Posts by Dave 15 2136 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jun 2010
Why do BT and similar send people to a call centre (I think BT's is in South Africa rather than India) staffed with people who have a printed sheet and nothing else...
I guess its just simple and cheap... for most idiot customers this is adequate. They should have a question first - are you the normal moron or do you know how to do up your shoe laces? If you answer 'moron' you get the check list, if you know anything you talk to someone sensible.
Of course this is probably not te best Sugar rant I've seen, its a pity we can't forward the email he sent to Steve Bulmer when Steve shut down the Mobile Explorer team (the ones behind the Sony browser/email client and the emailer software).
And that is NOT a good thing.
Democracies, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom in general.... America, Britain, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland... this guy let out a few interesting snippets showing the back stabbing lies and suddenly he is rendered pennyless (frozen bank accounts), a sex attacker (yeah yeah, timing was very conincidental), arrested....
The problem with wikileaks is that it is anti establishment.
Smear the founders name (the timing of these sex abuse allegations was not a shock)
Stop the finances
Withdraw passport
Arrest the guy
Eventually he will be deported to Guantanamo...
And all this by a collection of countries (USA, UK, Sweden, Australia) who apparently stand up for free speach, freedom, democracy....
Yeah, at least the North Koreans, Chinese and Stalin were honest! (Note Stalin declined to join an anti-Britain pact with America in WW2).
The real crime here? The real crime here was to expose the double standards, lies and backstabbing deals that are normal in 'democracy'
I now await the inevitable visit from the British thugs (sorry police)...
At least a period of quiet would be better than the dreary funeral like dirges that we are subjected to by every ill informed shop keeper in the country. Its HORRIBLE. Carols and Christmas songs that would be far more suited to 'celebrating' the death of a much loved relative than they are for the supposedly joyful events we are supposedly partying for.
Frankly the older I get the less I appreciate having my ears bombarded by appaling Christmas music - it drives me AWAY from the shops, I hasten around and grab what I can and run away. I suspect I'm not the only one.
I'd love Christmas music to be banned. I enjoy the celebration, but the dirge is horrible.
They'd need to get fit, concentrate on the game, learn some football skills (not the big mouth shag and run to the hairdresser skills they have now) and get some enthusiasm...
I still can't get over the 'too tired' comments at the last fiasco.
If you ignore wrong doing and bury your head in the sand then those doing wrong will happily carry on. If you stand up for fairness or justice then you had better learn there is a cost to that, one that was always very much worth paying, still is, and will ever remain so.
Now the Pope is only 'probably' Catholic I will need to stop using my 'Is the Pope Catholic... does the bear shit in the woods'... statement when I am emphasising the answer is obviously yes - because now the americans will have it that the answer is only probably. Amazing these people are able to decide the fate of other countries...
The British public are too stupid, complacent and lazy to do what the French do.
Stupid - how often do you hear "if you have nothing to hide..." despite the well known historical arguements against that.
Complacent - how often do you hear that it "doesn't affect me so I don't care"
Lazy - how many people can be arsed to do anything about any affront to their well being - after all we did nothing about the war, nothing about Europe, nothing about the lack of referendum, nothing about the recent defence butchery, nothing about the curtainling of liberty over many years, nothing about the spy cameras, nothing about money making (sorry speeding) traps, nothing about the police brutality (shooting random tube travellers, beating newspaper sellers to death etc etc), nothing about the shit service in our shops, the over bearing condescending nature of 'public servants', the rape of our wallets to give to the already rich banking bosses, the anhilation of our entire way of life.....
No the people in Westminster know they can do what they like and we will gladly bend over and apply the KY to make it easier for them.
The law is an ass.
I'm sitting here with a fine for 500 for being out of the country 2 years without checking the dear DVLA managed to get the paperwork sent them.
The fine was levied without my being aware or invited to court to defend myself
The court then said I could make a statutory declaration and asked for my name and address... I gave them that in an email but apparently that wasn't good enough I should have realised I needed to phone them, and having not phoned them the fine will stand.
The bailiffs managed to find my address in 2 hours of the court deciding I hadn't paid the fine, but neither the court nor DVLA found it - despite it being easy to find.
Now I have to wonder whether my MP can do something before the bailiffs take my only means of getting to work... if they take it I can't work, if I can't work I can't pay a good deal more in taxes, and I will be claiming benefits.
