How to extend a badly positioned condesing boiler flue?

[Andy Hall]

Nonsense. There is seldom a justification for increased regulation and legislation and this is certainly not one of them.

The problem is where does one draw the line? To check on every detail would require a huge army of inspectors and administrators. This isn't wealth creating, and too large a proportion of the workforce is in administrative work as it is.

I'm not in favour of parasite lawyers making money, but if heavy fines and compensation were awarded against errant construction companies then they would take notice and control their activities rather better.

I don't disagree with that, but it should be the responsibility of the construction company. It is with every other product that the consumer buys.

Since a lot of problems with a house don't appear for a period of time, then a proper guarantee covering most aspects of the house should be required and implemented properly, not the weak NHBC thing that we have today.

Perhaps there should be an escrow system for the last X% of the purchase money of a new property. In other words the purchaser pays most of the money to the developer in the usual way but X% goes into a separate account, not under either party's control for a period of say a year. At the end of the year, the purchaser signs a release for the money if all is satisfactory and the developer receives this plus any interest. Having the money outside the direct control of either party makes sure that it is available as long as the contract conditions have been met.

That's a separate issue. There's nothing wrong with making profits.

Numbers of houses built is a separate issue to their quality, except in that large building rates exacerbate the skills shortage which hardly helps quality either.

The real problems are threefold:

- Customers wanting things on the cheap

- Customers not complaining when things are wrong

- Lack of encouragement and incentive for young people to go into the construction industry because the idiot in No. 10 wants them to go to "universities".

I was.

Nothing wrong with that.

or that.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

and this is certainly one of them.

You can adopt the German method, of qualified builders, instead of any Tom , Dick or Harry doing it. If you do crap, and proven, then you are suspended or stuck off and you can't work on building.

No. They just dissolve the company and start under a different name. The usual palaver. And the cowboys reign supreme.

It is now, but the cowboyism continues.

A house is quite different to a toaster.

Proper guarantees should be in place, they are not. NHBC is for the interest of the builders. They formed it.

A similar thing happens for the roads, etc. Developers pay up front to the council in some cases, so that they can't dissolve a company and not finish the roads and pavements stealing a wedge.

Nothing wrong at all. But when you look at the state of the quality of design and construction it makes you weep at the money these cowboys are making. Watch Dog exposing 60 houses of Westbury, supposed to be a better builder, with roofs not nailed down. Westbury would not recheck all 60 homes; look at the profits they made last year and they will not recheck roofs that are known to be faulty. That is just the tip of the iceberg too. One poster here said roofs not being nailed down is the norm.

Then still 50% of new homes still have old fashioned tanks in the loft too, need stupid power shower pumps so they don't have to run around the shower to get wet.

The way you defend cowboyism and the vast profits they make, leads me to believe you may have a cowboy streak in you too.

UK houses are "CHEAP"!!!!!! What world are you in????

Many problems are underlying and are potential time bombs. The after sales service in most cases, as the consumer TV progs show, is sparse or none existent.

We need people to go to universities, as history will show that a highly educated population always prospers. You are full of petty snobbery as you don't want your Little Middle Englander kids being in the same uni as your kids. Pathetic!

There is a long waiting list for plumbing and heating courses which rubbishes your petty snob views.

I thought so.

There is. The land should not be in the hands of few unproductive parasitic few who make billions by taking rent. The land already belongs to the people. It is called sovereignty.

They can be here, but they are NOT UK billionaires as the ST Rich list say they are. Strangely, they list the Irish rich, north and south, and do not list those who made there money outside of Ireland yet list foreign billionaires as being British: Reusling (sp), Abromovich, The Indian steel billionaires, etc.

Take these people off the list and the rich list and it is spattered with unproductive landowning parasites. Many of the landowners are worth a hell of a lot more than what they are, the royal family comes to mind. The problem is that it is near impossible to assess their wealth, which is not the case in proper countries. Large landowners, and the aristocracy, have always hid their real wealth, as Kevin Cahill revealed when they suppressed a land census in the late 1800s, because the census reveal how much land they actually owned.

[Andy Hall]

Not in my view

That could be a reasonable idea.

Small companies may do that, but the large firms certainly don't

Yes, but still something that one buys.

That was the point that I made.

