Re: UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!

[Andy Hall]

Notice I didn't say government. You seem to expect your employer to provide
you with a guard the door of your job to your car. Note your response to my
sister's problem.

I don't expect my employer to provide anything of the sort. Actually,
I'm my employer anyway.
Moreover, I don't tend to work in places or at times of high personal risk.

However, for a nurse, who may be vulnerable, who by virtue of her job
is potentially exposed to personal risk, I think it's entirely
reasonable that the employer should do something to help with that even
if it's only a contribution towards the taxi fare home.

In general I will point out the fact that in the UK people think nothing of
having big brother watching them as they walk down the street.

Do you imagine that this alleged big brother has the time and staff
levels to do that comprehensively?

No problem
with big brother providing them with the medical care he/it thinks they
need.

Actually I think that there's a big problem with that. It's
reasonable that the government should contribute where needed to the
*funding*, but I don't think it needs to be in the service delivery
business.

No problem with allowing the government to have a large hand on what
can be printed. I'm willing to bet there are thousands of things you can
not do there w/o big brother's OK that I can do here. All because the
government says it would, in some way, interfer with the public good.

I think that you have a vivid imagination.

Its getting the same here. I'll give a good example. I live out in the
boonies on several acres. I have to get goverment permission to put in a
well. I had to have a government approved installer to install my mobile
home. I had to have the government's approval before I could even get the
power company to come out and put power to my temp power pole so I could run
power tools. After that I had to get the government's approval to turn the
power on to the trailer. I DID NOT have to hire a government approved
electrician or plumber to do that work but I had to tell the goof ball at
the permit place this because they were not going to ok my work.

Actually that is somewhat mor onerous than it is here.

Now after jumping through all their hoops when it came time for them to do
the final approval to allow me to live in my own house, on my own property
the guy never got out of his truck and the only things we talked about was
my dog (an American Bulldog 120# long story how I would up with him) and
flying.



Sure it is. Do you agree with the government requiring people to wear
helmets when they ride motorcycles?

That depends. If they don't expect to use government provided
healthcare and other services if they injure themselves then there
would be no need to have laws about helmets

Equally, there would be no need to have seatbelt laws either and I know
that many U.S. states have that, so your argument is a bit thin.

If you do you are saying that people
are too stupid to take care of themselves and therefore the government must
do it for them. To do that you need government to be big enough to make
sure that people are wearing their helmets.

That doesn't follow at all.

There are something that the goverment should require of people because not
doing it would clearly place others in physical danger or endanger some one
else's rights. But I can think of very few of these.
Seatbelts?


You just proved my point twice. One, I think the government watching what
its citizens do w/o a reason to think a crime is or is about to be commited
is abhorrent. You think it is fine.

I wouldn't say that it's fine. I would say that it doesn't
particularly bother me because I don't do things that would cause them
to show any interest.

This proves that you expect others to
watch out for you.

It certainly doesn't.

Two, the more data the government collects the more people it needs to go
through that data therefore bigger government. And once they find out that
the data they have is not enough they will feel the need to add more data
and more people to analyse that data.

I wish there was some way to know how much time and money has been spend on
your CCTV system per crime prevented and/or solved because of it.

You may well be right. However, I don't think that it's a big enough
issue to care about that much. If I had my way, there would be a
minimal public sector and the hangers on would have to go and get real
jobs. However, that is not realistic

You think being watched almost any time you are not in your home is not big
brotherish! And people call me barking mad!

There is quite a difference between having the technology in place and its use.

Good for you. Now all you have to do is to try and change the system. I
wish you luck.

Well... when I'm emperor.....

But you have no problem with the government watching your every move outside
you house?

I'm not paranoid enough to believe that there is somebody sitting
explicitly watching what I'm doing. Secondly, even if they were, it
would not be very interesting for them.

 

[Doctor Drivel]

Who told you that Drivel?

Have you been living on Mars?

 

[Doctor Drivel]

Not the USA of course, that's a
basket case like the UK was under
Wislon/Healey/Brown in 1967.

A most of all Thatcher when 1000s were living on the streets. Have you been
on Mars?

 

[Andy Hall]

That's the only answer. Say we were still young and foolish (I long past
that stage of life) and we were out somewhere having a good time and you
upset me. I mean really made me angery. What is going to keep me from
trying to beat you to a bloody pulp? Is it going to be my respect for
myself? Not likely. Respect for you? I don't think so. Or knowing if I
did beat you I'd be spending 3-5 years of my life sitting in jail? It might
if I wasn't too far over the edge. Or maybe the fact that if I tried you
and/or a couple of your buddies would stomp me into the dirt if I tried?
This would be the one that would stop most people.

