| Non-motoring > Royal Mail sell-off. | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Roger. | Replies: 48 |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 14:19
Royal Mail sell-off. - Roger.
|
|
So - what does the panel think of the idea of selling off another bit of the family silver - The Royal Mail? My personal opinion:- I am generally opposed to the privatisation on ANY utility which is essential to the operation of the UK. In this I include the energy and water utilities - now largely owned by foreign companies. I think it is unwise to hand over control; of such vital elements of everyday life to those who will not have the interests of the UK as any part of their philosophy. I also find it hard to stomach the hiving off of those parts of life that we are forced by law and pain of penalties to pay for, to "Agencies". Here I include, although not exclusively, (there are many more) the Passport Agency, The Driver & Vehicle Licensing agency, and Capita the agency for collecting the BBC tax. There has been no benefit that I can see, only an increase in the costs as these agencies strive to make a profit from providing things we MUST legally have. (Yes, I know we don't HAVE to have a TV licence, a passport, a driving licence et al, but the point is still germane) |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 14:24
Royal Mail sell-off. - movilogo
|
|
Our politicians will sell even their family members for money. |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 14:49
Royal Mail sell-off. - Old Navy
|
| Brown sold our gold, he should be tried for treason, along with his boss Blair. |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 15:50
Royal Mail sell-off. - Tigger
|
|
I don't see the things that stay in public hands as that great either. My father was over visiting from France, and he observed that the railway was better than it was in the BR days. And he's the son of a railway driver. When I was waiting for a hospital appointment I was observing the inefficiency and complete lack of focus on the customers (sorry 'patients'). I think a number of services need a dose of streamlining. In an ideal world that could be done whilst they are in public ownership, but I don't see it happening. Especially as its not possible to bring in any process improvement teams since the ban on employing consultants. Some private firms can be much better than public ones. My private dentist is good value for money when compared with the NHS one I was with previously. Coming back to Royal Mail, we need to find ways to drastically cut the cost of delivery. Letter boxes at the end of the path would be a good start (like France, etc). And maybe we need to think of only every other day for delivery in extremely remote areas. |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 16:20
Royal Mail sell-off. - SteelSpark
|
|
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Wed 10 Jul 13 at 16:22
|
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 15:40
Royal Mail sell-off. - Zero
|
|
>> So - what does the panel think of the idea of selling off another bit >> of the family silver - The Royal Mail? >> >> My personal opinion:- I am generally opposed to the privatisation on ANY utility which is >> essential to the operation of the UK. And there is the rub, it is no longer essential to the running of the uk economy. IN fact in the past its been a complete millstone and dragging us backwards. Mail volumes are falling through the floor, only very low value junk mail keeping volumes up. The RM is now making money from internet shopping driven parcels delivery, and as such is merely another TNT and DHL. >> In this I include the energy and water utilities - now largely owned by foreign >> companies. >> I think it is unwise to hand over control; of such vital elements of everyday >> life to those who will not have the interests of the UK as any part >> of their philosophy. They do, A healthy economy provides income and profit to the utilities, you don't kill the host that feeds you. I agree however that water should be excluded from mere economics, in future years the supply and distribution of water will be vital to the security of the UK. Much more needs to be invested in a national water network. >> I also find it hard to stomach the hiving off of those parts of life >> that we are forced by law and pain of penalties to pay for, to "Agencies". >> Here I include, although not exclusively, (there are many more) the Passport Agency, The Driver >> & Vehicle Licensing agency, and Capita the agency for collecting the BBC tax. >> There has been no benefit that I can see, only an increase in the costs Plenty of benefits, the DVLA was a complete waste of space, and is now possibly the most efficient service of its type anywhere in the world. I see you moan about the BBC tax even tho you dont pay the ruddy thing. |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 15:49
Royal Mail sell-off. - Lygonos
|
|