Generally methods with financial downside or upside work the most effectively on businesses.

That is not a measure of the quality of a house, just an indication of what is used. Both mains pressure and gravity water systems have their advantages and disadvantages and there are good and bad implementations of both.

I'm not defending cowboyism at all. I simply said that it is reasonable to make a good profit. If that didn't happen then there is no incentive for a construction firm to build. They aren't in business for love.

I know. The point is that people get what they are willing to pay for.

Which is why I suggested something with financial rather than legislative teeth.

Yes but that notion does not extend to 50% of the population going to "university" as Mr EU Turn seems to think. There's nothing wrong with higher education for a broad section of the population as such - it is question of appropriateness. Not everybody can benefit from an academic university education, so the idea of dropping the barrier until they can makes no sense at all.

That is a completely confused sentence.

This has nothing to do with snobbery at all.

The real question is why is there a proposal to bribe 16 year olds to stay on in education?

If plumbing and heating have suddenly become so popular, where are all the people who are passing?

I'm not wasting time on that silly nonsense again.

So what...

It's nobody else's business.

So a small number of people have a lot of assets. That always has been the case and likely always will be.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

You are.

Has someone done a study to assess what %age need to go to uni? Those who are against are mainly Little Middle Englanders.

What a stupid comment.

It has.

We need a highly educated population. Graduates tend to be into positions of power. If many of them are from the working class a form of meritocracy will prevail, and hopefully these people will get rid of the public school/Oxbridge self interest group.

Filling the skills gap.

1% of the population owning 70% of the land is not nonsense at all. We are the only major country in the world not to re-distribute land and it shows.

You can't be that dumb. The riches people in the UK take RENT and become billionaires to the detriment of the people as a whole. That is obvious.

It is. Every other sane country thinks so too.

That can be reversed and measures taken to prevent it occurring again.

It always will be with brainwashed people like you around. These parasites must love the likes of you.

[Andy Luckman]

You really are a hysterically funny little Trot aren't you? I have your "gems" killfiled on my works account and I see there is no good reason not to do the same from here.

[Andy Hall]

I talked only about profit. You raised the subject of cowboyism.

Not really - only realists.

It isn't at all. Not everybody will benefit from an academic university education. That's obvious because not everybody is academically gifted. Some people are gifted in other areas, but it doesn't make them less valuable members of society.

The problem lies in the misguided belief that academic education and institutions delivering it should be delivered to everybody or at least a substantial proportion. That is plainly impossible, because only a small percentage actually *do* benefit from a high level academic education.

The mistake is in not accepting that but in dropping standards to make it happen. It does a disservice to the students and reduces skill levels. Not what should be happening at all.

The even bigger mistake is in arguing that this has to do with snobbery and elitism. It has nothing to do with those at all. You can have excellence in particle physics and excellence in carpentry. Both are important to society as a whole.

Therein lies the inverted snobbery and chip on shoulder mentality that does nobody any good.

Graduates end up in positions of power in situations where they also have leadership or other skills appropriate to that position.

It isn't a class issue at all apart from in the minds of people who choose to have that view for their own political reasons.

I'm not at all dumb.

People own property. They let it to others and charge a rent. It's simple return on investment.

So some people have more than others. That's how it is.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

Since when have Little Middle Englanders been realists.

It is.

They must be academically gifted to be accepted for uni. Can't you figure that out?

The idiotic view you have. What you are proposing is that working class kids should be plasterers and the middle class go to uni.

Quite right too.

Another meaningless empty statement.

No proof of this.

University is geared in the UK to make you think, not supply you with craft skills.

It is, as Little Middle Englanders are obsessed with petty snobbery.

But you want the carpenter to come from the council estate. How dare they sent him to a uni with your kids in!

It is. Those who bring it up are all brainwashed right wing Tory types like you.

You must be, you can't see it.

Land is NOT property, the bricks on it are. Also the parasites own most of the land. Read:

Who Owns Britain by Kevin Cahill The Theft of the Countryside by Marion Shoard Whose Land is it Anyway? by Richard Norton-Taylor

We know how it is and you think it is right that we are ripped off by a few. What is so astounding is that you like being ripped off.

To illustrate the brutality of power in relation to land-ownership, the period 1990 to 1997 when over 5,000,000 families had their homes repossessed by mortgage-lenders, while in the same period the 157,000 wealthiest families in the UK received up to £21 billion in subsidies.

