FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.
The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.
Neither of these problems have easy answers.
The covid period was a gigantic missed opportunity for a big push on improving people's cardiovascular health. They could have used some of the coercive power of the state to get people out doing things like park runs and other forms of exercise, instead of fining them for leaving the house too often.
No, we should have let Covid rip through
We should have let it kill the old, fat and demented. Then let it encourage les autres to be less stupidly fucking obese, the stupid fat fucks
Leon,
I don't wish to be personal but is it not the case that these days you yourself struggle to pass the swimming costume test?
Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.
(I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)
Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.
(I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)
Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Matewan" about the West Virginia Mine Wars right after World War One, where one of the characters observes (I paraphrase) that it really gets folks stirred up, when the company thugs go and murder a 16-year old boy.
Looks like it really gets people across Iran - but especially in Iranian Kurdistan - stirred up when the morality police go and murder a 22-year old young woman.
Since this is allegedly a betting site, bet you than none of these brave "morality" enforcers feel at all safe showing themselves ANYWHERE in the Islamic Republic today.
They're out of sorts in Sunderland And terribly cross in Kent, They're dull in Hull And the Isle of Mull Is seething with discontent, They're nervous in Northumberland And Devon is down the drain, They're filled with wrath On the firth of Forth And sullen on Salisbury Plain, In Dublin they're depressed, lads, Maybe because they're Celts For Drake is going West, lads, And so is everyone else. Hurray, hurray, hurray! Misery's here to stay. There are bad times just around the corner, There are dark clouds hurtling through the sky And it's no good whining About a silver lining For we know from experience that they won't roll by, With a scowl and a frown We'll keep our peckers down And prepare for depression and doom and dread, We're going to unpack our troubles from our old kit bag And wait until we drop down dead.…
Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.
(I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)
Every study I have ever seen indicates the unhealthy have lower lifetime healthcare costs than the healthy.
Now I am not saying its good to be unhealthy living on an individual basis, on a national basis though don't complain about a demographic time bomb while insisting people live a healthier lifestyle so they live longer....its not joined up government
FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”
Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
Iran would and will be a wonderful country of passionate clever spirited people, once they throw off this vile Islamist regime
It could be a force for GOOD. A remarkable thing
One of the best 'documentaries' I've seen featuring regular Iranian people is 'A Taste of Iran' - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n59zt (obviously, as per, not available on the iplayer). Iranian BBC World Service journalist going round and just having nice food cooked by locals and having a chat.
Though most of the 'Iranian' people I know here are very, very certain that they are 'Persian'.
FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.
So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.
Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.
This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.
That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
Do you have the sources for this? Id like to see them and happy to accept on a “well wouldn’t you know” basis if this is the case (not the pension point, the NHS cost point).
I have linked other studies on this in the past rather than newspaper articles but dont have access to the bookmarks right now but certainly....fatties, smokers and drinkers are what cost health services is in doubt
quote from article "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher life expectancy, as shown in Table 1. "
NB. That’s the same paper that your NYT article is quoting.
I can believe it for smoking, lung cancer kills pretty quickly after all, but total economic costs for obesity are high IIRC. Must be some papers out there...
FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”
Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.
(I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)
Every study I have ever seen indicates the unhealthy have lower lifetime healthcare costs than the healthy.
Now I am not saying its good to be unhealthy living on an individual basis, on a national basis though don't complain about a demographic time bomb while insisting people live a healthier lifestyle so they live longer....its not joined up government
I think this is true only if you ignore the economic costs of someone being ill for a sizable chunk of their working life. But I haven’t found any total economic cost studies yet.
Also, there’s a time dependent issue here: we’re pushing the costs of obesity onto our healthcare service in the here & now, whereas the load those people might put on it if they were healthy is decades into the future.
@Joyce_Karam Burning of Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei’s statue in his own hometown of Mashhad as protestors chant “death death to Khamenei.” Protests in Day 7 with anger directed at top of regime
FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.
So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.
Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.
This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.