>>I agree however that water should be excluded from mere economics, in future years the supply and distribution of water will be vital to the security of the UK. Much more needs to be invested in a national water network. The next Anglo-Scots war will no doubt be fought over our ample reserves of 'clear gold'. |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 15:54
Royal Mail sell-off. - Zero
|
|
Its ok, we'll blow you boggers up with our shale gas.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 10 Jul 13 at 15:54
|
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 16:01
Royal Mail sell-off. - Lygonos
|
|
>>we'll blow you boggers up with our shale gas I don't know the history of shale-oil in England/Wales but Jockland was producing oil from shale reserves from the mid 19th Century. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Young_(Scottish_chemist) In 1850 Young & Meldrum and Edward William Binney entered into partnership under the title of E.W. Binney & Co. at Bathgate in West Lothian and E. Meldrum & Co. at Glasgow; their works at Bathgate were completed in 1851 and became the first truly commercial oil-works in the world Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 10 Jul 13 at 16:05
|
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 16:10
Royal Mail sell-off. - Zero
|
| yes thats surface shale, I was talking about deep level fracking. Blackpool may be levelled in the resulting earthquake, but thats no loss. |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 16:12
Royal Mail sell-off. - Lygonos
|
|
>> Blackpool may be levelled in the resulting earthquake, but thats no loss. Imagine the Illuminations... Boooooooooom! |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 16:13
Royal Mail sell-off. - Zero
|
| they always claim the place is rocking. |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 16:42
Royal Mail sell-off. - Lygonos
|
|
Doing some rummaging on Oil Shale, I found this old Fatal Accident Inquiry rather morbidly interesting. www.scottishshale.co.uk/DigitalAssets/pdf/LVSAV/LVSAV2009.087.pdf Not a job I'd like, 500ft underground with headlamps and wooden beams bending under the weight of rock... |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 16:54
Royal Mail sell-off. - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> 500ft underground with headlamps and wooden beams bending under the weight of rock... Yeah. That's why opencast is such a good idea, since no one seems to approve of fracking... :o} |
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 10:05
Royal Mail sell-off. - TeeCee
|
|
>> Mail volumes are falling through the floor, only very low value junk mail keeping volumes >> up. The RM is now making money from internet shopping driven parcels delivery, and as >> such is merely another TNT and DHL. >> Living as I do in NL, I have to say that the TNT service here knocks the spots off RM in every possible way, including price. |
|
New Fri 12 Jul 13 00:54
Royal Mail sell-off. - Cockle
|
|
>>Living as I do in NL, I have to say that the TNT service here >> knocks the spots off RM in every possible way, including price. >> Out of interest, TeeCee, are the TNT workers in the Netherlands on zero hour contracts as they are in the UK? If so then I can see why they are cheaper.... |
|
New Fri 12 Jul 13 10:05
Royal Mail sell-off. - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> The RM is now making money from internet shopping driven parcels delivery, and as >> such is merely another TNT and DHL. >> Most of our mail, not just parcels, is already processed by TNT/DHL anyway. They presumably simply contract RM to do the final delivery. |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 15:54
Royal Mail sell-off. - Tigger
|
|
>> ... Capita the agency for collecting the BBC tax. >> There has been no benefit that I can see, only an increase in the costs >> as these agencies strive to make a profit from providing things we MUST legally have. >> (Yes, I know we don't HAVE to have a TV licence, a passport, a driving >> licence et al, but the point is still germane) >> The collecting of the fee may be outsourced but the BBC itself is public, and the biggest example of a bloated bureaucracy I think I have ever seen. |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 15:58
Royal Mail sell-off. - Tigger
|
|
I don't know if its still the case, but RM sorting offices used to have teams on 'inbound' and 'outbound'. One team could be stretched and busy but the other would refuse to help as it was against their demarcation. I reckon there is a lot of streamlining which can still be done. Some will require customers to accept change too, though. Last edited by: Tigger on Wed 10 Jul 13 at 16:02
|
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 16:21
Brown's gold - SteelSpark
|
|
