i would estimate that other diseases are also on the increase.. growing up through the school system, i only knew of one person in all that time that had epileptic fits, now a days its becoming common place. cases of asthma, im seeing more and more of people i know with it
lifestyle is playing a part its true.
supermarket "fresh" is often far from fresh, as it is grown abroad in countries that dont have our food chain laws to protect us, and many are gas waxed to preserve the life of the produce and keep it looking presentable for longer. the problem is, no one is investigating exactly what damage its doing to the people that eat the stuff.... ie, YOU!
until a spate of illnesses appears, everyone goes on eating this "fresh" produce as if its good for them.
when they find that chemicals and gas waxes used abroad in growing the food that our supermarkets import, are a cause of illness in people here, will supermarkets be charged in a UK court for endangering public health for profit?
you come from an area where there have been 3 stabbings in the past week, one of them right outside your mum's front garden. you have a small bedsit, provided by a "company" in return for this accomodation, you must work on a "training course" for 8 weeks.
the training course consists of: being driven to a city hundreds of miles away then staying there for a week - from that city each day you are dropped off in surrounding towns without any maps etc, with a bag as heavy as you are, to knock on doors and sell household products like dusters/tea towels, at way above the prices you can get them in a local pound shop.
if you sell 6 items a day, you get 50% off that weeks cost of your accomodation. if you dont, you pay the full going rate for your accomodation.
you are dropped off at 8 in the morning in each town, and picked up at 1pm, miss the van and you are left there. no breaks, no shelter, no toilet, etc.
if you dont sell anything, then nothing to eat that day. oh and did i mention, if you dare to say anything the van driver doesnt like you are left by the side of the road where the van stops.... could be a motorway, a service station, a street, in any part of the UK. without any means of getting home.
i met one such person today... tracey (ive changed her name) she knocked on my door, soaked to the skin, she cant have been any older than 16. tracey comes from a big city in the north of england, i invited her in out of the pouring rain to show me what she was selling and to get out of the rain. the bag she was humping around was bigger than her, i made her a drink, then had a look through what stuff she had.
she told me she was in wales yesterday and that last week, the van driver didnt like what one of the girls said to him, so he stopped on the hard shoulder, ordered another girl to beat her up, then drove off and left both of them at the side of the road!
i asked about her going back home with mum and dad, she didnt really get on with her dad but was close to her mum, i suggested that she seriously consider going back to mum and dad, she said she was seriously thinking about it, as her first week doing this sales lark was getting her down. i pointed out where the "jam butty" (rich estates) were in the area, gave her a packet of cigarettes i had and she thanked me for buying some tea towels, and off she went, back out into the pouring rain.
this is the real side of how the UK treats its young people. how can people live like this? living in fear and being exploited, used for profit and dumped on?
in 2009 there are people in your area living like this, poor people are not in the news like they were in the 1980s, they are put on schemes like this so they are out of the public eye, all to often lately, if you dont know about them, you cant ask awkward questions about them and make those in power accountable.
gordon brown has been speaking on this very subject this morning, promising that "no young person will be left on the streets like they were in the 70s and 80s" no gordon, they will instead be shipped around the country in vans and forced to sell cheap products, at higher prices, or they cannot eat or afford to live in rented accomodation, and your party will stand by whist this happens and do precisely NOTHING!
the exploitation of anyone (young or old) is wrong, this could so easily be my son or daughter knocking on stranger's doors!
with this week off from official work, its a great time to get some unpaid work done around here.
switching between garden work, manual labour - moving tonnes of gritsand and 3 by 2 concrete flags... then building a greenhouse to go on it, and stripping the house of junk (as i do every so often, getting rid of a little more rubbish each time) when the weather changes, can be more tiring, than what you all would call, normal work!
add in the regular weekly jobs, washing and drying, shopping, juggling bills, etc, there isnt enough hours in the day. this is a typical week for me, factor in, trying to find a new job and a thousand and one other little jobs to do, i guess there never will be enough time.
so do i stress out and panic, rushing around like a headless chicken? or do i plod on, keeping upto speed but not worrying if ive missed a job or summat? i plod on.... slow and steady wins the race
later this week, mum is coming to visit, which means everything (and i mean everything) needs cleaning, polishing, sorting out etc. its going to be wierd, a lady whom i lived with for 15 years, saw everyday, knew everything about, now i know little about her, in the same way that all kids drift from their parents, yet a bond still exists. i dont think ive changed that much from the kid ive always been (and will continue to be) mum will come here, be presented with a key and the power of authority over all of us, but the goalposts have moved.
its my house now, its upkeep is my burden, its a permanent building site, but its a fully functional one, from kitchen to bathroom, our house is far from spotless (as mums always seems to be) one room hasnt even got a ceiling, but its safe, its ours and its a work in progress. i havent had mum around for years... im looking forward to it, its been too long, it should be good fun....
i work one hour a day, 5 days a week. I cover when staff are absent, I am CRB checked (which took 3 months to get) I have just been informed that as of July, I won't be kept on and my employment will be terminated.
Have i worked to a good standard - yes, im told, by my boss have i given it my all - yes, again my boss tells me i have done well i have come into this line of work only last year, so although my education isnt as good as most people in this employment field, i was patient and lucky enough to be given a chance, and i have passed a few certificates for courses i have attended.
so why am i no longer employed as of july? because of the economy and policies followed by those in charge of the country! it is as simple as that.
the education authority i work for, as with many others across the UK, invested money in icelandic banking system, which was protected by the credit rating of AAA given out by the government. as we now know, all this money has been lost and the government have protected individual savers (ie, voters) but for local authorities, they have nothing but a black hole in their finances. This labour government have CUT funding in education by giving each authority less money this year, informing them to use their reserves. but as we also now know, our education authority and many others have taken government advice and checked government credit ratings and invested in icelandic banks, which have now gone bust.
is there any chance of extra funding, as the banks have got? no chance - the government dont want to know
so the kids excluded from school in the short term now have to find alternative places at fewer short stay schools, the education authority has a shortfall of funding, and myself and other staff working part time at the school are now out of a job! the short stay school as we know it now, come july, will no longer exist!
so when the labour government slate the conservatives and liberals for having to make stringent cuts in essential services should they be elected in the future, just remember that it is this labour government that have misled local authorities over credit ratings for them to invest their reserves and get a return on them, which in turn has led to no bail out for schools, (as the banks have got) and schools are being closed, because of their incompetance!
thanks for that gormless brown!