To be honest, it's quite unlikely that I will ever visit or even want
to visit rural Tennessee. Therefore the situation that you describe
is not likely to happen.

For the most part humans are much more deterrent oriented than reward
oriented.

I have a more optimistic view than that.

If you tell a kid that if he sits quitely for half an hour he'll
get a candy bar he might do. But if you tell a kid if he doesn't sit
quitely for half an hour he's going to get a spanking the odds of him
sitting there are much greater.

I don't think so.

A better solution would be to offer him something that he would like to
do, preferably involving your spending time with him (well not you
perhaps).

This is just my opinion but its because he probably had been told all of his
life that he wasn't as good as others and couldn't do anything w/o the
government's help. The only problem is that once the government starts
"helping" you are stuck in their web.

That's somewhat fanciful. Even so, do you imagine that it will give
him a high sense of self esteem if you tell him that if he doesn't sit
still, that you are going to spank him?

In its attempt to help the US government has done more to harm the 'poor'
and 'minorities' in this country than the robber baron and racist could have
ever dreamed of.

That's almost certainly true.

In the real world, realities are somewhere between the two extremes
that you describe.

 

[Andy Hall]

Could it be the fact that the time between the appointment and the actual
meeting is decades apart? For anything to be a true deterrent the
punishment must be swift and hard.

Even if it later turns out that the perpetrator didn't actually commit
the crime?

 

[Andy Hall]

A most of all Thatcher when 1000s were living on the streets. Have you
been on Mars?

I think that possibly you might have been. Could you try rephrasing
that in a Terran language?

 

[Doctor Drivel]

Ever noticed how well the Japanese navy faired against aircraft?

Quite well in fact.

If the navy had tried to sail into the Channel to try to stop an invasion
and the Germans had air superiority it would have been a disaster making
what happened to the Spainish Armada look like a Spainish victory.

Not with what the German had in the air. They didn't even have a decent
torpedo bomber. Stukas were easy shot down as they had to dive vertically.
The German never had a heavy bomber, or one good a sinking ships.

I've heard that before.

You need to read more and not US books. The Germans making a successful
invasion of the UK was amazingly remote. ..and they were coming over in
towed concrete barges that needed the front blown off blocking the beach.
Barges that would turned over at the wash of a destroyer. The British fleet
only needed to sailed full speed around them and they would have gone. Yes,
yes.....

Not from what I've studied.

You need to read more and not US books.

If he had been able to focus all of his forces on England, i.e. not
spliting off some to the eastern front, it wouldn't have taken more than a
year to grind England down to the point they would have had to sue for
peace.

You have top get ashore first..and with a navy too. You need to read more
and not US books.

The UK did not have the ability to be self sufficient.

They did. They needed raw materials imported, just like Germany.... and the
Royal Navy had an effective blockade on ships entering Germany from the
North Sea.
You need to read more and not US books.

where would they have gotten the steel, copper, oil and all the other
stuff you need to make and use aircraft and ships?

By bringing it in in convoys. Duh!!!

You need to read more and not US books.

 

[Doctor Drivel]

You are.

That is what they were supposed to do.

Because the RAF and ground AA prevented them from doing so.

Germany would never have had control of the air. British aircraft
production outstripped Germany in 1940.

They would not have. The Spitfire was a superior plane.

You need to read more and not US books.

 

[Geronimo W. Christ Esq]

You do if you expect it to take care of you.

The UK government, in practice, is basically the same as the US government.

Trust me, Americans expect the government to take care of them as well.
Why else does the Department of Homeland Security exist ? Why does
legislation like USA-PATRIOT exist ?

Really? How many cities in the UK are covered by government controled CCTV?

The CCTV is not "government controlled". The police use security cameras
in the USA as well.

If that isn't big brotherish then what is?

How about removing thousands of legitimate voters from the electoral
registers because they're likely to vote the wrong way ?

 

[Geronimo W. Christ Esq]

You should also realize that this is a situation that occurs all over the
world. Rape happens in every country in the world. The big difference is
that in the US, people can obtain a weapon to protect themselves much of the
time.

So why do you have police then ?

 

[Arnold Walker]

Even if it later turns out that the perpetrator didn't actually commit the
crime?

The case is usually the perpetrator actually did more crimial acts and the
lawyer couldn't get them enorgh cover on this one.And the lawyer expects
far more "rights" than anybody else present..
Why do you think people in prison seldom have short "rap sheets"
Could it be that the system already has given that person....... the benefit
of the doubt on at least one if not many acts in time past?
Why do you think defense lawyers go so far to the extremes on so many
cases?If this was not true.....
And that history in general has the people protecting themselves with
neighbor "watches" until
the judical and law enforcement proves themselves too corrupt......then you
see armed groups of common man hunting down the crimmial with torches,pitch
forks and guns.The corrupt don't want guns in the mix when that
crowd is comings for them in a revolution.Especially when they know they are
more crimial, than the thugs.

