JohnfromUK
-
Posts
10,476 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
PW Shop
Posts posted by JohnfromUK
-
-
3 minutes ago, figgy said:
That an excuse to still pay them from the state purse and give them royal protection at our expense. Or is it so Harry has not burnt his bridges when it all goes nipples up.
I suspect the latter.
-
19 minutes ago, Rewulf said:
Its often touted that its the left who are progressive, but in this country, its the left that are mired in the past, still bleating about oppression of the masses, by the 'elite'
Yet the left wing champagne socialist elite cannot see the irony of their doctrine.Dead right
-
28 minutes ago, ditchman said:
.......the one thing that does annoy me about all this is megans mother....................
i have nothing to base my opinion on...but i truly believe she is a dignified honest lady...and i was impressed with the respect shown to her by charles and the royal family........im sure if im right she will be feeling quite ashamed at her daughter..
I agree with you there
-
1 minute ago, Rewulf said:
If our population are getting older, living longer, why does this not benefit the tories ?
/\ This
-
It is a pattern called "colour bars" used a bit like a test card picture. Some video routers/switches/devices etc. automatically insert it on lines without a valid 'real' image.
The purpose is to show that the monitor and path between the device inserting the colour bars pattern is operating, and clearly show a fault rather than (say) a dark picture.
Could be caused by a missing 'real' video signal, which could be camera unplugged/no power/failed/video lead disconnected/damaged.
-
12 minutes ago, ditchman said:
for some reason there is a lot of malevornance and hate
The clue is in the relationships within her own family ......... where she only appears to be close to her mother.
-
1 minute ago, Vince Green said:
This is the true nature of labour today. This is what the legacy of Corbyn and momentum gives us.
It has been the same for non Corbyn supporting Labour candidates, particularly some of the Jewish female MPs such as Luciana Berger and Louise Ellman.
Momentum are against anyone who doesn't support their particular views. They will viciously attack non supporters, whatever their political colour. Under Corbyn's leadership, this behaviour has been at best tolerated, and I suspect encouraged by many of his 'inner circle'.
-
-
5 minutes ago, mel b3 said:
I'll also be quite honest and admit that Corbyn and his lunatic party and policies , frightened the xxxx out of me . One good thing , is that Boris Johnson does seem to recognise and acknowledge this , and hopefully he'll remember it as he moves the country forward.
Again, agreement from me.
-
9 minutes ago, mel b3 said:
Anyone with any common sense, could see that the labour party policies sank below poor , and we're verging on lunatic.
I completely agree, yet they actually got 32% of the votes cast ........ which indicated that 1 in 3 of the electorate has no common sense.
On reflection, that is probably quite true!
-
3 hours ago, bostonmick said:
Harry lost his mother at an early age and that is very sad but many children lose parents
Prince Philip also lost family when young.
-
2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:
Regarding press reports, I tend to those with more than a pinch of salt, but who knows.
You are right, which is why I put it the way I did "if they are right"
What does seem clear is that it is not the way the rest of the family 'top tier' (HM the Queen, Princes Charles and William) wanted it handled.
-
1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:
A slightly different take to the majority of the views expressed here, lifted from another site:
I have no particular disagreement with most of that ....... but;
- It has been dreadfully handled (it seems by the Sussex household), and I'm sure has very much upset the Queen, who has dedicated her life to the 'firm' and is now probably more alone than she has been before now Philip is clearly not in the best of health and Andrew has had to 'resign' for what amounts (put charitably) to 'poor judgement'. At the age of 93 after a lifetimes service with no 'retirement', she deserves MUCH better. If the press reports are right, they have been absolutely callous towards her.
- If Harry and Megan wish to cease involvement on 'the firm' activities, fine, but you also loose the taxpayer funding, houses, fine uniformed positions and all of the trappings of Royalty (as Princess Anne's children largely have).
You cannot (in my view, and I am a staunch supporter of the Royal Family) be Royal when it suits you, but be private and have no press when it suits you. Celebrity, whether as a Royal, or as a 'showbiz' is a public interest matter.
In the event they wish to leave, they should become Mr & Mrs Windsor (just as Princess Anne's are Mr Phillips and Mrs Tindall).
-
16 minutes ago, Old farrier said:
we all asked our parents and grandparents before we did anything?