That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
Do you have the sources for this? Id like to see them and happy to accept on a “well wouldn’t you know” basis if this is the case (not the pension point, the NHS cost point).
I have linked other studies on this in the past rather than newspaper articles but dont have access to the bookmarks right now but certainly....fatties, smokers and drinkers are what cost health services is in doubt
quote from article "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher life expectancy, as shown in Table 1. "
NB. That’s the same paper that your NYT article is quoting.
I can believe it for smoking, lung cancer kills pretty quickly after all, but total economic costs for obesity are high IIRC. Must be some papers out there...
I quoted another study I found which wasnt a newspaper.
Frankly all I am doing here is suggesting that claiming the obese,smokers and drinkers cost the country more money than the healthy living people is unproven so lets stop claiming they are the problem.
Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Matewan" about the West Virginia Mine Wars right after World War One, where one of the characters observes (I paraphrase) that it really gets folks stirred up, when the company thugs go and murder a 16-year old boy.
Looks like it really gets people across Iran - but especially in Iranian Kurdistan - stirred up when the morality police go and murder a 22-year old young woman.
Since this is allegedly a betting site, bet you than none of these brave "morality" enforcers feel at all safe showing themselves ANYWHERE in the Islamic Republic today.
The 'morality police' are nothing more than thugs with guns; worse, they were often young thugs with guns.
Mrs J has an interesting (and funny) anecdote about one of her interactions with their paramilitary predecessors when she was a child over there in the 1980s, just after the revolution. She's led a much more interesting life than me...
Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.
(I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)
See also why vodka is cheap in Russia.
Vodka is everywhere in Russia because the Russian state relied on tax revenues from alcohol sales for centuries.
Not even the Soviets were able to break free of it.
Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.
(I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)
Every study I have ever seen indicates the unhealthy have lower lifetime healthcare costs than the healthy.
Now I am not saying its good to be unhealthy living on an individual basis, on a national basis though don't complain about a demographic time bomb while insisting people live a healthier lifestyle so they live longer....its not joined up government
I think this is true only if you ignore the economic costs of someone being ill for a sizable chunk of their working life. But I haven’t found any total economic cost studies yet.
Also, there’s a time dependent issue here: we’re pushing the costs of obesity onto our healthcare service in the here & now, whereas the load those people might put on it if they were healthy is decades into the future.
Most people I know that have been out of work for sizable chunks of their life its not down to obesity or drinking or smoking but mental health
FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.
So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.
Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.
This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.
That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
Do you have the sources for this? Id like to see them and happy to accept on a “well wouldn’t you know” basis if this is the case (not the pension point, the NHS cost point).
I have linked other studies on this in the past rather than newspaper articles but dont have access to the bookmarks right now but certainly....fatties, smokers and drinkers are what cost health services is in doubt
quote from article "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher life expectancy, as shown in Table 1. "
NB. That’s the same paper that your NYT article is quoting.
I can believe it for smoking, lung cancer kills pretty quickly after all, but total economic costs for obesity are high IIRC. Must be some papers out there...
I quoted another study I found which wasnt a newspaper.
Frankly all I am doing here is suggesting that claiming the obese,smokers and drinkers cost the country more money than the healthy living people is unproven so lets stop claiming they are the problem.
Fair. Lets stick to what we do know: we have an aging population that is costing more every year to treat & the only way round that is not to treat people who get ill when they get old. Anyone want to volunteer?
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
We’ve had a couple of decades of our governance being determined by the whims of day traders and tomorrow morning’s poll numbers. Hurray that we have a govt that is sweeping that noise to one side and doing things it knows will cause negative headlines because it believes them to be necessary in the long run.
They'll tell themselves that when we have the first bond sale failure in the next few weeks. We stuck it to those bond traders!
This is melodramatic
Once government is out of debt, THEN we can govern without worrying about what the bond traders think.
Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.
(I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)
Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets.
When I was in Hungary and Yugoslavia mid-1980s most men smoked, many like chimneys, more so than US & UK, even more than France! Prices for domestic brands were affordable for local and cheap for American smokers such as I was way back then.