 

[Arnold Walker]

The UK government, in practice, is basically the same as the US
government.

If that where true we would still be with UK......

Trust me, Americans expect the government to take care of them as well.
Why else does the Department of Homeland Security exist ? Why does
legislation like USA-PATRIOT exist ?

Because we fight a multi front war between socialists at home expanding
corruption and terrorist everywhere.
Why do you think socialists have had issue with both of the above.....but
not expanding social programs and the money it implies.

The CCTV is not "government controlled". The police use security cameras
in the USA as well.

And limited because of what they see in the UK on that topic.

How about removing thousands of legitimate voters from the electoral
registers because they're likely to vote the wrong way ?

Or the addition of millions of illegitimate voters because they will vote
the "right" way.
Or the voting machine debates when you can't cheat.....
Or Block votes by unions that may not be that of the membership.

 

[Andy Hall]

£60k + shrapnel

ooh - tempting

That would just about buy a lock-up garage round here

Yes, but Tennessee......

 

[Andy Hall]

If that where true we would still be with UK......

You don't really believe all that independence stuff do you?

It was actually all about the French.....

 

[Arnold Walker]

You don't really believe all that independence stuff do you?

It was actually all about the French.....

I seem to remember enorgh to know that the EU covers the same areas as had
blueblood families controling multi countries.In times past.....
So that your remark about the French is both a yes and no ,depending on
which time.
Even remember the French having a King in charge of Spain because of those
blueblood families.
How many of those British Kings had relatives in the French royal
family.......
You might say a continental version of the Skull and Crossbones Society in
the US.
So that at some points to deal with Britian, was also dealing with France
because of a another relative in the royal family.
And all that independence stuff lead to Britian going to Constitutional
Monark years later. As they saw , there was something to it.At least ,on the
parts they enacted......

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Which is just what I said. I think at this point in time Hitler falling off
the edge of sanity because he was suffering from advanced syphilis and the
"treatments" he was getting from his doctors. Up to this point he was
holding on just enough to be almost brilliant. Look at what he had done up
to that point. Both militarily and politically. I don't think he ever was
what most people would have called sane. I think he truely believed some of
the crap he spouted. I think the most of the people around him knew he was
a little off and didn't believe any of it but said they did because they
wanted the power he could give them. Then there were some that were just
thugs and sadist who liked hurting people.

Too bad that the people outside Germany didn't see how unstable he was
before 1936.

They did, bu at that time Fascism was seen as a better alternative than
communism.

Of course they were too busy stealing everything they could

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Ever noticed how well the Japanese navy faired against aircraft? If the
navy had tried to sail into the Channel to try to stop an invasion and the
Germans had air superiority it would have been a disaster making what
happened to the Spainish Armada look like a Spainish victory.

SUBMARINES.


I've heard that before. As well as he didn't want to do it because he felt
the British were fellow Arians and thought they would 'come around' in time.
I don't buy any of it. He was a megalomanic and wanted nothing short of
being king of the world. If he had managed to take all of Europe it
wouldn't have been long before he went after Africa or the Japanese Empire.

No: he wanted lebensraum. T ocleanse Europe of nasty foreign scum with
the wrong color skins and usually no foreskins. And fill it full of
right thinking germans.

Not from what I've studied. If he had been able to focus all of his forces
on England, i.e. not spliting off some to the eastern front, it wouldn't
have taken more than a year to grind England down to the point they would
have had to sue for peace. Without the need to send all that material to
Russia he could have laid siege. The UK did not have the ability to be self
sufficient. Even if they could have built enough factories to replace the
aircraft and ships to fight w/o those factories from being bombed where
would they have gotten the steel, copper, oil and all the other stuff you
need to make and use aircraft and ships?

that was why the battle of the atlantic was so important.

The only way was been by ship and as long as the US and Russia were neutral
nations they could not legally use their military to protect their ships
once they entered a decleared war zone. This means that the British would
have needed to not only protect from an invasion but also protect the supply
conveys.

That happened anyway.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Could it be the fact that the time between the appointment and the actual
meeting is decades apart? For anything to be a true deterrent the
punishment must be swift and hard.

Timespan of discretion.

The stupider you are the less you think about tomorrow.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Some brits seem not to know that you past Africa going to Southern Asia by
ship.
At least ,the US Navy knew....otherwise pirates would be unchecked still
while the brits figure out the Suez canal
and how to get to India or SE Asia from Europe by ship.

Cape horn?

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Who told you that Drivel? it's all built on borrowed money.

Not quite as much as the septics.

Living on borrowed time, borrowed money and someone elses skills.