Of course, had the stupid Labour government not been so stupid and had realised that a stupid piece of paper saying you aren't using your car was worthless, stupid and likely to just trip up normally law abiding people who just happened to be out of the country for a long time with their car parked on private property then the whole thing wouldn't have happened.
But to quote the 'lady' (hic) from the court ---- 'you didn't phone us, so there is nothing more that I will do, so you can just pay the fine'
Strangely enough the VERY SAME court levied a fine of 60 for a guy caught speeding for the 4th time by the SAME camera on the SAME residential road by the SAME school in Cambridge - something that can kill - where as not having a piece of paper is clearly very much more serious.
I am already looking abroad for more work, this time I won't ever return. You are welcome to the unpleasant, stupid, authoritarian, spy ridden, obnoxious shit hole we call Britain.
I can't see the point in investing in this sort of thing. Its unlikely to save the world, stop a starving baby being hungry, curing someone of illness or anything remotely useful.
To be honest the reason these alternative operating systems aren't the dominant one is they are just not good enough.
Why do we really need more than one?
It would be better to have one decent operating system than the current one dominant and not too bad one and dozens that are of no use to man or beast..
The reason these operating systems aren't on my PC is that they are painful to install, painful to use and unstable. When something is rotten and no use scrap it and concentrate effort on something useful.
Just different its that we are in...
the rich in the trough up to their necks scoffing and feeding, blowing obscene amounts of money on a flat
the middle folk trying to make increasingly distant ends meet through a barage of rampant inflation (at least everything they buy - food and fuel) and rapidly increasing tax
the poor starving and dieing in their millions
In some ways I'm glad I'm not in the first group, how a guy can live with spending such an obscene amount on a flat when others die for want of fractions of that in medicine, while babies starve... I don't know, obviously no concience - but then again being a moral free [insert favourite expletive] is whats needed to become that rich.
Should we always just buy the cheapest. Buying an American plane may be 'cheaper' on the surface, but it
a) Employs NO British people, thus means we just export money (and jobs)
b) Fails to enhance British skills, thus meaning we will never compete
c) Makes us subject to the Americans continued indulgence, the biggest problem with the proposed airbus solution is the fact it still relies on American technology.
To be honest we should be able to defend ourselves - that means we need to be able to make our own planes, tanks, missiles, ships, bullets, guns, uniforms etc. etc. etc. If we can't then we are defenceless and might as well stop all defence spending as it is just a waste
Obvious one is steam or compressed air
The French have a compressed air car (guess google will find it) and steam 'fireless' locos were in use over 100 years ago - able to do a days hard work on a tank full.
Either of these is easy to top up.
Either can contain a lot of energy.
Neither requires unpleasant or very rare, Chinese owned rare earth metals.
Is this really practical...
a) Just how many batteries are going to be required in the world? On my current commute pattern and current electric car status would need 2 sets a day. And if I want to go on holiday...
b) Just how many would an average motorway (freeway) services need - look at the quantity of fuel they dispense. The battery will be on charge for something around 8 hours, so they would need 8 hours supply of batteries at each motorway services.
If you are only being told something has changed, not what, how, why etc. then its a pointless waste of a secretaries time.
So either real information is required OR this is the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. Either way the answer is simple..."pass this law and as the telcos supporting Australia we will immediately shut down all services, destroy all our equipment and retire..."
It really is about time that we stopped beign shoved around by people we 'elect' to 'serve' us but who seem to think they have 'power' to do what the hell they like.
(10) Harold Wilson, Memoirs: 1916-1964 (1986)
Lend-Lease also involved Britain's surrender of her rights and royalties in a series of British technological achievements. Although the British performance in industrial techniques in the inter-war years had been marked by a period of more general decline, the achievements of our scientists and technologists had equalled the most remarkable eras of British inventive greatness. Radar, antibiotics, jet aircraft and British advances in nuclear research had created an industrial revolution all over the developed world. Under Lend-Lease, these inventions were surrendered as part of
the inter-Allied war effort, free of any royalty or other payments from the United States. Had Churchill been able to insist on adequate royalties for these inventions, both our wartime and our post-war balance of payments would have been very different.
The tanks, destroyers and other stuff were SOLD to Britain, not given.
The payment terms were excessively harsh - most of those destroyers were really only fit for the scrap yard and needed extensive refit before they could be used (as an example).
