch the sub-prime

> > market ever again so those who wanted to get on

> > the property market will be shafted.

> >

> > If people act as if they cannot be held

> > accountable or behave responsibility, if they

> > default to 'victim' status the moment things go

> > wrong, they will not be given responsibility

> (in

> > this case that means credit opportunities).

> >

> > It's one reason why I can't stand this 99%

> > movement that emerged from Occupy Wall Street.

> > The message from that is "we, the 99%, are

> > wonderful, decent, honest people and the 1% are

> > villians who should be hung by their own

> > intestines from a lamp-post." It's claptrap.

> I

> > have no doubt that a great many of the 99% had

> > their snouts in the trough as much as anyone,

> just

> > on a smaller scale per individual.

> >

> > I have no problem with bonuses being tied to

> > achievements - that is as it should be, but a

> > great many people simply don't want to see

> bonuses

> > to bankers AT ALL. Full stop!

> >

> > In terms of whether people should take

> > vilification if they are paid enough - I don't

> > think that is anyone's job description. People

> > should be held reasonably accountable,

> certainly,

> > whatever their level in society. When someone

> is

> > used as a political football and has their

> > property attacked as an act of scapegoating for

> > others to conceal their culpability that is

> > unacceptable.

>

> I don't buy into any such scapegoating. At the end

> of the day any institution or group of individuals

> that really believes it ok to let people take on a

> mortgage/loan without due diligence or robust

> financial checks deserve all it gets. Taking as

> gospel a claim that an individual earns 4 or 5

> times their actual earnings, because the the way

> the product is pitched actually encourages them to

> do is bordering on criminal negligence. That

> doesn't excuse the applicant, but pitching such a

> product and then expecting nobody to apply for it

> sort of defeats the object of the exercise. I've

> never said or even hinted that anyone, bankers

> included, shouldn't receive a bonus for a job well

> done. But very few people in the UK today get a

> bonus full stop. I haven't for the best part of 10

> years and I'm not really fussed as I knew that

> when I took my jobs on.

>

> I find your remarks somewhat patronsing. Going

> back to the sub prime thing, you seem to suggest

> that the fault should be laid at the door or those

> that bought into the product and that those that

> pushed it are blameless, try and get your balance

> right and you might find some support. Bonuses are

> a sore point and that will remain the case while

> only a small perecentage of the population have

> any chance of getting one. I speak as someone that

> has enjoyed packages that included an end of year

> bonus in the region of 10% of gross salary and 15%

> non contributory pension plan, and free BUPA from

> family and I. This is no longer is the case, so I

> can understand both sides of the argument, but I

> don't try to lay the blame on a single entity of

> individual, I'd settle for proportional

> responsibility weighted against those that sell

> the product.



If that's what you think I was saying you obviously haven't read what I have posted properly. I have been putting forward exactly the balance that you claim I am lacking. My purpose has been to counter the ridiculous vilification and scapegoating of the banks and point out that there are many others who also bear responsibility for what happened. It seems,however, that there is a great desire to exonerate from ANY responsibility those who lied and misrepresented their circumstances in order to get mortgages to make a quick buck or get a house knew they could not afford. Sure, the banks should have engaged in a bit more DD on the claims that were being made but that does NOT alter the fact that many, many people lied to get financial products and then defaulted on them. No-one is doubting that the banks played a role - what I am pointing out is the need for balance and a recognition that the deceit of many customers who hoped to access some type of get rich quick magic through property speculation was also a significant factor. As was the negligence of the same politicians who are now posturing as guardians of the public and scapegoating the banks. To claim (as has been pointed out) that the banks are solely to blame for not identifying the fact that people were lying through their teeth is like a terrorist who blows up a plane blaming airport security for not catching him.


You know, this whole affair is uncomfortably reminiscent to be honest of the same mentality that pertained in Germany in the 1930s. There was economic hardship and disatisfaction and that situation, which was a complex cocktail of many factors, was manipulated and simplified down, for cynical political reasons, to pointing the finger at one group. In Germany it was Jewish financiers - in the current climate it is financiers of any type. What is the difference except for scale between Fred Goodwin having his windows broken and the events of Crystalnacht? What is the difference between depicting Jewish financiers as rats and the depection of bankers as Fat Cats? It is a cynical over-simplification of affairs to divert attention away from wider culpability by scapegoating one group.


My postings, which identify the culpability of a wide range of people - banks, customers, regulators and politicians - reflect much greater balance than those posters who claim that all those who took out mortgages they couldn't pay are innocent illiterate victims who didn't know what they were signing, those who claim the banks are solely to blame if they didn't detect that someone was defrauding them and those who effectively just say that bankers are b***ards who deserve anything they get.

katie1997 Wrote:

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

> Undisputedtruth Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > katie1997 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I can use Excel. Does that make me a computer

> > > programmer?

> >

> > Excel has VBA. So the real question is can you

> use

> > VBA?

>

> Can I use VBA? I practically invented it.

>

>

> When I was twelve.



No Katie


That was "VPL"


At thirteen I was wearing a thong though.


I know, chaffed but way ahead of the game.


My teachers weren't happy, specially at netball.


To much info ?


NETTE:-S

Damian H Wrote:

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

>

> Your comments are risible. Are you actually

> saying that all those with sub-prime status who

> took out mortgages are illiterate and didn't

> appreciate that when you take out a loan you have

> to pay it back???? Have you the slightest

> evidence whatsoever to back up that position???

> Or any of the statements you make? Has it not

> occurred to you that when a large number of small

> scale deceptions and defaults add up you have a

> major problem such as the sub-prime crisis? And

> the allegation of 'greedy'? No 'greed' on the

> part of those who said "Sod thbis, I can fiddle a

> mortgage, get a house and worry about paying for

> it later."???

>

> You say bankers should be investigated for fraud.

> What fraud specifically? Do you actually know the

> meaning of the word fraud? Let me give you

> something that would fit the definition - falsely

> claiming a level of income you don't actually earn

> in order to deceive a lender into giving you a

> mortgage. THAT is fraud!

>

> You clearly have a need to engage in exactly the

> type of scapegoating I have discussed in order to

> exonerate the 'ordinary Joe' fom any sort of

> accountability for his/her behaviour and and THAT

> is plain disgraceful.

>

> You really should change your Username, you know.


Damian H, you definitely need to do some research on the financial crisis. Here's what the New York Times have to say on banking fraud during the financial crisis.


3 Former Traders at Credit Suisse Charged With Bond Fraud


To blame the ordinary people for the bank's role in the financial crisis just makes you look ridiculous, Damian. Hopefully jail is the best place for these criminals.

2 things UDT.


One, Damian was taking the reasoned and nuanced point of view that 'things aren't simple', that more people need to hold their hand up and admit they were part of the problem than is currently the case, what with everyone pointing at the nearest hate figure.

And two, ease up on the font tag, it's really ugly. Bold will suffice.

EP


I do agree that "more people need to hold their hand up and admit they were part of the problem than is currently the case". The sooner we can put these crooked bankers in jail the more confident we can feel about the banks putting their house in order. Blaming ordinary people for the financial crisis shows an extraordinary misunderstanding of the crisis.


With regards to the fonts, I think it has more to do the with the font typeface.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...