Cheapest were Albanian imports that cost about a nickle a pack and kicked like a mule. Reminiscent of old-school "Picayune" non-filtered cigarettes, popular back in the day in New Orleans & south Louisiana.
Many years ago, I recall seeing the argument that European governments were doing less than they could to reduce smoking because (1) they were getting large amounts of money from smokers, and (2) working-class smokers generally died of lung cancer soon after retirement, saving the governments large amounts of money.
(I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)
Also (3) if smokers are choosing to smoke and the external costs are not negative to the state, why stop them? J S Mill wouldn't.
Even it's backers notably Rocco Forte are saying all the wrong things. 'Rich people have to be encouraged because they're the people who understand wealth'. (I paraphrase) 'Chambermaids and barmen don't'
Given what you've posted on here over the years I'd have thought you would entirely with the sentiment Rog.
There's something quite endearing about someone without guile. Kwarteng is the same. He answers questions like a disinterested observer. Politicians can't do that.
FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
It’s contributing massively to costs. The population that depends on the NHS is growing hugely every year.
So is ill health and morbidity, because the country is getting fat.
Then there’s pensions, the largest slice of benefits spending by far. Not only is the amount guaranteed to rise at least in line euro inflation due to the triple lock, but the pensionable population keeps going up and up while the working population declines.
This leaves areas of spending that have had to take real terms cuts year after year: policing, transport, education (this one is a real idiocy) and pretty much the whole of local government.
That’s the trouble with an ageing and unhealthy population.
The unhealthy spend less time in the expensive care phase and die younger saving on pension payments. We should tax the healthy more as they cost us more. 50% tax on salads and gym memberships now
Do you have the sources for this? Id like to see them and happy to accept on a “well wouldn’t you know” basis if this is the case (not the pension point, the NHS cost point).
I have linked other studies on this in the past rather than newspaper articles but dont have access to the bookmarks right now but certainly....fatties, smokers and drinkers are what cost health services is in doubt
quote from article "Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher life expectancy, as shown in Table 1. "
NB. That’s the same paper that your NYT article is quoting.
I can believe it for smoking, lung cancer kills pretty quickly after all, but total economic costs for obesity are high IIRC. Must be some papers out there...
I quoted another study I found which wasnt a newspaper.
Frankly all I am doing here is suggesting that claiming the obese,smokers and drinkers cost the country more money than the healthy living people is unproven so lets stop claiming they are the problem.
Fair. Lets stick to what we do know: we have an aging population that is costing more every year to treat & the only way round that is not to treat people who get ill when they get old. Anyone want to volunteer?
Lifetime care budgets, you can insure against exceeding it. Once you reach it insurance pays or you dont get treated
@Joyce_Karam Burning of Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei’s statue in his own hometown of Mashhad as protestors chant “death death to Khamenei.” Protests in Day 7 with anger directed at top of regime
FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
I'm not sure generally, but specifically the NHS is having to deal with an aging population, which I imagine is contributing to costs. Add in that new treatments are also expensive. So even if funding is above inflation, the costs of delivering the service have also increased above inflation.
We have an aging population that’s also getting fatter.
The combination is toxic for NHS finances: Diabetes & heart disease are long term diseases that cost a lot to treat & old people cost a lot almost by definition.
Neither of these problems have easy answers.
The covid period was a gigantic missed opportunity for a big push on improving people's cardiovascular health. They could have used some of the coercive power of the state to get people out doing things like park runs and other forms of exercise, instead of fining them for leaving the house too often.
No, we should have let Covid rip through
We should have let it kill the old, fat and demented. Then let it encourage les autres to be less stupidly fucking obese, the stupid fat fucks
SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."
You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.
(Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)
SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."
You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.
(Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)
Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
We’ve had a couple of decades of our governance being determined by the whims of day traders and tomorrow morning’s poll numbers. Hurray that we have a govt that is sweeping that noise to one side and doing things it knows will cause negative headlines because it believes them to be necessary in the long run.