There are plenty of sources but http://www.encyclomedia.com/winston_churchill.html includes the comment that American aid was sold to Britain and that by 1941 we had already exhausted gold reserves and overseas assets. Check for the sale of Courtaulds American operations and the price vs value obtained - it was really theft by any other name.
Another quote for you...
Help on a larger scale was soon to be forthcoming. Reelected President on November 5th, Mr. Roosevelt suggested almost at once plans to open 'the Arsenal of Democracy' for Great Britain. In March 1941 the cash-and-carry basis of British purchasing in the United States was abolished, and the principle of lend-lease sanctioned by Congress. Later the same month documents handing over bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda and the West Indies were signed.
from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWlendlease.htm - again not the only place.
I think you'll find the Americans still have those bases :)
As for the oil discussion - maybe the Chinese have taken that oil, but that in itself means they haven't been shopping in the same markets - which helps control the price - it is also instructive to look at the money poured into Iraq by various sources and the money taken by American companies in contracts - I think the word profit might apply here.
I'm not anti-American, have a good number of personal American friends - including some in the American military, but America has for decades done what we should do - its looked after itself. Our politicians seem to think bending over and greasing our backsides for anyone and everyone to s****t and calling it a 'special relationship' is a good thing - it surely isn't.
Ships would need to reload with cruise missiles agreed - of course they do.
Which ever plane flies also has to reload - fuel and ammo - and these need ot be supplied.
The difference between a ship sending a cruise missile and a ship sending a harrier force is that you can send 12 harriers, get them back, reload them, send them again... repeating until you run out of cheap heavy lumps of explosive metal (bombs)... cruise missles are f***** expensive and much too over the top for most fighting requirements
Politics affects us all - and IT. The politics of warfare is also important - what arms we get from where makes a difference to who is employed and not.
When the previous bunch of no hopers decided to buy American instead of British tanks the metal maybe bashed in the UK but the IT won't be. When this no hoper bunch decide to replace British planes with some American junk the IT in those will be developed abroad as well. The politics of the idiot no hoper morons whoh seem to recycle around our useless pox ridden parliament means we all end up with less work, lower pay, less jobs, higher taxes than required.
Its of VITAL importance.
Including road, boat, ship, even parachute if you're brave....
The OTHER aircraft can't operate at all - under any circumstance - without long runways. Even the old Hurricane and Spitfire could cope with a reasonably well grassed field if need be - the modern ones can't do that.
Sold all our gold (cut price) to the Americans
Sold all our companies (very cut price) to the Americans
Gave all our bases to the Americans - for free (lend lease my ass)
Were kicked out of Europe in a couple of hours, out of most of the rest of the world shortly afterwards
At the time we still had some decent equipment (ask the guys that rejoiced at all the stuff we left behind at Dunkirk)
We were lucky that the Germans didn't keep bombing our airfields, if they hand't stopped they would have all been out of action and none of our fighters would have been capable of flying - the reason we came up with the Harrier that doesn't need an airfield.
We were equally lucky that in those days we still had enough of a Royal Navy that we could protect shipments we were reliant on from elsewhere in the world - we don't have that capability now we are more reliant than ever.
We still in those days were capable of manufacturing the equipment of war - guns, bullets, tanks, lorries, uniforms, these days we've 'outsourced' all of that capability to China, South Africa, Belgium, France and the USA.
We might as well disband the puny remains of our armed forces - they aren't strong enough to protect us, we can't reinforce them, we have no industry and no money, a government that doesn't give a fig about the country and (just like the previous Labour government) would rather see us ruled from Brussels than London. Frankly actually I think we'd be safe, because apart from the Falklands oil there really is f**** all reason for anyone to invade.
A waste - any country can end up with a pretty bad leader - whether this a democracy electing Hitler (and he was elected) or Bush (same here - and he started more than a single war), or whether its a country that is taken over in a military coup we can't rely on other countries staying just as they are now... .especially not when there is a very expensive highly profitable raw material involved.... I wouldn't put it past the USA to be negotiating to buy the oil from Argentinia after a successful invasion the USA felt unable to stop - after all they did try and negotiate with Stalin to ensure the destruction of the British empire that they bled white in WW2 - Stalin didn't play ball so its taken the yanks a little longer to destroy it.
No, its not 'sexier' to have Tornados that Harriers, the Harriers can be used when the airfields at Port Stanley, or in the UK, Afghanistan or where ever have bloody great holes in them, the Tornados at that point are so much useless scrap metal.