>> Brown sold our gold, he should be tried for treason, along with his boss Blair. What about all of the governments that were buying it at close to $1,900/oz last year? Should they all be tried for treason too, now that it is down to almost $1,200/oz. What about when it is eventually down the average (in real terms) of $800/oz? In real terms, they may never get their money back: tinyurl.com/o2u8bjz The gold bubble of the last few years has no fundamentals, just predictions of the end of civilization and dreams of $20,000/oz gold to drive it. I suspect that when the bubble is well and truly over, there will be a distinct lack of people pointing out that Brown achieved better stability using foreign currency as a hedge, rather than gold. Of course, anybody who thinks that his job was to speculate on the gold market, rather than hedging, might disagree If you'd sold off your tulip bulbs for a guilders each, you have looked stupid when they were selling for 200,000 each, and all the clever people were buying. |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 19:39
Brown's gold - Kevin
|
|
>Of course, anybody who thinks that his job was to speculate on the gold market, rather than hedging, might disagree His job was to ensure that he got the best possible price if he decided to sell the nation's gold reserves. Announcing one month in advance that he intended to sell was a real stroke of genius. |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 20:57
Brown's gold - SteelSpark
|
|
>> Announcing one month in advance that he intended to >> sell was a real stroke of genius. Another myth about the sale. Such a sale would always be advertised in advance, it wasn't just a one time mistake. For example: tinyurl.com/m4j76f7 A sale of that size can't be performed in secret, it can't just be dumped on the market one morning, it has to be pre-planned. Even if it was just dumped one morning, the market reaction would be far more severe than if it is pre-announced. Also, the gold was sold over a period of 3 years, so any initial market reaction was irrelevent. There may be some debate on whether the choice to sell was right, but does anybody genuinely think that Brown, or at least all the people involved in the sale, had no idea of the mechanics of such a sale? |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 21:12
Brown's gold - -
|
|
Makes you wonder where the next bundle of money to subsidise our failing economy will come from. We've sold BT oil gas electric water railways airports deregulated buses sold the gold the list goes on, this selling off the nations silver to raise cash didn't start under Labour either and at no point was the cash used to pay off our debts or was it the case that the country had been living beyond its means for longer than many would like to believe and selling off the only way to riase some dosh to postpone the inevitable. |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 22:14
Brown's gold - Tigger
|
|
>> >> or was it the case that the country had been living beyond its means for >> longer than many would like to believe and selling off the only way to riase >> some dosh to postpone the inevitable. >> >> >> Oh yes. We've been living beyond our means for the best part of 30 years. |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 22:27
Brown's gold - Zero
|
|
And the rest. Since the early 60s G string Last edited by: Zero on Wed 10 Jul 13 at 22:27
|
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 21:53
Brown's gold - NortonES2
|
|
Another view of the reasoning behind the sale of gold at a "knockdown price" is given here: tinyurl.com/crbar9u To bolster banking against a crash apparently. As advised by Goldman Sachs..... |
|
New Wed 10 Jul 13 23:12
Brown's gold - Kevin
|
|
>Another myth about the sale. It was announced one month before the first auction. There's no "myth" about it. >Such a sale would always be advertised in advance, it wasn't just a one time mistake. For example: >tinyurl.com/m4j76f7 Cyprus is nowhere near on the same scale. They are selling ~7 tons, GB sold 395 tons which, along with sales by other european countries, destabilised the market to the extent that CBGA1 was rapidly introduced. >A sale of that size can't be performed in secret, it can't just be dumped on the market one morning, it has to be pre->planned. Even if it was just dumped one morning, the market reaction would be far more severe than if it is pre->announced. Why do you imply that it had to be "dumped" in one tranche? CBGAx now limits how much gold can be sold in one year by signatories - the objective is to trickle sales and restrain idiots like GB. >Also, the gold was sold over a period of 3 years, so any initial market reaction was irrelevent. The price dropped around 10% straight after Gollum's announcement and even after 3 years he only managed an average sale price of ~$10/oz less than before he'd opened his mouth. If that is irrelevant I'm glad that you are not my FA! >There may be some debate on whether the choice to sell was right, but does anybody genuinely think that Brown, or > at least all the people involved in the sale, had no idea of the mechanics of such a sale? Yes and no. Brown and Balls didn't have a clue but their egos wouldn't allow them to listen to those who did. |
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 11:24
Brown's gold - SteelSpark
|
|