They'll tell themselves that when we have the first bond sale failure in the next few weeks. We stuck it to those bond traders!
This is melodramatic
Once government is out of debt, THEN we can govern without worrying about what the bond traders think.
Wasn’t there an irony about the Clinton years. He was quoted as saying the only thing that Govt’s should fear was the power of the bond markets. And he neutered their power so much that it allegedly caused a problem (where do pension funds invest if there’s no Govt debt?). So Bush, big tax cuts for the rich, and the problem has gone forever.
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
We’ve had a couple of decades of our governance being determined by the whims of day traders and tomorrow morning’s poll numbers. Hurray that we have a govt that is sweeping that noise to one side and doing things it knows will cause negative headlines because it believes them to be necessary in the long run.
They'll tell themselves that when we have the first bond sale failure in the next few weeks. We stuck it to those bond traders!
This is melodramatic
Once government is out of debt, THEN we can govern without worrying about what the bond traders think.
Wasn’t there an irony about the Clinton years. He was quoted as saying the only thing that Govt’s should fear was the power of the bond markets. And he neutered their power so much that it allegedly caused a problem (where do pension funds invest if there’s no Govt debt?). So Bush, big tax cuts for the rich, and the problem has gone forever.
He forgot to mention the danger of little black dresses then?
SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."
You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.
(Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)
Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
Last time I saw the figures it didn't, but the reduced pension liabilities of smokers more than made up the difference. It may have changed since then though.
One thing I'm curious about after today is if the SNP Government will recognise that lower taxes bring in more revenues and match the Tory tax cuts, or if they'll have systematically higher taxes in Scotland? And if they do have higher taxes in Scotland, will that then see anyone moving as a result?
Iran would and will be a wonderful country of passionate clever spirited people, once they throw off this vile Islamist regime
It could be a force for GOOD. A remarkable thing
One of the best 'documentaries' I've seen featuring regular Iranian people is 'A Taste of Iran' - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n59zt (obviously, as per, not available on the iplayer). Iranian BBC World Service journalist going round and just having nice food cooked by locals and having a chat.
Though most of the 'Iranian' people I know here are very, very certain that they are 'Persian'.
Therein lies the danger for Iran too. They shed their conservative Islamic identity and become nationalist instead. See Russia after shaking off its communist identity, or Turkey after the fall of the Ottomans.
Or, in reverse, Burma getting into religious persecution after temporarily shedding the junta and Libya going batshit Islamist after losing Gaddafi.
Not many examples of extremist ideological states becoming non-extremist after losing an ideology, unless it was one imported or forced on them like the former communist Eastern European countries. Post war Germany and Japan were occupied so the dynamic is different there.
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”
Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."
You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.
(Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)
Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
Last time I saw the figures it didn't, but the reduced pension liabilities of smokers more than made up the difference. It may have changed since then though.
One thing I'm curious about after today is if the SNP Government will recognise that lower taxes bring in more revenues and match the Tory tax cuts, or if they'll have systematically higher taxes in Scotland? And if they do have higher taxes in Scotland, will that then see anyone moving as a result?
Hopefully the right wing unionists that always threaten to emigrate south if they have to pay more tax than they would in England actually follow through with their threats this time. And don’t let the door hit their parasitic arses on the way out.
@Joyce_Karam Burning of Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei’s statue in his own hometown of Mashhad as protestors chant “death death to Khamenei.” Protests in Day 7 with anger directed at top of regime
SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."
You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.
(Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)
Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
Last time I saw the figures it didn't, but the reduced pension liabilities of smokers more than made up the difference. It may have changed since then though.
One thing I'm curious about after today is if the SNP Government will recognise that lower taxes bring in more revenues and match the Tory tax cuts, or if they'll have systematically higher taxes in Scotland? And if they do have higher taxes in Scotland, will that then see anyone moving as a result?
