The great british e-bike scam

[funkylyn]

Why on earth would he when he is surrounded by more ........ than he could shake a stick at


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You know....you are quite right Dave , you have made me remember the saying....'pot, kettle' etc so I will change my comment to

....thats ma boy.....

Lynda

 

[Old_Dave]

Hahahaha

Make hay whilst the sun shines.... also springs to mind


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[funkylyn]

Hahahaha

Make hay whilst the sun shines.... also springs to mind


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am.....

Lynda

 

[Deleted member 4366]

They reckon that the high speed rail line London to Birmingham will cost 28 billion. If you divide that by 25 milion tax payers, it comes to £1120 per tax payer.

 

[Jeremy]

They reckon that the high speed rail line London to Birmingham will cost 28 billion. If you divide that by 25 milion tax payers, it comes to £1120 per tax payer.

As someone (with a better grasp of government finances than me) once told me when I did a similar calculation when managing the most expensive project of my career (which was "only" £1.38 billion) taxpayers don't directly fund all, or even most of, capital expenditure within government, plus it's amortised over several years, so the cost per year is significantly less.

For example, the most expensive project I ran was going to be spending over a seven year period, so even if all the expenditure did come from direct taxation (rather than indirect taxation and other government income derived from export related sources etc) then the cost per taxpayer would only have been around £7.89 per taxpayer per year. IIRC, the true direct cost to the taxpayer, when corrected for other government income sources, came to less than a fiver per person per year.

Still made an interesting joke at the bar when people asked what I was costing them..............

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Yes, that's the way the government try and explain it as well to hide the true cost. Sure, you can amortise it over as many years as you want,, but then you run into all the other projects that are amortised over the same period so you end up the same.

It's a bit like when your financial advisor tells you that your pension will only cost 2%. It doesn't sound much, but what they don't tell you is that it's 2% of your total accumulated fund, so the money that you paid in the first month, loses 2% every year for 40 years, so they actually take 80% of it. The best pension funds take out about 25% of what you pay in overall, and 40% is also quite common. If you ask the advisor,"How much do I pay in, and how much do you take out over the life of the pension?", the figures would scare you into not taking out the pension.

 

[Cakey]

What I found strange yesterday . The army advert on the radio , we are recruiting now.

 

[flecc]

I would disagree over Trident. I think that we need a modern and credible nuclear deterrent. Especially when Iran and What-Times-Me-Dinner-Dad come on line with their nuclear weapons. Also North Korea will soon have the capability to deploy a nuclear device anywhere they like in our country at any time they like.

I think that the only way to balance the threat is to hold an equal or greater strike capability.

I understand the thinking behind this view, but it is only valid because we pretend to be a first world power, threatening and attacking others. If we merely took our correct place in the world as a second ranking nation behind the most powerful giants and stopped fighting the USA's wars, we would no longer be a target for anyone. In that scenario we would have no need for such a devastating deterrent. Think of all the majority of nations not in any way threatened by such as North Korea and the point is understood.

In any case, the tiny area of Britain makes it unwise for us to take part in any nuclear exchange, since a very small number of nuclear hits would instantly cripple us.

 

[Jeremy]

What I found strange yesterday . The army advert on the radio , we are recruiting now.

It's to do with the demographic changes in the army, I believe.

We need relatively fewer soldiers with modest skills and more soldiers that are capable of being trained to a higher technical skill level. The army has been going through a massive (and very slow) shift from a focus on putting lots of troops on the ground (which goes back to the Cold War and the need to defend the Iron Curtain) to dealing with asymmetric warfare, where technology plays an increasingly important role.

 

[funkylyn]

we would no longer be a target for anyone. In that scenario we would have no need for such a devastating deterrent.

In any case, the tiny area of Britain makes it unwise for us to take part in any nuclear exchange, since a very small number of nuclear hits would instantly cripple us.

Whether we are a first rate world power, second rate or not even rated at all.....we will, unfortunately ALWAYS remain a target......for a whole raft of reasons.....

and the whole point of having a decent deterrent is that we hopefully can avoid just that scenario of having a nuclear exchange......we have got it, lets keep it, because it surely just isnt worth the risk of not having it.......at least it will make any crazy terrorist regime think twice then hopefully twice again before using nuclear weapons, pity any of us ever had them.....but we cant turn the clock back.....

Lynda

 

[flecc]

Whether we are a first rate world power, second rate or not even rated at all.....we will, unfortunately ALWAYS remain a target......for a whole raft of reasons.....

There are no reasons if we follow what I said. We have no natural resources like minerals or oil that anyone desires, so there's no gain in an attack. Just as the USA did not tolerate USSR missiles on Cuba, Europe would not tolerate Britain being used in such a way by an ambitious enemy. No gain, no attack, there are far more desirable, resource rich and little defended targets around the world.

