I suspect this is a much less biased report of the same debate
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Max777
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 71
0 miles · Tyne and Wear
Forum
Quote by MidsCouple24
But for me the word professional derives from those ancestors of ours that followed a recognised profession and I'm not in one of those, and therefore i wouldn't describe myself as professional.
:thumbup:
Which is how the word is defined in my link..........which you said is very open to interpretation
Quote by MidsCouple24
It's good but it's not Carling
Very open to interpretation I think.
I was once a Professional soldier but did not consider myself a Professional if you know what I mean, I earned my main income from being a soldier as opposed to the TA who normally have a full time job and work occasionally as a soldier.
I did a course (P Company) in order to qualify in my work but am still as thick as pig shit and whilst I gained a lot of life experience what I did does not qualify me to call myself educated or expert in any field.
I have had a good life, done some things I wish I hadn't, achieved some goals others might never achieve, experienced many things that still amaze me to this day, seen many things I wish I hadn't and many things I am glad I did.
I don't need to be a Professional to be happy in my life or impress others.
That's fine but no need to have a go at those who refer to themselves as being professional. What harm is it doing to you as how they describe themselves?
Quote by deancannock
I think all this stems from the word professional. People do put this on there ads and profile all the time.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but to be professional means to get paid for doing some work . Therefore you can be a professional cleaner, dustbin man, or a professional solicitor or bank manager !! So by saying your professional simply means you have a JOB !!! Does seem a silly thing to put really !!!
You're wrong!
Quote by Tania
I hate airlines that discriminate according to size mainly because they do not charge any less for kids who weigh very little indeed and eat very little or not at all. (A child over 2 has to have his/her own seat and pays as much as an adult.)
What makes flights expensive, is not the cost of fuel but the cost of various taxes that they add onto the cost of flight - sometimes it is more than half. It is sickening that you have to pay airport taxes for some country's airport that was built years ago and has been repaid and then there is the security surcharge but nothing is changed security-wise, they just make our lives more difficult.
Not so.
The largest chunk of the so called 'taxes' is in fact a fuel surcharge charged by the airlines. These were first introduced a dozen or so years ago when fuel prices started to soar. Airlines leave these costs 'below the line' so they can claim that their fares are ridiculously low. This is a nonsense as fuel is an operating cost to the airline and should be included in the fare
The other major tax is the Air Passenger Duty (APD) which is the government tax. Security taxes comprise only a very small proportion of the overall tax figure.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Well they can adopt some of the tactics they used on smoking can't they, big health warnings on wrappers, make the salt/fat warnings large enough to see, I can't read it on half the stuff I buy it is so small, regulate advertising better, allowing companies to say "approved by mums" has to be wrong.
But the big warnings on cigarette packets obviously don't work with you, so would bigger warnings on fast food be any more effective?
Quote by Lizaleanrob
Personally I don't think the amount we have sent/pledged/spent at this time to aid the people of the disaster is anywhere near enough.
We have funds held in accounts specifically for this purpose, our aid fund is there to give aid around the world when needed, it's use at this time will have no effect on the UK economy.
These "foreigners" need our help and should get it.
I also doubt that the report I heard on Channel 4 News was the result of FB or Twitter, I am still more inclined to believe it was an error by an individual or individuals at Channel 4.
I don't doubt that some would then use that error to their own needs and for racist gain.
it doesn't matter how much is in the Kitty mids I'm afraid the likes of the Philippines do not have the mineral rich resources needed for a bigger donation.
£10 million seems to be in line with the likes of Japan and Australia and a little less than the USA. How much are other European countries donating?
I did read yesterday that China had donated a whopping £125K!
Retail travel companies, ie High Street travel agents can only dream of achieving 5% net profit and I'm sure there are other retailers that are in a similar position.
Have a look at this link re energy company profits, this suggests that the overall net profit ( ie wholesale + retail) is about 7%
We are going to have to get used to paying higher energy bills as long as we have to import the bulk of our energy. Increased demand from the likes of China, India, Brazil etc will only push costs in one direction.
In edit. I've just had a quick look at some retail giants figures
These are the pre tax profits based as a percentage:
M&S 5.6
John Lewis 2.3
Tesco 3. 0
Sainsbury 3.4
Morrisons 4.8
It would appear that a 5% net profit is eminently viable.