No we can't rely on the Americans to lend us squat - they didn't in WW2, they didn't during the last Falklands, they never will... especially as (they pointed this out last time) Argentinia is their 'best buddy' in South America.
No 'Illustrious' can't be used as a base for a bunch of helicopter gunships as they can be shot out of the air by a bow and arrow and are therefore totally useless - certainly no match for either fighter planes or various missiles. We already have a helicopter ship anyway - same hull as lusty.
Yup, just as thick as all his predecessors.
'We have planes on the Falklands so they are well defended' - well they are useful only until Argentina bombs the ***** out of the runway just as we did, then suddenly the planes are so much scrap metal waiting to be collected.
'We have soldiers on the Falklands' - well they did before, lasted what was it, erm, 30 minutes before surrender? They did worse than the WW2 forces on Crete, Singapore and even North Africa where the forces surrendered to weaker invading forces. (The Germans even remarked on the quality and quantity of stuff left at Dunkirk - in a positive way!)
Of course the Harrier was conceived based on lessons from WW2 - the RAF was nearly beaten because the Germans were busy destroying the airfields, we were lucky that the Germans moved to other targets or we would have lost. The same thing applies now, only the Harrier is actually any use when the airfields are bombed!
The current 'naval airpower' relies on the Harrier because a previous idiot government scrapped the only decent sized aircraft carrier we had (another Ark Royal as it happens) and some Naval boffin reqlised that a 'helicopter carrier' was capable of taking the Harrier.
The Americans bled us dry in WW2 (took ALL our gold and many of our larger more profitable companies at knock down prices) and have since then repeatedly stabbed us in the back (Suez for instance). The Americans and French are both friends of Argentina, we could hardly rely on them to help us out (they have both let us down in the past).
Now the Falklands are actually defenceless (whatever the claim we would lose them in less than 6 hours).
The thing most don't realise is that our armed forces couldn't defend the Isle of White for much longer!
If we aren't going to fund them (and we clearly aren't) we may as well disband them and wait patiently for one of our 'friends' to quietly pass us the vaseline.
They are forcing us all to gamble with money on a pension.
Two problems:
a) More red tape and paper work for business - big and small
b) I don't like gambling on pension funds - theyv'e always been poor value for me as they always seem to lose money instead of making it
If the government were at all in favour of cutting red tape they would never have started on this pension law at all.
I'm not the oldest around, but...
Seriously though, most of what I saw listed there would not excite me as a potential employer, even a hobby programmer will have used those techniques and most of the languages at different times. I want practical experience from people who have fallen over the reality of these things not the theory.
Has come from graduates with all the buzz words and clever ideas but no idea that writing clear, well commented, clean code is better for everyone.
Not only is it so 'clever' you can't fix it but its so clever it doesn't work.
The BEST programmers I have known have not had a degree - far less one in computing (sorry I have a degree, but not a computing one - so I guess I'm half way to being good :) )
The problem though is with the recruiters. You were lucky to find someone with a brain, very very very very rare in the recruiting, HR or middle management layers of the UK.
Seriously, how many people 'recruiting' just automatically 'require' a certain level of degree? I often - even after 25 years of experience - get asked "what level of degree did you get, a 2:1 or above? My client only wants people with a 2:1 or better". That coversation leads to an abrupt withdrawal of my interest. I don't want to work for someone who is interested in the paper I got over 25 years ago and not what I've done with my life since!
What about looking for people who have gone through apprenticeships? ScrumIT is on the internet running a very successful apprenticeship scheme turning out programmers with a wide range of real programming - and no 'ethics' training.
What about looking for people who have taken this up as a hobby, maybe completely dropping out of school with no qualification but a wonderfully honed programming ability.
While we are at it - just because I have spent 25 years doing embedded code doesn't mean I couldn't possibly understand and write your financial application. Just because I've project managed the development of a telephone doesn't exclude me from project managing a bunch of people writing a pension application (I might not find it thrilling...). The rules that apply to middle management and operatives are never applied to upper management - you can sink a highstreet bank and then get head hunted to run a national chemist chain, you can make a hash of running a government and invade many countries then get employed as a peace envoy, you can be in charge of education one monent and the foreign office the next, in charge of defence having never seen a uniform, move from running a hospital to running a software company (Symbian in that case).... but you can't go from writing C++ for a phone to writing C++ for a pension fund, or from writing C++ to C# or Java... its all wrong..