>> It was announced one month before the first auction. There's no "myth" about it. Two months actually. The myth is that it could have been sold without prior notifiction. >> Cyprus is nowhere near on the same scale. They are selling ~7 tons, GB sold >> 395 tons Well quite. So if a sale of 7 tons is pre-announced, a sale of 395 tons would be pre-announced too. If you do some research, you will see that it is common, it is not some naive blunder. >> Why do you imply that it had to be "dumped" in one tranche? You misunderstand. The criticism is that the UK pre-warned the market, and so the price went down, and so the UK got less money for it's gold. However, even if the UK didn't pre-announce how much gold it was going to sell, as soon as it started selling it off, the market would be signalled and, in fact, may have reacted further by not knowing how much gold was eventually going to be sold. There seems to be a common misconception that they they could somehow sneak the gold onto the market without, and sell of the whole lot without pushing the price down. >> CBGAx now >> limits how much gold can be sold in one year by signatories - the objective >> is to trickle sales and restrain idiots like GB. You need to research better. The UK would have still been able to sell the same amount of gold as they did. So, it is clearly not an excessive rate of selling. Trickling would have worked no better. Once the decision was taken to diversify, the sales had to be completed in a reasonably short period of time. 3 years was not excessive. >> The price dropped around 10% straight after Gollum's announcement and even after 3 years he >> only managed an average sale price of ~$10/oz less than before he'd opened his mouth. >> If that is irrelevant I'm glad that you are not my FA! So, over the next 3 years the price was, on average 4% lower than when the sales were announced. There is nothing unusual about such a variation, and it would be ridiculous to suggest that Brown's announcement (rather than everything else that happened in that period) could be shown to have caused that 4%. The price of gold is up almost 3% today, for goodness sake! I suppose you have an FA who could predict the price of gold within 4% over the next few years do you? If so, hang onto him! >> Brown and Balls didn't have a clue but their egos wouldn't allow them to listen >> to those who did. People misunderstand why the gold sale occurred, which was to diversify some of the UK's hedging away from gold. They also misunderstand that such a sale would be pre-announced. There is nothing egocentric about is, it is just the way that it works. Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 11 Jul 13 at 11:27
|
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 11:31
Brown's gold - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> People misunderstand why the gold sale occurred, which was to diversify some of the UK's >> hedging away from gold. >> >> They also misunderstand that such a sale would be pre-announced. >> >> There is nothing egocentric about is, it is just the way that it works. The fact that Kevin refers to GB as 'Gollum' tells you all you need to know. |
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 19:48
Brown's gold - Kevin
|
|
>The fact that Kevin refers to GB as 'Gollum' tells you all you need to know. Oh, well spotted Bromp. The fact is that "Gollum" is the only word of more than four letters that I can bring myself to use when describing GB. There are very few politicians who I like, even fewer that I can be bothered to actively dislike. For Gordon Brown though I make the effort. |
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 22:26
Brown's gold - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> >The fact that Kevin refers to GB as 'Gollum' tells you all you need to >> know. >> >> Oh, well spotted Bromp. >> >> The fact is that "Gollum" is the only word of more than four letters that >> I can bring myself to use when describing GB. >> >> There are very few politicians who I like, even fewer that I can be bothered >> to actively dislike. For Gordon Brown though I make the effort. Ahhhh, A match for my feelings about Mrs T. then? {tic}I'm rather cross you cannot find anything positive about him{/tic} |
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 22:49
Brown's gold - Kevin
|
|
>A match for my feelings about Mrs T. then? Exactly! >{tic}I'm rather cross you cannot find anything positive about him{/tic} Give me some examples and I promise to think about 'em. It could lead to a long "debate" though ;-) |
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 11:38
Brown's gold - SteelSpark
|
|
Just a little extra quote, from the International Monetary Fund, regarding it's approach to gold sales: "As previously indicated, the Fund will inform markets before any on-market sales commence, and will report regularly to the public on progress with the gold sales." I suppose the IMF also have no idea how the markets work and/or pre-announce just to feed their egos, do they? Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 11 Jul 13 at 11:40
|
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 13:30
Brown's gold - R.P.