Have a look at this link re energy company profits, this suggests that the overall net profit ( ie wholesale + retail) is about 7%
We are going to have to get used to paying higher energy bills as long as we have to import the bulk of our energy. Increased demand from the likes of China, India, Brazil etc will only push costs in one direction.
In edit. I've just had a quick look at some retail giants figures
These are the pre tax profits based as a percentage:
M&S 5.6
John Lewis 2.3
Tesco 3. 0
Sainsbury 3.4
Morrisons 4.8
It would appear that a 5% net profit is eminently viable.
Quote by Gerty35
With the talk of landslides, my issue will always be why should one party with a parliamentary majority (but not a majority of the voters) dictate policy to everyone.
Because that's the way our electoral system works, it's based on the number of parliamentary seats gained not overall number of votes gained.
Quote by deancannock
Interesting to see what a small independent supplier thinks...and said to the MP's today. Wholesale gas price cheaper now than in 2009 !!!!!
" the businesses practices of the "Big Six" was called into question by small scale competitor Ovo Energy.
Managing director Stephen Fitzpatrick told MPs he "can't explain" the price rises being imposed because his company was buying gas at a cheaper price - 5p a therm less - than it had in 2009.
Loyal bill-payers are charged are a far higher rate, in some cases £200 more, and loaded with environmental costs than those who switch but the companies responsible go "unchallenged" by Ofgem, he said.
"It looks to me like a lot of energy companies, a significant number of the Big Six, are charging the maximum price they feel they can get away with to the customers that they feel will not switch under any circumstances and then maintaining the illusion of competitive pricing with tariffs targeted towards a very small number of relatively well-engaged customers," he told MPs.
"In the case of npower, which is the worst offender, historically and today the price differential is about 16%, which is about £200."
He accused British Gas of being the "most active" in terms of running a dedicated "win back team" whose sole job was to call up customers that were leaving to say 'now we can cut your bill'.
"When this kind of behaviour is allowed to go unchallenged, and an ex-monopoly advantage that the Big Six have, is allowed to go unchallenged by Ofgem, then you will never get effective competition.
"If you don't have effective competition in a retail market then you are always going to be trying to find out where the money has gone and time and time again you will hear very clever, very complex, very confusing answers and you will never get to the bottom of it.
"Effective competition is the only solution to lower bills."
Mr Fitzpatrick has previously suggested that the larger energy companies pay over the odds for energy when their retail arms buy from their own wholesale divisions - a claim the other energy bosses denied today. "
As TooHot stated above, methinks Stephen Fitzpatrick is being selective with his facts....he wouldn't be trying to talk his business up would he?
Have a look at the following chart of wholesale gas prices on this link
You will see that there was a massive spike in wholesale prices in 2008, which retail prices did not match. It's probably fair to say that Ovo we're paying more for Gas in 2009 based on the prices throughout 2008. Then again they may have better buying power now than they had back in 2009.
This link provides some very interesting information, comparing the energy and fuel costs within the EU countries.
As TooHot has said above, the UK has some of the lowest energy costs within the EU. I believe that the VAT on energy bills in the UK is also lower than most UK countries but even allowing for this, the UK's energy costs still compare favourably with most other EU countries.
The one thing that stands out for me is that diesel is cheaper than unleaded petrol in most of the other EU countries, which to me confirms that drivers of diesel vehicles in the UK are being ripped off.
Quote by MidsCouple24
I hate and resent boundary changes, especially when they are introduced merely to assist parties gaining more votes rather than for a reason to benefit the region.
I was born in Lancashire under the Red Rose, and I am proud of my County, it's heritage and it's history, then up comes some pompous twat and tells me, no, we moved the border, your from Cumbria now.
Will they pay for my "Lancashire" tattoo to be removed ? would I let them, no I was born in Lancashire and will never think of myself as Cumbrian or anything else.
It is just more evidence of the way Governments think nothing of our heritage and our history and why they are happy to give control of it and us to people in Europe and elsewhere, and all the time, telling us of the history of the House of Lords and House of Commons and the right of power the Government and Lords have.
The Tory proposal to change electoral boundaries was due to the fact that they proposed to reduce the number of MPs by 10%....a move I would have thought most would welcome. This was included in their election manifesto in 2010.