UPDATE: i discussed this with a labour MP no less, who informed me that it was a huge problem, as not just local councils but charities and other public bodies are in exactly the same boat regarding getting their reserves back after being invested in icelandic banking system, who the government CHOSE to rate as AAA secure and reliable, even when they knew they were going under...
the MP i spoke to posted questions more than 3 months ago, and havent even received a reply!
i had a meagre little fund set up which (in theory) have provided a small income in retirement and/or if i died, would leave the better half with enough brass to bury me and pay for a holiday.
i invested the money from a company loyalty share option scheme, which i paid so much per week through my wages, in this mini pension/insurance scheme, instead of squandering the brass.
5 years ago it was worth £3000 - 3 years ago it was worth £4800 - not a lot i grant you, but enough to cover the costs, when my time is up.
for the last two years, the amount that should have been invested and making small profits under "the plan" has shrunk, due to changes in the law, which now allow companies to use pension funds for other aspects of their business (thanks labour!) last year my annual statement came, revealing that now its only worth £2500, its dwindling at a rapid rate. in the meanwhile, under the spin of "we are all living longer", my retirement age has increased to 68 - thats 3 years extra working for me (thanks labour again)
im now informed in a letter today, that the "old plan" is being cancelled and closed, (another labour masterstroke - instead of making companies keeep funds in their pension pots to honour promises made when schemes are set up, they can now simply use the money that us normals have put in, for other means, and then close the pension plan) i am given 3 stunning options:
option 1: i can take a lump sum one off payment as full and final payment based on my fund as it is now. (currently £2200) but this will be subject to tax on 75% of it, at emergency paye tax levels. so id be lucky to see £1800 of it! option 2: i can move it to a new pension fund that i may chose to take out (or an existing one) but i must pay fees to move it to this other fund (wiping more off my lump sum for "admin costs") and only if this other fund allows me to transfer fixed benefits! (which can involve higher transfer costs to my lumpsum) option 3: i can transfer it to the company's brand new fund, again for a fee, which will only be close to as good as the fund i was already a part of. on further reading it appears i am to lose approxiamately 10% over the life of it!
a stunning set of options which highlight perfectly why the labour party simply have no clue or idea about pension funds and how to set them up and regulate them!
yes, it is the company that are changing things around, but they have only been able to do this because of this labour government's sheer incapacity to set laws and rules that work to the benefit of anyone in the country! ie, companies (like the banks) only operate under the laws and guidelines that GOVERNMENT set out if they are failing, it is the man in the street thats paying, in hard cash and/or working years longer before they can retire!
when they came into office in 1997, labour inherited the strongest pension fund ever in the UK, and one of the top four pension provisions in the world - today it is in tatters. but where will those in power be, when it all hits home should i die or retire? nowhere in sight as they will have long gone with a huge pension pot to call their own!
bill payments (and the amounts of money involved) have become so complex in this day and age, that its time for a complete overhaul of how they are calculated and paid. not only do they discriminate against each and every one of us, they also cause hardship for millions of people who have changes to circumstances.
take a simple direct debit for insurance (for example) - we are told its easy to set up, no fuss and gives you peace of mind knowing that its been paid automatically. sounds ideal for a busy person doesnt it (of which we are all "busy" people)
now look at the reality of it.
COST - people who stay with their insurance company, always pay MORE than a "new" customer - this cant be allowed to continue TIMING - paid on the last day of the month? arrange for direct debit to come out on the 1st of the month, no problem. - until you find that the ease of use doesnt apply to that company as "their system" cant take out money from your account until say, the 5th or 8th of each month (as mine does) - sounds fine, unless you are on a budget, and forget one month, that it comes out late, and its bye bye to £35 in bank charges for non payment of the direct debit, which you still have to pay. its now YOU that must organise your account better thats at fault - not the companies that break their promise and guarantees that money will come out of your account each month on the date you fixed with them! AMOUNTS - you pay direct debit, whats stopping the company you are paying suddenly changing the actual amount coming from your account each month? - NOTHING! as we saw back in october 2008, with gas and electric companies, 28 days notification of an increase is all thats needed to remove an extra £30-£40 from your account, if costs go up. if you are on a budget, they could give you a years notice, it doesnt matter, you still have to pay it. as was noted by the gas and electric rises for direct debit customers, this can amount to interest free loans to these companies, as your account is in credit.... so what do you get for having credit on your account? NOTHING! its a lose/lose situation.