@Joyce_Karam Burning of Iran Supreme Leader Khamenei’s statue in his own hometown of Mashhad as protestors chant “death death to Khamenei.” Protests in Day 7 with anger directed at top of regime
Just had a cheery email from British Gas telling me that thanks to the price cap, based on last year's usage, my energy bill for the forthcoming 12 year period is likely to be around £6,500. Hopefully, a new roof and solar panels over the winter should cut this quite drastically...?
FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”
Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.
If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.
You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Matewan" about the West Virginia Mine Wars right after World War One, where one of the characters observes (I paraphrase) that it really gets folks stirred up, when the company thugs go and murder a 16-year old boy.
Looks like it really gets people across Iran - but especially in Iranian Kurdistan - stirred up when the morality police go and murder a 22-year old young woman.
Since this is allegedly a betting site, bet you than none of these brave "morality" enforcers feel at all safe showing themselves ANYWHERE in the Islamic Republic today.
Reminds me of this bit from V For Vendetta where the morality police murder a young girl:
Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Matewan" about the West Virginia Mine Wars right after World War One, where one of the characters observes (I paraphrase) that it really gets folks stirred up, when the company thugs go and murder a 16-year old boy.
Looks like it really gets people across Iran - but especially in Iranian Kurdistan - stirred up when the morality police go and murder a 22-year old young woman.
Since this is allegedly a betting site, bet you than none of these brave "morality" enforcers feel at all safe showing themselves ANYWHERE in the Islamic Republic today.
Reminds me of this bit from V For Vendetta where the morality police murder a young girl:
FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”
Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.
If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.
You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
Diabetic foot disease isn't just about amputation. It is a significant cause of disability.
We’ve had a couple of decades of our governance being determined by the whims of day traders and tomorrow morning’s poll numbers. Hurray that we have a govt that is sweeping that noise to one side and doing things it knows will cause negative headlines because it believes them to be necessary in the long run.
I have two problems with this. First, Kwarteng lacks a clear explanation of what he's trying to do. I can in principle support a calculated risk, where you might fail in an objective, but on balance it was worth it. But you do need to state your objective and reasons why you might achieve it, neither of which Kwarteng has remotely done.
I am struggling to understand Kwarteng's aims The only rational explanation from the evidence is that Kwarteng thinks rich people aren't rich enough and poor people relatively not poor enough. But I can't think why a politician would see advantage in persuing that ideology.
Also, the past is not a guide to the future yadda yadda. However policy today - the here and now - is a total clusterfuck. Maybe it will all be wonderful later. Why should we believe that? So it is all voodoo.
FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”
Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.
If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.
You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
Diabetic foot disease isn't just about amputation. It is a significant cause of disability.
You evade the question what percentage of diabetics does it affect?
If this is a gamble (as all the informed commentary indicates) and it goes bad, should we be expecting Truss to be kicked out, and how quickly might it happen ?
It does seem like a 'from the gut' response of massive significance, poorly thought through, and cobbled together in a few hours; and the initial response is not positive.
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
Or in short: it's expensive to be poor. See also rent.
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
Or in short: it's expensive to be poor. See also rent.
Logging onto PB tonight to catch up on the budget stuff, I am struck by the near universality of the sentiment against what the government has announced today. I am used to the middle ground on PB being more right-leaning and Tory-sympathetic than me, so to see you all denouncing this lot as crazies is at least a little bit heartening.
I wonder what impact this will have on popular opinion? The things that will stand out, I think, are the top rate cut and the bankers' bonuses. Neither strike me as things that will go down well with the public.
There is a energy help to households package buried beneath this “tax cuts for the rich, not much in it for me” wail from voters - maybe they should have just kept to crisis help today to enjoy poll bouncing kudos on that - the other more controversial elements after conferences, using the conference to sell and get buy in to the tax cutting policy,
Did they have to do both today, is it political own goal?
One of the interesting things about this government is that, as far as I can see from sporadic catching up on news etc. they seem to be distinctly less populist i.e. 'enjoying poll bouncing kudos' seems low on the agenda.