Quote by tyracer
recent boundary changes mean the tories put themselves in a stronger position anyway.
all crooked two faced gits doesnt matter which side you vote for.
they do not represent us at all. self interest.
The proposed boundary changes put forward by the coalition government were blocked by the House of Lords and the next review has been delayed until 2018.
Quote by MidsCouple24
IF Scotland votes for independence, Labour will lose (based on current figures) 41 seats in the next UK election, because those 41 seats are in Scotland.
The Liberal Democrats will lose 11 seats.
The Conservatives will lose 1 seat.
Were that applied to Parliament today this would be the breakdown of parties (the main parties)
Conservatives would go from 303 seat to 302 seats
Labour would go from 257 seats to 216 seats
Liberal Democrats would go from 56 seats to 45 seats
This could have a major affect on Party politics in the UK, Labour may never again be able to challenge the Conservative Party and become the ruling party
The Lib Dems would be even less of a voice.
If Scotland had voted for independence before the last election the Tories would NOT have had to form a coalition with the Lib Dems and my never need to again!
So if the Tories felt that their position was unassailable would they treat us and their policies different, I think they would
IN 1997, Labour won 418 seats, the Tories 165 and LibDems 46. In 2001 the figures were 413,166 and 52. In 2005 the figures were 355, 198 and 62.
In all of those years, Labour would have had a majority even allowing for the Scottish seats. Scotland voting for Independence will not be the end of party politics as you suggest.
Quote by Lizaleanrob
yes, i know i drink too much, but i spend many hours in a gym and my health is good. my helath check confirms this.
but....................
be honest, today we had two bottles of wine (one with the meal, the other a little later throughout the evening) a small (ish) baileys and a small (ish) islay malt whisky.
the doctor, who we know well, says that ok, due to our lifestyle, that's ok. but do we regret what we drink?
how may units a week folks, and be honest!
but you also wrote this
Quote by capricornten
Damn! I actually agree with one of the alleged godlike's. So much for my rebel qualifications.
Exactly, why shouldn't you smoke? it is legal and smokers are not second class citizens. Don't understand why people think smokers should not have the same access to the NHS as others, yes it's a life style choice but so is playing rugby or squash and we don't object to them being patched up.
A lot of people do want to give up though Mids, when they do it can be very difficult and Fobs, hardly a brand new cutting edge ad is it?
I go into a lot of elderly peoples homes with my job (not in a criminal way)and so many ask me if I mind if they smoke? It's there home and how can I say I mind?
PS, I don't drink and am well known for driving very slowly, I do like a pie though, perhaps I should not eat them in public places? perhaps I should be more aware of people inhaling second hand blackberry and apple.
so do you drink too much or not at all
Sorry Rob but Capricornten didn't say what the quotation says he said....it was actually herts_darlings1. All Capricornten is guilty of is buggering up the quotation
Quote by tyracer
i am not on facebook or twitter.
my life is private and i do not wish to tell the world what im up to.
years ago someone would have said 'mind your own fucking business' or slapped you one for being a nosy bugger.
and to be honest most people who use such media paint a false image of themselves.
In my experience, most of the people on Facebook paint an amazingly ACCURATE portrait of themselves!
Quote by Lizaleanrob
in this day and age of computers and data bases, a matched name, dob and national insurance number should be as good as anything to confirm that we are eligible or not for treatment on the NHS.
That's fine for UK citizens Rob but those from the EU and other countries having reciprocal agreements with the UK won't be on a UK database or have national insurance numbers.
you will not get treated in certain countries in the eu with out your e111 card,
there are even certain french hospitals that will not treat you if you are not carrying your card
so no European health card no treatment!! this is also void i would add if there is no passport to back this up
AFAIK the only treatment treaty we have is within the European union Max
See the link below for non EEA countries with reciprocal agreements.
Quote by Lizaleanrob
in this day and age of computers and data bases, a matched name, dob and national insurance number should be as good as anything to confirm that we are eligible or not for treatment on the NHS.
That's fine for UK citizens Rob but those from the EU and other countries having reciprocal agreements with the UK won't be on a UK database or have national insurance numbers.
Quote by Too Hot
I really don't see why anyone is getting their knickers in a twist about this.
Hospitals just need to employ a couple of accounts clerks whose job it is to visit each patient and complete a treatment payment form. They check identification and if needed, verify insurance details for foreign visitors. This is exactly how it happens in the USA and is neither intrusive, nor unpleasant.