The problem is not the useless universities or the second rate graduates its the stupidly narrow minded recruiters.
It has been done with other boats as well. At least the Ark is quite shiny and new. Certainly better to keep her than chop her up. And yes, the harriers would make a superb addition.
If I was you I wouldn't joke but would get on and do it. When you get paypal set up then I'm ready!
Lets be real, very few - if any - commercial airliners could chuck things into their fuel tanks, spew fuel all over an engine and fail to blow up. The whole 'it is a dangerous aircraft' was so much rubbish. Many other commercial planes are STILL flying with a far far worse safety record. Again though these commercial planes aren't British and therefore all faults can be overlooked. Concorde was getting on in years but was still the fastest commercial airliner you could go in, Concorde was expensive to run, but so were its tickets. For those that needed fast transport it was the only way to go. The prospect of keeping one flying was realistic but BA didn't want it because they feared that people might keep using it.
Which is a great shame but again is down to this governments dislike of all things British.
After all, while building the two new aircraft carriers we should obviously keep BOTH of our current two and ALL their aircraft while investing in creating a new supersonic Harrier. This government would (like its predecessor) rather tell us we are too stupid, lazy, expensive, ignorant, horrible, nasty to build something and they would rather we sat on the dole while they paid the obviously brilliant, cheap ,super, fantastic, amazing Americans to build something for us.
This is the British government approach to everything these days - lets put more and more people on the dole and buy everything from abroad. Quite where they got their brains from I don't know.
This is a small group operating cheaply, the RAF has accountants by the lorry load and no idea. Currently the British government is saying 'sorry fellas, our only seaborne aircraft are decommissioned along with their boat, can you leave the Falklands for a few years until we have a nice shiny new one and begged some new planes from the yankees?'
Its pathetic.
This Conservative government are like the Labour one before, and can both trace roots to Thatchers government who took on board all the Americans believed of us.
Don't forget:
a) Britain was a disgusting great slave trading disgusting monster of a country.
b) Nothing ever built in Britain was ever possibly even vaguely as good as that built elsewhere
c) We have nothing at all worth saving, we are a blight on humanity and history
d) We shoudl beg and grobvel forgiveness at every turn for every thing we ever did to anyone - it was all terrible, bad and we should still be whipping ourselves harshly.
e) This plane, like the Harrier is just a sign of the disgusting nature of this country.
f) We should be totally ashamed of anything British - we never built anything worth while, we should celebrate the massive achievements of every one else in the world (who of course are free of anything to be ashamed of ever).
Getting the picture? The BRITISH government HATES the British, everything we've ever done, everything ever achieved. This view is perpetrated through the media which continually assures us that we must import everything because we are incapable of ever making anything
I hadn't realise the lead time for the helicopters, but I guess it doesn't surprise too much. The fact is that this is a good arguement to keep the provision of equipment and trained men far higher than we do today. A war of any description (and the Argentinians certainly want the now oil rich Falklands even more than before, and Afghanistan will be a retreat soon but will be followed by others, maybe Pakistan, perhaps Iran.. who knows) can flair up quickly (WW1, Gulf war 1 and the Falklands all did), and will destroy much equipment and kill many men quickly necessitating their replacements. Just saying we need a pause for 10 years won't cut the mustard.
I am NOT and never have been proLabour. I'm also not proConservative or proLiberal, they are all to a man and woman corrupt power grabbing idiots.
What I am against is destroying this country - something they all seem to want to do.
When the ArkRoyal and the Harriers are gone the Argies will walk onto the Falklands and say thanks for the oil.
We will have no choice but to watch them.
Once upon a time we could have sent some Vulcans to bomb them, we don't have them anymore (not that the one trip was more than a demonstration anyway).
Until the Harriers and ArkRoyal are gone we could send a similar task force to the last to evict them, but with no air cover and no ships we won't be able to
The 'special forces' are ok but have been shown unable to beat large contingents - lets face it, the Rambo films with one guy going out with unlimited ammo, huge guns and massive muscles to take on and win against 100 people is not realistic, no more than a 4 man troup against 1000 entrenched soldiers is.
We need desparately to reverse these ill advised and frankly stupid cuts before they happen. This is not about politics its about protecting our nation.