[Andy Hall]

I wouldn't know - I've never met one.

He's behind you.

If you lower the standard enough, anybody can be academically "gifted". The trouble is that it is then meaningless unles your objective is to be able to say that X% of the population went to university. This is the obvious case with TonyB where perception is far more important than reality.

I didn't bring the class aspect into this - you did.

There is no reason why people from one class or background or another should be more or less academically able or more or less practically able.

It isn't though. It's a con because the only possible way to achieve it is a lowering of standards.

16 year olds in large numbers don't want it and are having to be bribed.

If somebody is presented with academic teaching or opportunity to learn that is beyond their capability, what possible benefit can it be to them.

I happen to be reasonably able academically. I can't play football or plaster walls to save my life. People make perfectly good livings out of both of these.

There's no need for any - it's blindingly obvious.

As it should be. So what then is the point in subjecting people who don't have the intellectual skills to benefit from it to something that is inappropriate for them.

I used to be subjected to football and cross country running at school. I hated both and they didn't benefit me one iota because I was useless at them.

Others did well at that but were hopeless at calculus.

I haven't said that at all - it is purely a figment of your inverted imagination.

I don't mind where the carpenter comes from nor the particle physicist. It doesn't matter as long as they can do the job and are happy doing it.

First of all I didn't bring up the issue of alleged Oxbridge self interest - you did, because for some reason it is one of your hobby horses. Secondly, none of the other descriptions that you made are applicable to me so that statement is meanigless.

It depends on whether you believe that there is something wrong with people being rich, owning property, letting it and taking rent. If you do, then I can understand your perspective. I don't think that there is anything wrong with it, so that's the end of it as far as I am concerned.

I don't have the time to waste and split hairs over land and property. If somebody holds the title to a piece of land, with or without buildings, that is that as far as I cam concerned.

I don't consider myself to be ripped off in this regard so it doesn't cause me the angst that you seem to have.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

Proof of lowered standards please.

Tory thinking is class ingrained.

That is true, then why is it that Oxbridge has 50% of its students from fee paying schools.

It is.

You have an assumption that those going to uni are not capable. Tory class badgering again.

The last three are mainly working class.

Proof please.

You have an assumption that those going to uni are not capable. Tory class badgering again.

Made you fit.

How many played for Chelsea?

You can't see the wood for the trees.

Clear implication.

Tory class badgering wants the working class away from their lot.

And true it is too.

Nothing wrong with that. Landowners are rich through rip off. They hold the country back.

You still don't get it. Only a few own the vast majority of the land. Our land, as we own it as we have sovereignty over it.

You shiuld, as you know very littel of what hold the country back.

Because you don't know. You have been subject to propaganda over your lifetime, sucked it in and love it. That is very sad.

[IMM]

Please killfile me Mr Little Middle Englander. Do it ASAP!

[Andy Hall]

Search on Google. There are dozens of references

Really? I've found people of all political persuasions in all walks of life so I can only assume that you don't get out much......

What does that have to do with anything, except that fee paying schools often, but don't always produce students with more academic qualifications.

It's behind you.

Nothing to do with that. If somebody doesn't have academic ability, they don't have academic ability and that's that. Class, if indeed it exists at all, has nothing to do with it.

Only in your stereotyped view of life

Search on Google.

I've made no such assumption. Intellectual and academic ability are not related to "class" or to political persuasion, although I might be persuaded otherwise when I read some of your postings on the matter.

I had plenty of other ways to do that.

Who knows?

I think that that is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

There must be some very odd things going on in your head if you were able to reach that conclusion from what was said.

What on earth are you talking about?

Outdated ideas of a class system and people with chips on their shoulders do that.

Ownership is defined by who holds the title. End of story.

I don't have the time to waste on reflecting on nonsense like that. If you want to, then that is up to you. I'm not interested.

The significant ripping off that is going on is excessive taxation and government intervention. .andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

That is all opinion.

Yes. Their main aim is a ruling class of people and the upkeep of the system that maintains this system: fee paying schools, Oxbridge, aristocracy, land being in the hands of the privileged few, royal family, etc. A system not based on merit. That is abundantly clear. Only a fool cannot see it.