|
| It's an organisation with massive waste within, and mega inefficiencies - on a huge scale. It needs to go private to borrow money from the market rather than dip into Treasury budgets. It's a monster that needs taming. In a socialist paradise all utilities and strategic companies would be state owned, we're not in one. |
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 19:39
Brown's gold - Kevin
|
|
>"As previously indicated, the Fund will inform markets before any on-market sales commence, >and will report regularly to the public on progress with the gold sales." The key point in that statement is on-market. When the IMF began to sell in 2009 they tried to sell exclusively off-market. When they announced on-market sales they specifically stated that sales would be phased and that the amount sold would be a part of the maximum 400 tonnes per annum total sales agreed by CBGA3 members. They also stated that off-market sales would continue (if they could find buyers). >I suppose the IMF also have no idea how the markets work and/or pre-announce just to feed >their egos, do they? See above. The IMF on-market sales had already been accounted for in the markets by the CBGA3 cap. www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2010/pr1044.htm (IMF Press Release). |
|
New Fri 12 Jul 13 12:15
Brown's gold - SteelSpark
|
|
>> The key point in that statement is on-market. When the IMF began to sell in >> 2009 they tried to sell exclusively off-market. Yes, and the UK sale were on-market too. Do you have some information that nobody else has which suggests that the UK could have sold off-market? >> See above. The IMF on-market sales had already been accounted for in the markets by >> the CBGA3 cap. No, you're wrong. The cap just states how much could possibly be sold, not how much will be sold. So the market would not account for the whole of the cap as if it were actual planned sales. As for the actual sales. The IMF pre-announced their public sales, and the market would have taken that into account. Exactly what the UK did. Last edited by: SteelSpark on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 12:16
|
|
New Fri 12 Jul 13 22:02
Brown's gold - Kevin
|
|
>Yes, and the UK sale were on-market too. >Do you have some information that nobody else has which suggests that the UK could have >sold off-market? There was absolutely nothing which prevented off-market sales so I don't understand what you are getting at. But let me turn that around and ask you if you have information that nobody else has which explains why off-market sales were not made first? Don't bother. I'll answer for you: No you don't. And the reason for that is that there is very little information about those sales in the public domain. The Treasury have stonewalled any attempts to see the documentation, and what they did eventually disclose under an FoI request lacked any meaningful information. A few memos setting up meetings and a couple of financial institution charts. No minutes of those meetings and no record of the discussions and decisions that took place. Nothing. Nada. FA. tinyurl.com/ljoschn (www.gov.uk FoI) tinyurl.com/y9nuy5m (Telegraph) It is understood that Mr Brown pushed ahead with the sale despite serious misgivings at the Bank of England. It is not thought that senior Bank experts were even consulted about the decision, which was driven through by a small group of senior Treasury aides close to Mr Brown. The Treasury has been officially censured by the Information Commissioner over its attempts to block the release of information about the gold sales. >No, you're wrong. >The cap just states how much could possibly be sold, not how much will be sold. So the >market would not account for the whole of the cap as if it were actual planned sales. The markets were spooked by the uncertainty of whether there would be additional sell-offs. Once CBGA was signed and they knew that any gold sales by CBGA members (pretty much the whole of Europe) would be capped at 400 tonnes pa they breathed a sigh of relief. If you think that traders were too naive to account fully for the cap you're seriously underestimating them. Wrong? Explain chart 3 on page 18 of the FoI link above. |
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 19:56
Royal Mail sell-off. - No FM2R
|
|
>>now largely owned by foreign companies. I understand the issues over public or private ownership. But your own emotional prejudice to one side, what difference does it make whether it is a WASP business or an Indian, Russian or anything else business? On the main issue clearly the Royal Mail was essential to the UK 25 yrs ago and hence selling it would have perhaps been inappropriate. But exactly what is it essential to these days? These days it is merely a service and business to be used or not. |
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 20:34
Royal Mail sell-off. - corax
|
|
>> On the main issue clearly the Royal Mail was essential to the UK 25 yrs >> ago and hence selling it would have perhaps been inappropriate. But exactly what is it >> essential to these days? I'm not sure how well places like the Scottish Highlands are served by privatised companies. Perhaps these people, particularly the elderly, will suffer. Last edited by: corax on Thu 11 Jul 13 at 20:36
|
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 20:39
Royal Mail sell-off. - Zero
|
|