REFUNDS - ever tried getting money back from companies when their automated system takes too much? its a battle just to speak to someone who understands english! it almost always costs you for ages on the phone trying to sort out their mistake - its only ever paid back as a "goodwill gesture" - its never their fault, its always "how the system works" which is bullshit for we cocked up so what - and any refund due is almost always included on your next bill... if you pay it quarterly, then you are talking about 3 months away! in the meantime you have to manage and get by without that money, you have to juggle your finances around to cover all your regular outgoings, it is YOU that will usually face charges on your bank account (and another hour long battle to have them credited back to your account) that you only find out about 28 days later when your statement drops through your door.
how many bills do you have being paid by direct debit? it only takes a minor mess up by one of them to bugger your money up for an entire month!
had an unexpected day out today, helping out on a school trip to 1940's Britain.
during discussions, of course the "make do and mend" mentality came up, opened my eyes.
grow your own - buy only what you need - reuse and fix up what you already have - build up a reserve of long lasting foods, etc, all got a mention, which of course i already do much to my family's (sometimes) annoyance. i wondered where i have picked up these habits? mum and dad were just young children in wartime, and perhaps this has been passed on more than i realised before.
as a family growing up i was encouraged to share all the time, even having things taken off me if i didnt, although we as a family struggled, we never went without and were taught to appreciate the things we had and look after them, i watched dad toil in the garden planting a veg patch and spuds etc, mum mended clothes, hand me downs (even in the 1970s) were still common in larger families, dad worked around the house fitting a new boiler and central heating instead of us paying to get someone in to do it all at huge cost, mum taught us how to cook basics and has always been on hand with recipes and advice on baking, the gardens we had always were well kept and veg patches commonly reaped us lots of fruit and veg to chomp on, making our own was and still remains a common thing.
even now, they have both gone their seperate ways, dad has an allotment and mum still maintains a spotless garden, bakes regularly and uses her greenhouse to grow stuff, they are only to happy to advise and pass on tips.
id like to think i could have survived, even thrived during wartime, it was a wonderful time for me in that, the savagery of war aside, the people were all in the same boat, in that they had nothing.
today i look around the net and speak to people about various money-saving methods on a daily basis, always on the look out for new ideas and methods, hints and tips to grow my own knowledge, on everything from gardening to baking, flights for £5 to cleaning windows... my sad quest never ends.
many areas on the net speak of being "frugal" or "great deals from xxxxx.com" which more often than not, turn out to undermine themselves with bizarre claims in how to be frugal/money savers, with a "follow me" attitude which rarely (if ever) actually includes anything that "does what it says on the tin"
however, if you remember just one thing from all my pointless ramblings, i hope it is this: if something is there to help you, that convenience ALWAYS costs you more in the end
had news of a former neighbour of ours sadly passing away last week. in their early 60s, always a worker, paid taxes, worked overtime when it was available, etc, etc.
went into work one day, keeled over, gone. very sad for their wife as shes a lovely lady who is very kind and friendly, always has been.
is this all our life means today? work, work, work, saving for retirement, one holiday a year (if you are lucky), from leaving school at 16 to early 60s then gone?
we graft too much in the UK, there has to be more to life than this?
Denz on 05.18.09 @ 02:39 PM CST [link]
£2000 off a car scheme?
could it be true? scrap your older than ten years car, and get a £2000 government voucher off a new car!
sounds to good to be true.... why are the government doing this? - because the car industry is meltdown. people havent got the money to keep buying brand new cars, they have other essentials to spend their money on. the government are borrowing billions of pounds, (that the taxpayer will have to pay back) to keep the economy afloat - the biggest problem is, they do not have any money coming in, so its a way of raising taxation!
who are the winners on this deal? - the government! first of all, the one essential fact that seems to be lacking from most reporting on this "offer" - the government puts up only £1000 of the discount... the other £1000 must be found by the businesses that its trying to help - the car dealerships!
if you sell cars, your prices have already risen: a new car i was looking at in october 2008 was on sale at £11995 - last week it was available £13449 - simply not good value at all... thats part of the problem, the public are wising up to all businesses that raise prices so they can offer imaginary savings a few weeks later (where the customer just pays the old price!) now how do you suppose the car dealerships are going to take a £1000 hit on their prices? its obvious that they will increase their prices by £500-£1000 to compensate PLUS they will add on the cost of them having to scrap and get rid of the old car!
this is fine for those that have an old car to scrap..... what about those people that dont? they all end up paying more money than they would have before the scheme came in!
why is the government starting this scheme then? because they'll make money from almost every sale!
- the government borrow £1000 for every voucher they issue, which taxpayers must repay - the government need income coming in, VAT is charged on every new and used car sales at 17.5% so from each sale with this scheme the government have to recoup £1000 in VAT - so what do you think is the lowest amount you would pay for a brand new car, for the government to get its £1000 back in VAT?
£8000? £10,000? £7499? the answer is.... £5720! yes thats right - every car sold using this scheme, above £5720 in price, will reap the government more than the £1000 its using to fund each voucher! how often can you buy a new car for £5270 and drive away? - id struggle to name one!
but this scheme is very successful in germany! they are spinning.... they are happy for you to think like this, but in reality, its very different! the german scheme is very successful, because its the government there that invests ALL the £2000 discount the voucher gets you! the dealership dont have to pay out £1000 per voucher, so prices dont rise before the voucher can be used! plus the government have some money in its reserves, they are using the £2000 voucher scheme to increase trade and improve the environment (newer cars have less emmissions) its part of their environmental plans!
in the UK you pay your money and take your chances..... just be aware of the FACTS before making your decision to scrap your old car!
westminster rocked - BBC close down political comments?
well i never expected that! today's revelations in westminster have exceeded all that i would have guessed... i would have wagered good money on the big final story to come out of the telegraph being one about the commons speaker michael martin or the fees office who have been paying all these crazy claims.
i didnt bank on the 3 totally bizarre happenings we got:
first a tory aide to cameron, is caught in the headlamps for claiming his 2nd home allowance on his london home, whilst his wife (also a conservative MP) claimed against their constituency home, so in effect they both had no main home and both claimed the full entitlement for their 2 homes.
ahhhhh todays scandal will be MP couples double claiming for expenses for 2nd homes... wrong! quite rightly, cameron had the MP and personal aide in first thing this morning and he tendered his resignation, with his expenses being reviewed by the conservative's own scrutiny committee before any further action and he pays the vast thousands of pounds he claimed, back to where ever they pay them back to. if he hadnt have resigned he would have been sacked.