Other more sympathetic observers might attribute this to integrity. I attribute it to them being a bunch of f***ing idiots, and naive to boot. I think its what you get a couple of years after clearing out your talent because they won't drink the kool aid on Brexit.
Just had a cheery email from British Gas telling me that thanks to the price cap, based on last year's usage, my energy bill for the forthcoming 12 year period is likely to be around £6,500. Hopefully, a new roof and solar panels over the winter should cut this quite drastically...?
Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Matewan" about the West Virginia Mine Wars right after World War One, where one of the characters observes (I paraphrase) that it really gets folks stirred up, when the company thugs go and murder a 16-year old boy.
Looks like it really gets people across Iran - but especially in Iranian Kurdistan - stirred up when the morality police go and murder a 22-year old young woman.
Since this is allegedly a betting site, bet you than none of these brave "morality" enforcers feel at all safe showing themselves ANYWHERE in the Islamic Republic today.
Reminds me of this bit from V For Vendetta where the morality police murder a young girl:
SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."
You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.
(Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)
Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
Last time I saw the figures it didn't, but the reduced pension liabilities of smokers more than made up the difference. It may have changed since then though.
One thing I'm curious about after today is if the SNP Government will recognise that lower taxes bring in more revenues and match the Tory tax cuts, or if they'll have systematically higher taxes in Scotland? And if they do have higher taxes in Scotland, will that then see anyone moving as a result?
It's been claimed on pb.com that the existing modest differential in income tax rates between Scotland and England already resulted in such behaviour change, and as a result the higher tax rates in Scotland didn't bring in the predicted additional income.
"Raising the threshold to £250,000 means that a third of all homes currently for sale (33%) are now completely exempt from stamp duty in England (up from 7% when the threshold was £125,000)"
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
Right on the edge I would say!
Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive
Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which
Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”
Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.
If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.
You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
Diabetic foot disease isn't just about amputation. It is a significant cause of disability.
You evade the question what percentage of diabetics does it affect?
10-15% at some point. It varies with ethnicity, less common in Asian diabetics, more in whites. The other way round for kidney failure.
There are about 4 million diabetic people in the country.
SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."
You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.
(Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)
Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
Last time I saw the figures it didn't, but the reduced pension liabilities of smokers more than made up the difference. It may have changed since then though.
One thing I'm curious about after today is if the SNP Government will recognise that lower taxes bring in more revenues and match the Tory tax cuts, or if they'll have systematically higher taxes in Scotland? And if they do have higher taxes in Scotland, will that then see anyone moving as a result?
It's been claimed on pb.com that the existing modest differential in income tax rates between Scotland and England already resulted in such behaviour change, and as a result the higher tax rates in Scotland didn't bring in the predicted additional income.
I rewcall the howling from the Unionists and the provision of extra pay from MoD for senior officers to cover the differential (or was that just a proposal?) between rUK and Scottish IT. But there never was a proposal to pay lower ranks extra money to cover the cost of having to serve in England. For some unaccountable reason.
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
Right on the edge I would say!
Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive
Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which
Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
I suspect mr Pratchett is probably too busy arguing with maggots to be that litigious
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
Right on the edge I would say!
Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive
Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which
Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
Good thing there is fair use for non commercial stuff, as without it this site would have been shut down for overuse of Pratchett quotes long ago.
Is Kwarteng on downers? This interview with Chris Mason:
MASON: Do you think the economy is in recession?
KWARTENG: Technically, the Bank of England said that there was a recession, I think it’ll be shallow and I hope that we can rebound and grow
MASON: So you’re acknowledging that there is going to be a recession
KWARTENG: I’m not acknowledging that, no no I said that there is technically a recession. We’ve had two quarters of very little, negative growth and I think these measures are gonna help us drive growth.
MASON: A recession is a recession and you’re saying we’re in recession
KWARTENG: I’m not saying we’re in recession, I’m referring to what the Bank has said. And I think we’re gonna drive growth with these policies
MASON: What’s the difference between a technical recession and a recession?