I will be outside parliament on Sunday from about 11
Yes I know its a Sunday, and I suppose the police will descend on us with tasers and big sticks, but shoudl still be fun. Maybe (though it is unlikely given the bone headed nature of the idiots in charge) we can persuade them to have another look and not to leave us undefended.
As with most things both of these planes have advantages...
The Tornado can do a lot of things exactly as you say... well almost... it still needed help from another (now retired) veteran to actually drop that smart ordanance as it couldn't target the bombs without help...
The Harrier can very importantly land and take off from the decks of our rather minature aircraft carriers - which means it could attack the runways of Port Stanley when we had no 'friendly' airfields nearby to make use of (as we did in Saudi). The only non-Harrier bombing run was by another now discontinued British made plane which flew from the UK, it did it only once because the strain on the crew and logistics of the mid air refueling that even this long range bomber needed was too much to organise (the successful bomber was not the only one to leave, just the only one to make it there).
An aircraft carrier with no aircraft is a large target, less use than a pub without beer and on a par with a chocolate fireguard.
If we can't get spares for a Harrier, or the airframe is old then we still have the paperwork, patents and plans to make some new ones. We might even be able to uprate the engines and make it supersonic or anything.
I suspect the troops on the ground probably just need some practice firing guns in order to defeat the taliban... as I recollect from my time I could dismantle, clean and reassemble the gun blindfolded long before I got the chance to pop off one round at a target - after all we don't want to 'waste' money training our soldiers to shoot when we can spend it all on parties for the officers do we? (Interesting side note - remember a recent article pointing out that most of the RN ships out and about had no air defence missiles, no cruise missiles, in fact pretty much no ordanance of any type at all because an accountant thinks it saves money - right up to the point where we find a boatload of pirates/Iranians able to kidnap our sailors because the bloody great heavily gunned ship their dingy is up against doesn't have anything to shoot at them.
I hvae heard this silly arguement as often as the stupid 'if you've nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' one thats rolled out....
Look at history - it can teach you a great deal...
The Argentinians for many years moaned about the Falklands, for hundreds of years there was no credible threat - right up until they decided to invade - largely on a whim to keep the people occupied when the government was useless (ring another bell?)...
The Falklands have oil nearby - many countries have gone to war for oil - not least the aggresive one which spends 49% of the total worlds spending on guns and ammo...
There was no credible threat from Hitler to either us (Munich) or the Soviet Union (separate agreement) right up until there was war.
The Jews and Romanies weren't under threat in Germany until 1930...
The Japanese hadn't been at war with the USA right up until they bombed pearl harbour completely out of the blue (well to all except Churchill who happily sat on the one thing that would ensure the USA finally getting involved in WW2).
This analysis can go way way way back in history to the point where a hitherto unknown warlord from Mongolia (much further than the middle east - and in the days of horses only) managed to conquer right across to Spain....
The ONLY thing that prevents the destruction of a country is when that country is well enough protected - by its own strength.
Its not unfortunate that the last bunch of wasters were kicked out, it is unfortunate that the bunch of morons we have now were not opposing most of the moves the last government made.
Worst still we have yet to get the chance to remodel the 'democracy' so that we (a) get to decide on matters of national importance - war, new EU treaties, massive borrowing to bail some very rich bankers.... on a per case basis, (b) that when 25% of us vote Labour that only 25% of the commons is Labour... and so forth... in a typical uk election each LibDem represents 4x as many people as a Labour MP in terms of the total votes cast.
The problem however is not one lot or the other, its the stupidity of them ALL. It is OBVIOUS to anyone that the economies doing well are those making things - China, Germany... or mining raw material - China, Germany, Australia, Middle East, Russia (yes even them)...
Those of us who have our entire economy based on shuffling money from one pot to another and pretending that somehow we are creating wealth (our banks, entire public service, accountants, estate agents....) are the ones doing the worst.
A look at the office of national statistics will show the full extent of the problem this government are not even part way to tackling.... The working age population make up about 70% of the country. Of the working age population 30% aren't working, 20% work for the government (therefore are largely not producing money but spending it), 20% work part time, 30% work in private companies of which only around 50% produce things rather than offer service, shop sales... thus we get to the point where less than 10% of the population of this country supports all the rest.... clearly not a sustainable situation is it? Trivial cuts, pointless pinpricks of 'bank levys' are not going to address these fundamental problems. Only very determined action to setup our economy to produce things will make any meaningful difference.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