this was at around 9.30am this morning, and was all over the news. (remember this time as its relevant) along with another MP up to his neck in it, elliot morley from the labour benches, who was an environmental secretary in the government previously and was also an envoy, who had claimed £800 per month in mortgage interest, for a mortgage he had paid off 18 months earlier.
spin is never far behind though....... at just before 4pm, the BBC news website posted breaking news that elliot morley had been suspended by whips office and the prime minister from the parliamentary labour party, pending an investigation.
within minutes, something happened which ive not seen before... ever!
the labour whip, nick brown MP appeared for an unscripted interview!
he ended the interview (not before he put his foot in his gob) stating that the conservatives were playing politics over the entire expenses row.
shame this, as there is now clear evidence, that its the labour party is spinning like never before, as regards the BBC
ive noticed since gordon brown was put on the back foot and made to say sorry, everytime there is a news summary on a bbc news broadcast or on an update late in the day on bbc news channel, gordon brown's reaction to the crisis is reported in depth and first, cameron's actions are given an "also" 2 minute status after it, creating the impression that brown has acted and cameron has followed his lead.
twice in two days cameron has taken action hours before brown has followed suit, yet the viewer is not being given the full facts in each news report.
a further example is on the bbc news website, in which their comment section on nick robinson's blog posts (he is the BBC chief political commentator, with an obvious bias towards the government) has been closed down to prevent comments from the public after only 8 hours normally robinson's comments to blog is open until the next post is put up, which is often 24 or 48 hours away, so why has it been closed early?
very mysterious yet at the same time.... no surprise at all!
Denz on 05.15.09 @ 01:45 AM CST [link]
Tuesday, May 12th
People in glass houses...
shouldn't throw stones!
Carrie Gracie, a news reader for a few hours every 3 days or so on BBC news 24 channel, got more than she bargained for, when questioning a lord about the whole expenses row.
The angry lord, asked her how much she earned per year, when she revealed the BBC pay her £92,000 per year (HOW MUCH?) she undermined the journalistic argument completely.
this is a major issue, and journalists bias has never been more apparant, when reading nick robinson's "political" blog on the BBC website. selective editing of message boards is one thing, but the fury of many readers of his blog postings has been ferocious over the past few days. If carrie gracie (a smiple but efficient newsreader) is on £92,000 (an MP earns around £66,000 a year) then what are the BBC's lead journalists on?
is nick robinson, robert peston, etc, worth more than £100,000 per year? it doesnt matter one jot about other journalists, as they are known to have political leanings, but the BBC is paid for by the tax payer, by law, so are "there to be shot at"
so where can i see salary details, details of expenses, etc for the BBC? no where! i cant see them! - the BBC are funded by public money by law, but they are designated a private company, so their wage structure etc, are not subject to the freedom of information act...
why is this relevant?
because gordon brown wants MPs salaries and expenses to be handled by a private company, which of course..... does not allow them to be revealed by the freedom of information act!
all political parties, many (but not all) MPs, "within the rules" and "we need to change the rules as they dont work!"
slogans and blather we have heard for months now, gossip and counter gossip, etc, total tosh. ive watched BBC news Sky news, reading various websites, blogs and papers, with no real interest in this subject at all, until that is now.
in every single piece, article, accusation, excuse, etc, not a single time have i heard the only question that the public (and me) NEED an answer to: are the MPs at fault with their claims OR are the office that pays the claims at fault?
the position all party MPs are telling us, is that "under the rules they have only claimed as they are allowed to claim."
one example (out of many): gordon brown has claimed for plumbing work - actual cost was £150 - but the same work was claimed twice
this can go one of two ways: 1, did he make the claim and parliament payed it twice? OR 2, did he claim the £150 (issuing a recipt) then claim it again at a later date?
if its 1 - then he has done nothing wrong at all, the rules need changing but its the office that pays out claims that needs staff changes and sackings. if its 2 - then its fraud! - how did he get back the recipt to provide it again to receive payment twice? - the office that pays expenses, had noted it was a duplicate receipt, so why did they pay it to the claimant? - im assuming the money claimed (as with all the other examples) goes directly to brown (ie, the person claiming it?) in this instance?
under UK law, a defence of ignorance is not an acceptable excuse for breaking the law!
make no mistake, this will effect ALL parties, its only that Labour expenses have been revealed first
the biggest issue (on what has been published so far) i have with jack Straw (labour mp for blackburn) and a government minister. for a number of years, he claimed his council tax back for his second home in blackburn. the problem i have with this is, for years, he was well aware that he didnt pay full council tax on this property, he only paid 50%! it gets worse.... he only paid back the money he'd over claimed, AFTER it was ruled his accounts would be made public!
forgive my uneducated response, but if jack straw has submitted these claims knowingly (which means he had to produce a receipt for the full amount of council tax - how did he get that then?) then he fraudulently claimed for a number of years!
if you claim £100 for your expenses where you work, despite not having any expenses at all for the time period you claimed, what would happen to you? youd more than likely be sacked for gross misconduct!
so why no action like this for MPs?
"its all above board and been done under the rules" is fine if you have a legitimate claim for an expense,but if you are claiming more than once for the same expense, then it is not under the rules and is fraudulent.
it really is that simple..... MPs however, would like the public to believe otherwise!
the BBC just cannot help themselves,no matter how bad the government position, spin spin and more spin comes out of their news reports.
Joanna Lumley collared minister Phil Woolas, in the BBC studios, after yesterday being told that the prime minister himself was personally dealing with the issue, and ONE DAY LATER.. a letter goes out to Gurkhas, saying their applications had been refused.