KWARTENG: There’s a big difference. Technically, the economists say two consecutive quarters, but I think we’re going to grow the economy, that’s what we’re doing, that’s what we’re focused on.
What a terrible exchange. Hopefully Mason went onto to discuss more useful things like why has Kwarteng decided a tax-cut from 45% to 40% is a priority for growth, setting aside that it is ludicrously regressive.
Its an illuminating exchange. The UK is in a recession. That the CofE can't accept that is a Big Problem. Denial of reality means that your analysis is wrong and your policies are wrong.
The difference between -0.1/-0.1/0 and -0.1/0/-0.1 is meaningless. But one is technically a recession and the other is not.
Also while I'm whingeing, it turns out that should middle daughter fail the 11+, she will have a choice of exactly one school, which is shit, such is the pressure on school places in Trafford. There are some very good non-grammars in Trafford, but if you live more than a mile from them, forget it.
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
Right on the edge I would say!
Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive
Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which
Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
I suspect mr Pratchett is probably too busy arguing with maggots to be that litigious
Sadly. But his executors/heirs will be very much alive. And they will hold the IP (except for the case where it is assigned elsewhere).
FPT Question and I am genuinely happy to hear an answer from left or right as it puzzles me.
Many of our public services whether national or local throughout the years have been giving funding increases above inflation and then announced they have to cut services. Either the inflation figure is a fiction or the money is somehow being siphoned off. The nhs is a good example of this...plenty of years of above inflation increases in budget while service is cut.
Medical inflation is higher than CPI. Not just because of costly new treatments, but also the obvious one of an ageing boomer population, so more demand.
Needed to fit a source in somewhere for what I had been saying so not specifically aimed at you
“The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.”
Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
Losing a limb through diabetes isnt common as most get caught before that point, certainly not to the point of distorting the figures.
Diabetes foot disease is the cause of more diabetic inpatient days than anything else.
Didn't claim it wasnt what I disputed is that a lot of diabetics ended up losing a limb.
If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.
You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
Diabetic foot disease isn't just about amputation. It is a significant cause of disability.
You evade the question what percentage of diabetics does it affect?
10-15% at some point. It varies with ethnicity, less common in Asian diabetics, more in whites. The other way round for kidney failure.
There are about 4 million diabetic people in the country.
So it affects around 400k people to 600k and how many cant work after given I have worked with many people more severely disabled that that
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
Right on the edge I would say!
Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive
Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which
Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
I suspect mr Pratchett is probably too busy arguing with maggots to be that litigious
Literary estates can be far more venal than the original author. They have no other assets to fall back on.
Also while I'm whingeing, it turns out that should middle daughter fail the 11+, she will have a choice of exactly one school, which is shit, such is the pressure on school places in Trafford. There are some very good non-grammars in Trafford, but if you live more than a mile from them, forget it.
I feel for you my son had a choice between passing his 11plus or attend gang recruitment centre 1
Just had a cheery email from British Gas telling me that thanks to the price cap, based on last year's usage, my energy bill for the forthcoming 12 year period is likely to be around £6,500. Hopefully, a new roof and solar panels over the winter should cut this quite drastically...?
SeaShantyIish2 siad: "Tobacco has always, or at least traditionally, been a government monopoly in European countries outside of UK. AND a major source of government revenue, and key anchor for state budgets."
You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.
(Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)
Also certainly in the UK smoking taxes more than pay for nhs treatment of smokers by a factor of I think 2
Last time I saw the figures it didn't, but the reduced pension liabilities of smokers more than made up the difference. It may have changed since then though.
One thing I'm curious about after today is if the SNP Government will recognise that lower taxes bring in more revenues and match the Tory tax cuts, or if they'll have systematically higher taxes in Scotland? And if they do have higher taxes in Scotland, will that then see anyone moving as a result?
It's been claimed on pb.com that the existing modest differential in income tax rates between Scotland and England already resulted in such behaviour change, and as a result the higher tax rates in Scotland didn't bring in the predicted additional income.