>> >> On the main issue clearly the Royal Mail was essential to the UK 25 >> yrs >> >> ago and hence selling it would have perhaps been inappropriate. But exactly what is >> it >> >> essential to these days? >> >> I'm not sure how well places like the Scottish Highlands are served by privatised companies. >> Perhaps these people, particularly the elderly, will suffer. But they are a declining market, not one you want to invest in. Anyway come independence Jock-Mail can deal with them. |
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 21:11
Royal Mail sell-off. - Kevin
|
|
>Anyway come independence Jock-Mail can deal with them. Deliver/collect from the nearest pub. |
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 21:45
Royal Mail sell-off. - Westpig
|
|
>> I'm not sure how well places like the Scottish Highlands are served by privatised companies. >> Perhaps these people, particularly the elderly, will suffer. >> Wouldn't have thought so. They'll sort out it out themselves. I wanted to send some flowers to a relative that was ill...and found that Interflora and their equivalent didn't cover that area....so rang the nearest florist, direct. They were able to sort the order out for me..£5 delivery charge, no problem....so being nosey and being a delivery driver for flowers myself now, how was it to be delivered?...on the local bus! The bus driver would drive them to a pre-arranged place and I had to arrange for the recipient to collect them..easy. The bus service is privatised too. ..and the other thing is, up there the post van has seats in the back, with windows and doubles up as a sort of taxi...so why couldn't the local taxi firm have the contract anyway. |
|
New Thu 11 Jul 13 23:08
Royal Mail sell-off. - Ted
|
|
We were touring Jockland in 1971 with caravan and Hillman plus new daughter. I was camped in Invermoriston on Loch Ness and needed a part for the car. A phone call to the Rootes garage in Inverness had them delivering the part on the bus and trusting me to send the cash back with the driver, which I did. Not service you'd get round here ! Ted |
|
New Fri 12 Jul 13 00:50
Royal Mail sell-off. - Cockle
|
|
>> >> We were touring Jockland in 1971 with caravan and Hillman plus new daughter. I was >> camped in Invermoriston on Loch Ness and needed a part for the car. A phone >> call to the Rootes garage in Inverness had them delivering the part on the bus >> and trusting me to send the cash back with the driver, which I did. >> >> Not service you'd get round here ! >> >> Ted >> Seems to be standard practice in Turkey. Last week I was on a dolmus from Fethiye to Gocek. On the floor of the dolmus was a large box of vegetables and fruit and a sack of sweet corn. At the first stop as we left Fethiye the driver jumped out and went into a bakers returning with a dozen loaves of bread. About 20 minutes down the road he pulls over at a tree by the roadside props the sack of sweetcorn up against the tree trunk and takes some money from under a stone next to the tree. Next stop was a lokanta in Inlice where he delivers the bread, last stop before Gocek was another lokanta to deliver the box of fruit and veg. As my companion said, 'It's the Turkish way, and it works....' Having said that the dolmus drivers trust you to pay them at some point in the journey and leave a pot of money and change laying on the dashboard in full view; they wouldn't last 5 minutes in Southend on a Friday/Saturday night.... |
|
New Fri 12 Jul 13 07:16
Royal Mail sell-off. - -
|
|
>> Having said that the dolmus drivers trust you to pay them at some point in >> the journey and leave a pot of money and change laying on the dashboard in >> full view; they wouldn't last 5 minutes in Southend on a Friday/Saturday night.... >> And i don't suppose the Southend drunks or low lifes would want stay in a Turkish jail either. |
|
New Fri 12 Jul 13 07:41
Royal Mail sell-off. - Crankcase
|
|
Now there's an idea. If you get a jail sentence, then a giant wheel is spun there and then in court, and whichever country pops up, you serve it there. It would range from Sweden (you got off lightly) to North Korea (God help you). Might act as a deterrent that. Do you feel lucky? |
|
New Fri 12 Jul 13 19:30
Royal Mail sell-off. - Cockle
|
|
>> >> Having said that the dolmus drivers trust you to pay them at some point >> in >> >> the journey and leave a pot of money and change laying on the dashboard >> in >> >> full view; they wouldn't last 5 minutes in Southend on a Friday/Saturday night.... >> >> >> >> And i don't suppose the Southend drunks or low lifes would want stay in a >> Turkish jail either. >> There is that :-) I believe that is also 'The Turkish Way'..... seems to work in its own way. |
|
New Tue 16 Jul 13 09:31
Royal Mail sell-off. - Fenlander
|
|
Roger said>>>>My personal opinion:- I am generally opposed to the privatisation on ANY utility which is essential to the operation of the UK. Despite being one of those who received employee shares and share options that made a decent profit back then on reflection I'd rather gas/elec/water... and now PO... were kept under Government control. Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 16 Jul 13 at 09:31
|
|
New Tue 16 Jul 13 10:04
Royal Mail sell-off. - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> I am generally opposed to the privatisation on ANY utility which >> is essential to the operation of the UK. >> I don't care who operates them as long as there is a choice and if I don't like one I can go to someone else. The only ones I positively object to being privatised are prisons and and any organisation having the power to arrest or fine. I think only the state, as representing all citizens, should have those powers over any individual. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