Gordon Brown, who is dealing with it personally, didnt even know about the letters, so a furious Lumley forced the minister into an impromptu press conference and statement.
those receiving letters will now have their cases "reviewed" sympathetically, the other "review" already promised would now be complete by the end of july (a change from gordon brown's promises yesterday of the end of may) and yet another "review" of the 1500 applicants already, would be completed by the end of may.
the BBC reporter stated "of course the minister cannot be expected to do well up against a national treasure!" utter tosh!
it was the fact that the minister had to answer questions directly, without any room for SPIN
the lesson here is clear.... during election campaigns for european and county council seats next month (and the forthcoming general election) people should gain access to the government ministers and hit them with direct questions with the press there... without a script and stagemanaged answer prepared (as they do at PMQs each week) then they are basically....knackered!
having a natter last night, about general stuff, and the subject of me getting a greenhouse came up. it was suggested that i maybe starting to retire already at the lowly age of 40.
those that know me, know that i have simply changed the way i work: instead of running the 40 hours a week rat run, and sitting in rush hour traffic for hours each week trying to get there and home, i now work probably more than 50 hours a week, for little or no money, but for the benefit of me!
i help people around me, friends, neighbours and family, im learning new skills all the time, rewiring, plastering, building, gardening, cooking, etc. i work part time at a small school, with juniors who have hungry minds, and sometimes too much energy hehe, which keeps me fit and on my toes. my quality of life has improved dramatically! i may well be a boring old fart to many, but everyday is an adventure, i have fun, i meet loads of different people, instead of running around like an idiot on a single day off, i can now organise my time for me and my family.
take getting a greenhouse for example: before, i would have not had the time to visit a stangers home, where a friend is working, to dismantle and take away the greenhouse (saving me £50 in the process) i would be working flat out, travelling miles in rush hour traffic and my one day off would have seen me not get a sleep in, then it would have been spent trecking around sorting what i could in that one day. then back to work, for another 4 or 5 days.
as it stands now, i can go and dismantle the greenhouse in my own time, a casual arrangement with the friend, i can help out if they are busy on a job, im home for tea, i havemore time with my family (which no doubt annoys them) i can do what i want. of course i get help from the family, otherwise i would be back to working full time and running around like an idiot. but the savings we have made are stunning!
saving over £2000 labouring on our home extention saved £1500 adapting our heating and water pipes to fit the building if i complete the wiring on my own i will have saved the family more than £2500 (these are just some of the financial benefits)
i can complete the shopping, all fresh stuff for less than £65 per week, choice cuts of meat (steak, chicken, pork) fresh (in season) fruit and veg, so we are all eating well. there is less waste, saving more money. i have shut down all the bills, before the credit crisis, paying no interest or penalty charges, ive closed my bank account down, which was a constant source of hassles and always seemed to be costing me money. it wasnt easy and took legal arguments and 18months, so that i can pay things off in my time and gave me breathing space
to prove it can work, the sprog and i ran a simple test: we took how much he gets paid, MINUS the essential costs he incurs for working full time. things like clothes, his car costs, food, etc. next we took his total working hours, and added on his travelling time to and from work everyday (over the month) then we divided the money he had left by the realamount of hours involved.
the result was an eye opener! - he lost £1.60 off his hourly rate
so he came back with.... "but you cant do anything without money" i disagree! i dont have money now, so i dont miss it. then again he doesnt meet loads of different people, he passes things everyday without even noticing them, etc. i dont eat processed or fast food anymore, but i dont miss it so it doesnt matter to me.
the point being is that people can work all their lives, then drop down dead at 60..... what have they done with their life? nobody thanks them for it, they dont get a medal or are held in high esteem, etc or what ever. people spend their entire working life paying into pension funds for their retirement, but many dont even reach retirement age! (even more now the age of retirement has been raised) those that do well in retirement, are penalised financially i see people everyday that have worked just a couple of years even though they left school decades earlier, they dont have stress, they dont rush aroundlike idiots, etc.
there has to be more to life? surely we are not put on this planet just to graft and then we die?
each to their own, if people want to graft and live to work, thats fine, but i for one will not be a wage slave ever again!
Denz on 05.07.09 @ 10:39 AM CST [link]
Wednesday, May 6th
when is a policy, not a policy?
.... when its a labour party policy!
over the last 12 years we have seen a complete mishmash of new policies from this government. this is fine..... a new government want to change policies, i can understand that but what i dont like, is the constant statements due to policies failing, and then the government revert back (in part) to the old policy, whilst telling the public "its new"
the tragic case of baby p ed balls has proposed that "we need more openess in the child protection system" - labour are responsible for the service not being accountable on so many levels! it was the labour party who introduced laws that stopped any social care evidence involving children, being used in an open court of law, used in the media, etc. ed balls has proposed two members of the public can sit and scrutinise in cases. the end of 12 years of mass failings, we get a token gesture, a claim of more openess, and thats it. no admittance that the current policies labour introduced are failing!
other instances of this are too numerous to mention here, grant maintained schools - now called academy schools, private companies building hospitals and schools and renting them back to the government - now called "public/private partnerships" and the PFI which will cost the taxpayer billions over many years.
when blair came to power in 1997, he told the country that he wanted britain to beat the centre of europe so we could "shape it to how we wanted" in 2003 blair signed upto european competition policies, that over the longer term (we now know) would close thousands of post offices and cost thousands of jobs... hidden under the spin of labour they cannot stop the closure of post offices even if they wanted to, they signed us up to european laws which tell us we have to do this. hardly "being at the centre of europe to shape it as we want it" is it!
there is a big change coming, the people of britain can no longer accept being misled over what europe controls and what they dont, the arguments against being under european control has been building for years, but its now so bad, people are starting to ask exactly what does parliament now control?
once they realise that it has very little power over us, so in effect the british public cannot change the mps to change policies in the uk, then revolt will follow, and god forbid, possibly a war!
have a quick look through some of these BBC articles, on "saving money" whilst you are reading them, practice a skill, i like to call, what are they selling?
shopping haggling - in this article we have to wait until the fifth paragraph, before the vested interests start to appear. first we have an author selling his book (if you have to buy a book it has already cost YOU money) next we have a property website claiming that tenants were haggling over their tenancy agreements (websites can "pharm" your email and drop cookies to earn commissions on any purchases you make, which involving property/financial matters, start from around £35 per sale, upto £120 per sale) its nothing more than a way of increasing website traffic! finally we have someone developing aprogram algorythm, that "can compare prices for you" hardly a new idea!