 

[funkylyn]

There are no reasons if we follow what I said. We have no natural resources like minerals or oil that anyone desires, so there's no gain in an attack. Just as the USA did not tolerate USSR missiles on Cuba, Europe would not tolerate Britain being used in such a way by an ambitious enemy. No gain, no attack, there are far more desirable, resource rich and little defended targets around the world.

Come on flecc....we dont have to have any resources to desire.......some people just dont like us.....thats enough reason for terrorists to attack

Lynda

 

[flecc]

Come on flecc....we dont have to have any resources to desire.......some people just dont like us.....thats enough reason for terrorists to attack

Lynda

But by taking the action I mentioned, they would no longer dislike us! There is proof in Spain where you live part time.

Because their government at the time supported US policy and therefore had troops in Afghanistan, they suffered a devastating Al Qaeda attack in Madrid, just as we suffered 7/7. As in Britain, the Spanish population had always been against their being fighting there and in the election shortly after they threw out that prime minister and government, voting in a party that promised to take them out. That government did just that, immediately withdrawing their troops, and then Al Qaeda issued a statement through Al Jazeera, saying that Spain was no longer a target, leaving then free of fear of Islamic attacks ever since.

Proof absolute, if we stop threatening others, they won't threaten us. That's why most of the countries in the world have no fear of attack.

 

[OxygenJames]

But by taking the action I mentioned, they would no longer dislike us! There is proof in Spain where you live part time.

Because their government at the time supported US policy and therefore had troops in Afghanistan, they suffered a devastating Al Qaeda attack in Madrid, just as we suffered 7/7. As in Britain, the Spanish population had always been against their being fighting there and in the election shortly after they threw out that prime minister and government, voting in a party that promised to take them out. That government did just that, immediately withdrawing their troops, and then Al Qaeda issued a statement through Al Jazeera, saying that Spain was no longer a target, leaving then free of fear of Islamic attacks ever since.

Proof absolute, if we stop threatening others, they won't threaten us. That's why most of the countries in the world have no fear of attack.

It's what we say that they find threatening. ie we do not accept some of their fundamental beliefs - we refute their religion - we challenge their ideas - we say we do have the right to argue with their doctrines - etc.

As such we will always be open to attack.

When you stand up to people who would kill you for drawing a picture of their prophet - you're asking for trouble - whether you back it up with bombs or not.

There's no middle ground on this unfortunately.

 

[funkylyn]

Oh...and for how long flecc ?

Fact is we are dealing with people who cannot see reason, we are talking about terrorists here who will do what they want when they want and as long as it suits them.

Believe me, Spain isnt resting on their laurels....they certainly dont believe they are free from the threat of terrorist attack, they are on constant alert like the rest of us.

And the sad fact is that we just cannot take the risk of giving up a nuclear deterrent no matter how abhorrent some people find it.

As oxygenjames says.....there is NO middle ground on this, we can argue the pros and cons till the cows come home but it doesnt, and never will, negate the need for a nuclear deterrent.

We just have to live with it and Im thankful we have it......even though in an ideal world it would be lovely not to have to be armed with such dreadful weapons....any weapons......unfortunately that is 'cloud cuckoo land' and we dont live there and never will.

Lynda

 

[flecc]

It's what we say that they find threatening. ie we do not accept some of their fundamental beliefs - we refute their religion - we challenge their ideas - we say we do have the right to argue with their doctrines - etc.

As such we will always be open to attack.

When you stand up to people who would kill you for drawing a picture of their prophet - you're asking for trouble - whether you back it up with bombs or not.

There's no middle ground on this unfortunately.

You are just not getting it, I don't want middle ground. By saying we stop threatening others, I mean in every way, including criticising others. Their countries are nothing to do with us and all we need do is stop interfering in every way. I have after all just shown the proof.

 

[flecc]

Lynda, on this one you are just wrong. The world is full of countries who do mind there own business, many of them resource rich and little defended, making them attractive targets.

But they don't live in fear of attacks, even the richest are not seeking Trident or aircraft carriers since they know they don't need them.

The simple fact is that the threat only exists when a country makes it exist by their inappropriate actions.

 

[jazper53]

Lynda, on this one you are just wrong. The world is full of countries who do mind there own business, many of them resource rich and little defended, making them attractive targets.

But they don't live in fear of attacks, even the richest are not seeking Trident or aircraft carriers since they know they don't need them.

The simple fact is that the threat only exists when a country makes it exist by their inappropriate actions.

Clearly history contradicts your statement. The future will be uncertain to predict, and as a Nation we need to be prepared to meet the dangers by making clear to any potential enemy that we have sufficent deterrence to hit back. Not sure of the effectiveness of Aircraft carriers as they look very vunerable to the new range of weapons that are becoming available.

 

[Cyclezee]

I must be on the wrong forum, silly me, I thought this thread was about e-bikes

 

[funkylyn]

I must be on the wrong forum, silly me, I thought this thread was about e-bikes

Hahaha....silly you....come on, get off your e-bike fence and join in........you know you want to....

Lynda