To make this exist you need class levels. You also need a propaganda machine to make those at the lower levels accept this absurd retrograde system.

See above re: fools not seeing it.

If they don't, they don't go. Simple.

British society is ingrained with class. It permeates most of society. How many council estate kids have ever been an ambassador? Only fool cannot see it.

It is a fact.

I see only Tory opinions.

How can you be useless at running? Even if you come last you still run and it makes you fit.

Not my head, my reading. What you write.

You have no idea of how British society is structured. I have given you a few books to read. Please read them. Any problems get back to me and I will clarify.

No. Ownership is the Crown, which filters down to the state. Title gives you permission to use the land.

I repeat. I will write is slowly as I know you can't think and read fast.

" You still don't get it. Only a few own the vast majority of the land. Our land, as we own it as we have sovereignty over it."

This acts as a lead weight around the necks of the British people.

You still haven't a clue how Britiain works.

This dissipates your brainwashed perception. Myths exploded.

1) CHALLENGING THE MYTHS: WHAT IS THE COUNTRYSIDE FOR? (LONDON, 4/12/01)

Chris Baines, Vice President of the Wildlife Trusts; & Trustee, National Heritage Memorial Fund Alan Evans, Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Reading

Alan Evans argued that the term 'countryside' is loaded with a specific meaning. It implies a pastoral, agricultural landscape - farmed and pretty. Equating the countryside with farming has led to special treatment for the agricultural industry. Farmers are perceived to be the custodians or 'stewards' of the countryside, which results in an acceptance of subsidies to the industry and its special treatment in the planning system. A set of myths help underpin the view that agriculture should be financially supported and left free from aspects of planning control.

1. The first is the myth of 'over-urbanisation' - the view that the rate of development of greenfield land is too high.
2. The second is the 'green belt myth' - that planning protection for green belts will provide recreational and amenity land for the benefit of urban dwellers.
3. The third is the 'sustainability myth' - that urban containment contributes to sustainability objectives.

Professor Evans challenged each of these myths. He argued that the countryside is about much more than farming and, moreover, because the urban majority bears most of the cost of current rural policies, they should have a legitimate say in shaping these policies.

This from the Tory New Statesman, your darling publication.

[IMM]

[Andy Hall]

You didn't look very far then.

One only has to look at A level or degree exam papers of today compared with 20 years ago, and the drop in standards is patently obvious.

Only a fool keeps harping on about it

Right. That has nothing to do with "class".

Who would want to be an ambassador?

Mmmm....

That's curious. Do you think that they have an algorithm in their search engine that filters to create propaganda?

Because it was presented as something that should be competitive. I'm not interested in competitive sport. I prefer to make my own arrangements as with most other things.

It isn't structured apart from in the minds of people who see some political aspect in making it appear to be structured and wanting to change it.

I don't have time to waste on that kind of nonsense, sorry.

I think that you just contradicted yourself......

I don't really care whether the Crown or a small number of people own a large amount of land. I am far more bothered about overtaxation and wastage by the government.

At least 60 tax rises since 1997 with £5k more tax per household?

£10bn public finance deficit by this time next year?

I am far more interested in that than the assets of the Duke of Westminster, and so, I expect, are most other people.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

Only a fool buries their head in the sand and pretends it doesn't exist.

Missed the point entirely.

< snip drivel >

The Tory party and their land landowning backers really love you; a lacky.

That is what they want to focus on, every day trivia. The basic foundations of society, the constitution, being ripped off by large landowners, they want you to forget about. Those are the real problems of the UK.

See links and books I gave you.

You have missed it totally. Did you read the links? Nah you didn't. Boy they have made a good job on you. Sad to see, very sad.

[Andy Hall]

I don't think that most people would consider that an extra £5k a year in taxation is everyday trivia.

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[Andy Hall]

"..... when questioned on LVT, one Labour Party press officer called it "as daft as the window tax".

Not much support there, then... .andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

[IMM]

Appears not.

[IMM]

Compared to the sums the large landowners make and how much taxpayers subsidies they get, that is chicken feed.

[John Rumm]

What is more, governments (and not just the current shower) have a habit of introducing legislation that tends to achieve the exact opposite of their intention for it with alarming repetition. Even a monkey would get it right half the time!