3 vested interests in one "article" - not bad
tenants haggling - in this article two property websites (2 vested interests there already) have released surveys on renting a home.
they list percentages and state their opinion as fact, which is utter rubbish! their percentage reports are all based on the rental properties place on their websites... what about all the ones not on their website? they cannot be accurate at all the only time (yes i mean ONLY) time a report like this would be accurate, is when it is a service whereby EVERY company has to put their rental properties on their website.
how do they get companies to put their rentals on their website? by paying for advertising! the websites featured in this article are middle men, and how do middle men make money? - by taking a £300 a month rental, then paying money to the website to advertise... this means the person who owns the property adds on money to cover their costs, which INCREASE the prices for the customer who rents!
marketing greed at its worst! ever heard an estate agent tell you something bad about a house/flat? neither have i...
shame this,as for most of the article, there is no vested interest, then after halfway the website traffic driver appears, a quick look at the website, reveals that their council housing swap for free section is to become a paid service and the website is stocked full of adverts.
a simple website traffic driver it maybe, but its also a vested interest!
independant financial website is advertised and linked to. their "expert" states: "The best bargain is where you pay less for something someone else has paid the full price for." no it isnt! a bargain or good value, is only good value or a bargain when its cost to the customer is based on actual COST to the retailer!
example: many shops have mark ups of more than 40% on the actual cost to them, having a 5% off sale is not good value at all. a shop buys a product for £1 - the shop selling it for £1.10 is offering good value the shops that stock the same product but charge £1.50, with an extra 20p off (normally a % sale price or if you buy two of them) is charging £1.30 IS NOT GOOD VALUE!
this is why supermarkets get my goat. they buy in bulk, yet their prices never reflect the actual cost they pay for the item. everything from tins of beans to plasma televisions, its a marketing exercise to get the most money out of you as possible. same goes for these "news articles" which are nothing more than a way to market you, for more chance of a sale!
Hazel Blears, minister for communities, has finally got something right!
"... the public did not believe many government policy announcements!" she continued, saying, the government had shown a "lamentable" failure to communicate.
10/10 for observation ms blears, what took you so long? a majority of the public have known this for years.
the first problem labour have now, is they are drowning in their own spin. There isnt a day goes by without some "major policy" announcement by Brown. On the economy, Brown announces anything that isnt bad news, darling is left to explain why things are going wrong. How many "major" problems have been announced by a minister, with brown knowhere in sight, and then, like a mr ben cartoon, as if by magic... gordon brown appears! Those around him then proclaim "he's busy getting on with the job and sorting [insert crisis here] out!"
Weeks and sometimes months later, we discover that these major problems, are as a result (in part) of labour's own policies! When Brown became prime minister, he had a popularity bounce, once it became obvious that his popularity was falling back, we suddenly had a series of crisis' where the spin machine went into overdrive, telling the public brown was "getting on with the job" Take the foot and mouth outbreak for example: The problem was all over the papers, it stemmed from a vaccination/research lab that was jointly used by a private company and the government. (failing policy 1 - saving money by combining facilities?) Spin releases insinuated that the private company had not followed correct protocols and safeguards, these appeared all over the press, leading the people to believe that a failing private company might be to blame for the outbreak.
Weeks later, details emerged that warnings were given by those that inspect these sites, upto a year earlier, about damaged premises that needed repairing and problems were being caused by under investment (failing policy number 2 - funding being kept with "talking shops" instead of where it was supposed to be going?) A few papers picked this up as a story, but by now the news had really moved on to other topics. The inquiry reported some months later, about government workers at the lab, pouring the virus down the sink (against recommended protocols), and faulty plumbing work (due to lack of funding) had leaked the contaminated waste into the ground. A cynical person might have grounds to suggest that this was a "staged managed" crisis, to give the impression to the public that brown was a man of action?
Any suggested court action against the private company was dropped as te inquiryfound that they had carried out their work correctly and without error, it was the government controlled sideof the operation that was at fault. Few papers reported this. Has the plumbing been fixed? Why was funding so poor that basic maintainence not kept up with? Why were basic precautionary methods not used in disposing of contaminated waste? Who was sacked for this mistake? (which cost the neighbouring farmers their animals and cost the taxpayer to compensate the farmers) But most importantly, why wasnt the public told the full facts and the outcome of any enquiry/action?
This is just one example in a long line of examples. ive lost count of the mount of times weve been told about imminent terrorist attacks - where people have been arrested in a blaze of media news and spin, then released a few days later without any charges being brought, or charged with minor unrelated offences.
The second problem Labour have - disappearing ministers: when something is improving or doing well, they are everywhere, when something goes majorly wrong, they are knowhere to be seen and are not available to answer questions. on the rare occasion they do appear, from a news studio somewhere else, their response starts with "well what i think the important question is....." they then state a totally different question which allows them to reel of a list of favourable statistics, that are themselves highly questionable.
The third problem Labour have - They are scared of the public! Be honest, when was the last time you saw Gordon Brown walk down a street and was available to be questioned by the public?