Of course, if we had ID cards, the whole process would be much, much easier.
Personally I really do struggle to understand why anyone would object to this most basic and fundamental piece of NHS auditing that would be neither expensive, nor difficult to implement. We would and do not accept people getting benefits or services at the expense of others in any other walk of life... So why accept this?
I think a couple of accounts clerks is being very optimistic. A &E Departments alone would require a lot more than a couple, never mind a whole hospital.
The US hospitals have to do this as patients are covered by medical insurance. What would happen to those with false IDs and those without insurance?
Quote by Geordiecpl2001
Strange how Politicians in the West complain about the Chinese censoring Google etc. Yet today David Cameron wants Facebook to censor videos !!
But to be honest, we DO need censorship ! Problem is, who decides what to censor ? That's always been the problem ! Maybe when the Chinese are fed up with just buying our power and water industries they might buy some of our Media outlets and introduce their values to the editorial staff !
We rightly do not allow Child Porn, (and I think more could be done to stop it). And to my mind Facebook allowing beheading videos is just wrong. But Facebook say its OK as long as it is condemned by the poster / viewers, so what next ? Badger-baiting, as long the poster / viewer watches it then complain about it ?
John
So if you believe that Facebook is wrong, what's the problem with Cameron believing the same?
There will be people with serious health problems that are uninsurable. Look over the pond to the USA.
You can't really equate the cost of private medical care in the UK today to the cost of a wholly insured health service of tomorrow. They are different beasts.
According to figures I can find, the NHS spending per capita was just under £2000 in 2010-11. What makes you think that insurance companies would charge anything less than this?
UK Citizens can apply for a free European Health insurance Card which provides state medical health at a reduced cost or for free in all EU member states and some non EEA countries. These are reciprocal agreements.
You can't really equate the cost of private medical care in the UK today to the cost of a wholly insured health service of tomorrow. They are different beasts.
According to figures I can find, the NHS spending per capita was just under £2000 in 2010-11. What makes you think that insurance companies would charge anything less than this?
UK Citizens can apply for a free European Health insurance Card which provides state medical health at a reduced cost or for free in all EU member states and some non EEA countries. These are reciprocal agreements.
Quote by MidsCouple24
My smoking has never cost the NHS a penny
How can you be sure? There may well be people that have been affected by passive smoking.
At a bar on Saturday night it wasn't my smoking that made walking into the gents like walking into a paddling pool, nor was it the reason the toilet and walls to be covered in puke
No but it did make non smokers go home with clothes and hair that smelled like stinking ashtrays and God knows what effect passive smoking has had on non smokers. Roy Castle springs to mind.
Binge drinking and obesity are accepted by society as "the norm", everyday life, smoking has made me a pariah subjected to abuse with people thinking it is acceptable to ridicule me as a smoker saying I do it to "look glamorous"
Does society accept binge drinking and obesity to be the norm? I think not
Quote by MidsCouple24
So channel 4 says the Government have it wrong, the figure for people coming to the UK is a maximum of £300,000 a year, ok it is not the billions the government say it is but I am sure the NHS could do without that £300,000 million bill anyway.
And what about the illegal immigrants living here, would they be able to use the NHS if some form of check/insurance policy was put into place, sure they could get insurance, but then the NHS would be getting the funds for treating them wouldn't it
Of course if you don't have insurance the simple remedy is to chat with your neighbours and borrow their ID, choose a neighbour that is of the Muslim religion and wear a niqab for your appointment :) anonymity has it's advantages :) I for one have many muslim friends who would help me out.
The last government figure I heard mention was £500 million
You state 2 figures, £300 K and £300,000 million,
there's a slight difference between the two! So called "health tourists" coming to this country for treatment are unlikely to be able to take out insurance if they have pre existing illnesses.
Under your proposed scheme, what would happen to people who are employed and therefore not eligible for benefits but have pre existing health problems and are therefore not insurable?
You seem certain that your scheme would work. Have you any idea of the cost of insurance and the amount of income tax/national insurance saved per UK individual?
Under your proposed scheme, what would happen to people who are employed and therefore not eligible for benefits but have pre existing health problems and are therefore not insurable?
You seem certain that your scheme would work. Have you any idea of the cost of insurance and the amount of income tax/national insurance saved per UK individual?