No, but when working for a 'firm' such as the Royal family is, you would discuss and agree role changes internally before publicising them. Personally, I think he has behaved 'well out of order'. The Queen has been put in a very difficult position. She is elderly, has dedicated her whole life to the 'family business' and may no longer be able to get much help from her 'rock', Philip, and has also lost the assistance of Andrew.
I am judging Harry and Megan, not for wanting to make changes (if they want 'out' I'm sure that can be arranged in a suitably diplomatic way), but for the way in which it has all been handled and the way it must have affected the Queen..
-
I have complained formally to the BBC about Packham before (actually more than once). I never even got an acknowledgement of my complaint other than an automated instant response confirming they had got the contact.
-
34 minutes ago, Vince Green said:
..... they lack a positive purpose that the electorate can identify with.
That's correct. Labour thrive on negativity;
- Taking money from 'the rich'
- Taking businesses and making them public property (under the name of Nationalisation)
- Penalising success
- Discouraging hard work
- etc.
The real story is that Labour appeals (in a large part) to the unsuccessful who are always looking over the fence and being envious of those who are successful. In my experience 'success' (and by the way I have not had anything more than a very average life/career as an employee myself) comes through 3 major things;
- Hard work
- Taking risks
- An element of 'good luck'
The success that results from these three coming together can make owners/instigators wealthy, but usually also ripples down providing employment and advantages to others. This causes resentment amongst others who see it as 'unfair' and want to penalise the success.
The truth is that you need risk takers, hard workers, entrepreneurs, and under a fair system they can be encouraged to maximise their businesses and the whole country benefits through their efforts.
If you penalise them/over tax their success, they either won't bother, or more likely will go elsewhere where their contribution is welcomed.
Where you draw that fair contribution threshold is of course one of the big differences in our left/right politics.
-
8 hours ago, zebadee73 said:
The gun took 5 attempts to pass proof, none of which major.
Good for you in persisting - and it looks wonderful. A credit to those who worked on it.
I have heard that it is much harder to get proof these days, and I don't really understand why - in that I have not heard of any instances of guns recently having passed proof subsequently failing.
-
10 minutes ago, Vince Green said:
Quite a few royals have withdrawn from public life, Anne is seldom seen, Edward is never seen but they just dropped out they didn't splash it all over the papers and TV
Anne (and to a lesser extent) Edward do a lot; but since they are 'non controversial' it doesn't get reported much. From the Express:
The working engagements for the Royals for 2019 are as follows:
- Princess Anne: 195
- Prince Charles: 177
- The Queen: 174
- Prince Andrew: 139
- Prince Edward: 119
- Prince William: 108
- Prince Edward, Duke of Kent: 05
- Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester: 105
- Prince Harry: 98
- Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall: 81
- Sophie, Countess of Wessex: 81
- Kate, Duchess of Cambridge: 56
- Princess Alexandra: 43
- Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester: 42
- Meghan Markle: 28
-
2 hours ago, Thunderbird said:
Watch this space, they aren't going to go quietly
It is being alleged that he was instructed by the Queen to discuss plans with Prince Charles before doing or saying anything to anyone else - which makes sense and is just what you would expect in any family - "talk it over with your father" stuff. It seems he ignored the Queen, and simply 'advised' Charles 10 minutes before going public ........
-
16 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:
Well she is often known as "Wrong-Daily"
That's not correct though; it should be "Wrong-Several Times-Daily", or is she chooses the traditional left wing path (like Viscount Stansgate, Anthony Wedgewood-Benn 'became' plain Tony Benn) - Becca Daily
-
56 minutes ago, Westward said:
Hero to zero. The most popular royal is now a lapdog wagging his tail on command for some social climbing Hollywood bimbo who has a history of always getting what she wants no matter who gets hurt along the way. What a drip he's turned out to be.
It's a pity the Queen and Philip are so old and knackered and Charles is such a washout because someone needs to haul Harry in and explain to him the reality of what it really means to give up his royal duties and responsibilities. They did it to Princess Margaret and when she realised the alternative to her gilded existence would be a semi detached in Luton and holidays at Butlin's she quickly changed her mind.
I hope Boris steps up on this and denies them access to public funds and removes them from the civil list on the principle they can't have their cake and eat it.
This /\
I rather think Piers Morgan (who I don't always agree with) as this quote:
"And instead, they now want to be a 'progressive' force within 'the institution'.