I dont mean where they visit a government funded project like a hospital, school, new college, etc. I mean when he walks down a street and calls in at a paper shop, etc, to buy something and chat off the cuff with real people, who do not have to be on their best behaviour or lose funding or their job?
I thought with recent Labour party conferences, at least the public would be able to get close, but the only pictures of gordon brown walking down a street smiling, were from a sealed off street about half a mile away from the public. Even when Obama visited the UK he was kept well away from the public. I am looking forward to a general election campaign, to see exactly what the "unmanaged" public will do/say to labour ministers if they dare to campaign for votes without bouncers being employed.
as with any advertising campaign - the acid test in our house is always: if it/they are that good, why then do they need to advertise? whilst chancellor we had brown calling himself and his office spinning the line, that he "is the iron chancellor" now prime minister proclaims he himself has "a moral compass" what total and utter tosh!
Hazel Blears and her colleagues, deride Boris Johnson (mayor of London) for being a bumbling fool, yet he was voted into his office by more than a million people, he is always accessible to the public, he answered questions unscripted, he put his points of view across and defended them, call him what you like, but he has scruples, ie, he believes in his point of view and attempts to defend that against doubters with conviction and factual argument. Labour's only defence these days, when they get something wrong, is that "the tories wont do any better" because they have no scruples, they are so far removed from actual facts, they use fake statistics and claims, to spin the argument. the public might not be the brightest, but for some time now, they are beginning to see through the hogwash labour come out with.
This labour government are the closing down business on the high street, like woolworths did, they proclaim bargains galore, but when you look closely at the detail/prices, you find that they are more costly than other parties/companies around them.
Denz on 05.03.09 @ 09:10 PM CST [link]
Saturday, May 2nd
liberal democrats
there are many, who claim a coalition government after the next election, would be "good for britain" should labour fail to win a working majority.
a combination of the best of two parties, has always appeared an ideal world, for those that havent seen one before, but beware, the prospect of a government alliance between two parties, often ends in problems and struggles for direction, because of pressure from any one side. the liberal democrats have some very able MPs especially vince cable, but not for his views on the economy, but for his stand in role as leader, which was a joy to watch as he mocked gordon brown week after week at labour's staged managed prime ministers questions.
i was asked by the liberals, in my area, to stand as a candidate for them in council elections awhile back, i politely declined, why? because i judge people/parties/official bodies, etc, on what they have done rather than what they say
in 1997, the conservatives, if they had won the election, would have an unprecedented 5th term in office and would have killed off the labour party for good. so afraid of this was messers blair and brown (their perceived "dream ticket") that secret backroom discussions took place between blair and liberal leader paddy ashdown.
ashdown has revealed in his book, that blair was offering a coalition government of sorts, whereby certain policies would be adopted by a labour government, that favoured the liberal agenda. you can read one such article about his book here what was never revealed, was what the liberals would actually do to earn this benefit.
blair spin is now well known, but at the time he was portrayed as a fresh face sorting out a so called mess, behind the scenes he was misleading and spinning, both the public and the liberal democrats. he wanted to cover all angles, wether labour won a small majority or had to form a coalition government, despite labour having a big poll lead going into the election, kinnock had had the same before major beat him when it came to the vote.
he offered concessions by convincing paddy ashdown, liberal leader, that he shared some of the policy views that the liberals had. all they had to do now was discuss "payment" in areas where labour were the second party to the conservatives, the lib dems would field a paper candidate. in areas where lib dems were the second party, labour would only field a paper candidate.
the aim was simple, dont split the opposition vote which would allow the conservative candidate to win the seat. the BBC/ITV news channels ran reports during the campaign, about the mysterious lack of canvassing by the third party in some seats during the election. this happened in many "swing" seats where a small vote for a different party, would change the party in power there. in one report, a seat where labour finished third at the previous election, the tv news team landed at there campaign office. the outside was plastered with vote labour policies, yet the office was closed and no one was there, despite loking for the labour candidate, they couldnt be found or contacted anywhere, and this just a week or so before a general election! the same thing was happening in the areas where it was a swing seat, only this time with the lib dem candidate mysteriously disappearing.
unfortunately for the lib dems, labour won with a huge majority, it was then and only then that labour MPs voiced objections and any planned deals were swiftly dropped. there was even an inquiry into this, which convenietly received little attention from the press or media.
hindsight is a wonderful thing, but knowing what we know now about how blair and brown have been operating, it comes as no surprise to any people opposed to them.
a coalition government "working together for the country" cannot and will not work, it looks great in principle, but whenever backroom deals are the way to govern, this spells bad news for britain!
Denz on 05.02.09 @ 10:04 AM CST [link]
Friday, May 1st
who is running the country?
democracy is a simple process, you have a parliament, the sitting members have the power to vote and change laws, bring in policies for the benefit of the people, every few years the people get to either vote them back in for another few years or vote for another person to take their place (in the hope that it may change direction or policies being followed) and thats it! .... or it used to be!
in today's world - THERE IS VERY LITTLE DEMOCRACY!
who controls the country when there is a major outbreak of disease in the UK? the world health organisation does! i didnt say i wanted a beaurocratic body based in plush offices in switzerland to control my health in the event of a major outbreak of disease, who did? until the WHO state that countries can start their "action plans" - no country can start them, until the WHO say its a pandemic!
who decides if a serial killer who is in prison, is released back into the community? the european court of human rights i didnt elect them, vote for their members, i didnt give my permission for this, who did? i elect members of the UK parliament to take these decisions, if i dont like their decisions, i can vote them out... how do i vote the people on the court of human rights out if i dont like their decisions? the european court of human rights tell us what will and wont happen, yet i dont know anyone who voted for this!