In other words, they want to be super-woke celebrities (with all the outrageous 'Do as we say not as we do' hectoring hypocrisy they've already brought to that status) who get to keep all the trappings of royal life without any of the hard, boring bits and the right to cash in on their status however they choose.
So, they want the glitz, the glamour, the splendour and the stupendous wealth….they just don't want to have to actually earn it."
Harry was born to a position in life - like a family business. It carries responsibilities as well as great rewards. If he doesn't want it, then of course he can leave, but that means leaving the rewards as well as the responsibilities. Megan Markle chose to marry into that life, as did Prince Philip. Just like Prince Philip, she must learn that she is simply in a 'supporting role'. It is reasonably recognised that it wasn't always easy for him, but he worked at it and supported the 'family firm' and made a position for himself (and not without the occasional bump in the road) that has gained great respect form most people.
I feel immensely sorry for HM the Queen. It is a close re-run to the Edward VIII/Mrs Simpson, which so disrupted her own life and probably helped to shorten her father's life. She has been betrayed by her own grandson, (as George V was by his son) who has also fallen for the spell of an American divorcee.
-
I use 8 x 20 a lot. Very good in fair or better light, though field of view is less than larger binos. I guess whether that is a problem depends on how you will be using them. If you want a closer look in at something you have spotted by eye, it shouldn't be a problem. If you are looking for well matched deer on a hillside, it might matter. For low light, they are not ideal, but for the vast majority of the time, great and so convenient.
Firstly, second hand should be better value, and you might also be quite happy with a very basic (and cheap) pair if they are to be carried everywhere.
-
So much depends on your individual circumstances it is essential to get advice. The Government Pensions Advise Service may be a good place to start.
Some pensions (usually older defined benefit or 'final salary' types) are worth keeping in a pension (rather than take the cash) in many circumstances - because the defined benefit value is much better than you could get elsewhere from an annuity type of product. (They were set up in a different era!). For example an older defined benefit type might offer quite a good monthly pension, but a low transfer value or cash value. At 60, you may well be drawing it for enough years to make it worth taking as a pension - especially if it is index linked in some way.
Generally more recent pensions can benefit from taking as much 'cash' as possible, but where to invest that is another important question - to which the answers will depend on your circumstances and tax position. Making use of tax free allowances and tax free products (that can generate tax free income) such as ISAs may be advisable if you are paying tax, especially higher rate tax.
It is complex, which is why advice is so important.
-
There is a very good and clear post (taken from a shared Facebook link) here written by someone who clearly knows their stuff;
So we've been seeing a lot of posts about heather burning in the national park recently so I thought I'd take some time to explain what it is and why it's done.
Seeing the moor on fire with smoke billowing out can be quite shocking, but there are good reasons behind it.
The main reason is to keep the heather plants themselves young and healthy. If left to do it's thing, heather enters a degenerative stage where it flops open and isn't as good of a habitat for birds or insects. The large amount of woody growth is also a fire risk in hot summers as was seen on Saddleworth moor recently.
A patchwork of heather at different lengths in a small area is also the best habitat for ground nesting birds. The longer heather is good for nesting while the short heather is ideal for feeding (either eating young heather shoots or insects which like young heather). And it's not just good for grouse! It's great for lapwings, curlew, snipe, ring ouzels and many other breeding birds.
When gamekeepers burn the moors they burn small patches (to create the patchwork mosaic of habitats) in "cool" burns. These burns take off the heather stems on the top but don't burn into the litter or peat layers of the soil. This means that they don't damage the peat unlike wild uncontrolled fires which burn much hotter and are extremely damaging.
The moors are only burned in the winter. This is because it's wet, so the fires can be easily controlled and don't damage the peat, and also because no wildlife is nesting. The small area of the individual burns also means any wildlife can easily escape out of the way.
Heather moorlands are an extremely rare habitat of international importance. The peaty soil of the UK uplands also stores as much carbon as the combined forests of Britain and France! Many amber and red listed birds breed on managed moorlands and they have very diverse invertebrate populations. This is why it's important to look after Heather moorland and manage it properly.
The Langholm moor project (http://www.langholmproject.com/) has produced some real independent scientific study results.
Thought I'd seen it all!
in Off Topic
Posted
Much the same happens if you put it in a 'deposit' account, but for size read value.