woolworths (or any other business) is going bust, who is in charge of helping the company and its workers out financially? european law! why? the government we elected is not allowed to give them funds (to help save workers jobs), as this is deemed against competition laws by the european parliament! the car industry is the same, except that that taxpayers have to fund a scheme that gives discounts under "the green environment" banner, which imposes a discount on the car dealership (which means they will put their prices up by a £1000 to avoid losing money) who signed away our powers to europe and more importantly, why did they do this? if we go against the eurpean laws, taxpayers have to pay huge fines.. its ridiculous!
there are endless examples of powers being taken away from the parliament we elect, im sick of hearing a plan or proposal, only to find the argument that stops it, is "we are not allowed to do it under someone elses laws..."
this, hazel blears take note, is why people are switched off to uk politics, its nothing to do with "a recession will get people connecting with the political process" whats the point of electing an MP when that MP and its government cannot do anything because its ruled by a body or court thats not elected and is hundreds of miles away in another country!
i find it amazing that we dont have riots here in the UK, when an english/scottish/welsh person wants to bring in a product into the UK from europe, they are faced with paying taxes to make it the same price as it is if they bought it in the UK, (the uk person pays) when a ruling is required on bank charges it takes years to sort out what was already a legal precedent in uk law, and once again the uk taxpayer has to wait, losing money in the process. when the banking system collapses, due to regulation failures, that threatens the big money going into these unelected rule makers, oh how they call for huge levels of bail outs, which once again come from the taxpayer...
it sucks! 100% sucks! i dont work all my life to pay money into a selection of ruling bodies that i dont have any say over, i have just one vote at a general election - i use this to either agree with the way the country is run or disagree with the way the country is run. if all those i can vote for are tied by the same rules, made by some official body hundreds of miles away in other countries, which taxpayers have to fund, then i dont have a vote at all do i!
is there any political party out there that will give the people the option to regain control of our/this country? i dont want someone to argue and discuss our case in european parliament, only to be hopelessly outvoted because there are thousands of euro mps from 27 countries around the continent. its costing the UK taxpayer too much money in their everyday taxes - its no good supporting a major UK party that has only 30 euro MEPs, only to have them outvoted unless they make concessions or join another huge group of MEPs from other countries or lose the vote instantly - i dont want a non elected body in a foreign country in charge of my health, despite taking vast amounts of the UK taxpayer's money every year
i dont want special favours or rights, i just want our democracy back, we have one vote in a general election, i want that vote to decide who sits in westminster parliament, that takes ALL decisions on how we live!
today, the people of the UK have less "equality" than ever before: this is despite more taxpayer money than ever before being spent to ensure we have equality.
as a person: - i am not allowed to express a view in public, with two or more people of the same view, without prior permission from the authorities, or i could be arrested and charged using anti terrorism legislation. this could be on any issue, for example a complaint about having to work many years longer for a state pension, or the lack of an NHS dentist in my area, etc. - i cannot voice my disagreement on say traffic wardens issuing a ticket on a stranger's car, if i do, i will myself receive a ticket and fine for doing so. (if im sat in a car obviously) - i can put up a notice in my window stating "no cold callers or salesmen" but noone takes any notice of it, and the trespass laws no longer allow me to prosecute those doing it. - if someone breaks into my home, and falls through a hole in the floor, the illegal entrant can take me to court.
as a customer: - if i walk into greggs on a wednesday afternoon, i have to pay more for a loaf of bread than an elderly person next to me, as they are retired and receive a 10% discount - a new customer with my insurance company, receives a lower price for a years car insurance, than a customer who is renewing their policy - the price of my insurance, changes depending on what job i have. a company director will often pay less for their insurance than a shop worker (for example) - the same inequality applies as regards age or gender. - no one household pays the same price for their home energy: two houses on the same street, with the same gas company, will pay differing costs for their gas, even if they use identical amounts of gas. there is inequality in the way people pay their bills, metered and direct debit will pay differing prices, monthly and quarterly payers also pay differing amounts. - two people buy the same washing machine from an electrical retailer, on the same day at the same time: one will pay £300 (for example) the other one will pay £285... because person two has a discount code which person one doesnt. - using public transport, a pensioner goes free on public transport, i have to pay increased costs to fund this. more inequality. - one side of a street pays a price for their water bills, the otherside of the street (using the same pipes to and from the houses) even if they use less water, often pay more.
why?
as a customer.. we are often saying things are a rip off, and we are mostly right. a washing machine company want to attract more business...
they decide to offer a voucher code to boost online sales - in an ideal world, the price will remain the same and the customer using the code gets a genuine discount, whilst the customer who doesnt use the code pays the same amount. but it never works like this!
the company increase the price of their washing machine by 5% - people buying it now pay more after a few weeks, the company then issue the 5% discount code - some use the code (getting it at the normal price) - but those that dont still pay the 5% higher price. the company boosts its sales with the 5% code as it wanted (keeping the same profit margin) - then the discount code is removed and the price is cut back to what it was originally, often advertised in a "sale"
sale, discount code or normal price.... the customer loses out. how can this be stopped? * only allow "a sale" price to be used compared to a price the product has been for 3 months * ban the use of "upto xx% off" in sales * if a discount code is offered online, then this also has to be applied at the checkout for instore customers. end the inequality for those that do not use the internet, its not as hard to do as companies pretend it is. * extreme case: force shops to list their price to the customer and also have them display the profit margin on a product... customers can then view the real value of products in shops and decide for themselves if its good value! if you see a TV where one shop is making 45% profit on a sale, and the same tv in another shop maybe £5 more but they are only making 20% profit... the individual can make an informed decision on where to buy plus they have more leverage on asking for a discount. (dont panic, fairness like this will NEVER happen)
if asked, i would guess that most people in the UK just want to be treated equally, they will still buy things, they would like to be able to trust the law to make sure they werent being penalised for not knowing about a discount code or fake sale prices, when they buy.
Denz on 05.01.09 @ 01:35 AM CST [link]