Anecdotal, but I know a lot of people that have moved between Scotland and England. Both ways but more to Scotland for perceived lifestyle improvements. No-one to my knowledge has mentioned income tax differentials.
All is not lost for the Conservatives. They could still win the next election if they adopt Kremlin referendum voting procedures in the disputed territories.
A knock on the door by soldiers and a paper tally totted up by said soldiers. It might give the Government the result it requires.
You're suggesting the Donbas could send MPs to Westminster?
Good call, they worship the UK Conservatives in Ukraine.
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
I need to start reading Pratchett. Had a brief dalliance a long time ago. Need to sort my shit out.
Oh random twitter folk, you never let us down. I know the US has electoral issues, but even so...
From what I’m seeing in this referendum, with IDs, paper ballots, & a clear chain of custody, the DPR, LPR, Kherson, Zaporozhye regions have far more fair & transparent elections than the U.S., in SPITE of attempted shelling by Ukraine. Yet the U.S media-politic calls it a sham.
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
I need to start reading Pratchett. Had a brief dalliance a long time ago. Need to sort my shit out.
"Making Money" would seem a decent start in the current economic climate.
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
Right on the edge I would say!
Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive
Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which
Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
Ta again. I may contact the Pratchett estate to test the water.
Oh random twitter folk, you never let us down. I know the US has electoral issues, but even so...
From what I’m seeing in this referendum, with IDs, paper ballots, & a clear chain of custody, the DPR, LPR, Kherson, Zaporozhye regions have far more fair & transparent elections than the U.S., in SPITE of attempted shelling by Ukraine. Yet the U.S media-politic calls it a sham.
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
Right on the edge I would say!
Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive
Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which
Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
I'd agree. Strip it down - and for that matter paraphrase some or all of it, . So you can have
'A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
or (partly paraphrasing)
"'A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.' So ran Captain Vimes' theory of socioeconomic unfairness, as imagined by TP in Whatever Book It Was."
Or simply paraphrase the whole, so nobody can get you for (c), while mentioning the source, so nobody can get you for plagiarism.
The other point is that in copyright stuff, 'commercial' doesn't mean what you might think it does any more (but this is mainly an issue for stuff like academic/scholarly journals produced by learned societies and local history or natural history societies, not so much here).
On the subject of literary estates, even without seeing the show I can declare people moaning about the portrayal of Galadriel in the Rings of Power are barking up the wrong tree. Been reading 'Unfinished Tales' today, and it is pretty explicit that the entire backstory and character of Galadriel is inconsistent and in parts contradictory. The show might match none of it yet even if it did it woudl still contradict in parts.
Also while I'm whingeing, it turns out that should middle daughter fail the 11+, she will have a choice of exactly one school, which is shit, such is the pressure on school places in Trafford. There are some very good non-grammars in Trafford, but if you live more than a mile from them, forget it.
At least if you have to move to a better catchment area, you won’t have to pay as much Stamp Duty.
On the subject of literary estates, even without seeing the show I can declare people moaning about the portrayal of Galadriel in the Rings of Power are barking up the wrong tree. Been reading 'Unfinished Tales' today, and it is pretty explicit that the entire backstory and character of Galadriel is inconsistent and in parts contradictory. The show might match none of it yet even if it did it woudl still contradict in parts.
Galadriel is the token female in a tale of patriarchal hegenomy and is thus painted as a whimsical bimbo despite in reality being a strong woman with her own motivations....do I get a woke medal?
Another aspect of KK's offering today - he explicitly said he was trying to increase jobs in London. Not the UK. Not England. Certainly not The North. Fecking London. Let's hope that they all buy their lunch from Pret to save the economy.
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
Right on the edge I would say!
Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive
Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which
Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
Ta again. I may contact the Pratchett estate to test the water.
Other PB-ers are right. Literary estates are often way more aggressive than living authors (because all the estates care about is income, whereas the great, late and loaded Mr Pratchett probably didn’t give a fig). Tread carefully
Ok, a mild distraction from woes various, what's the copyright situation with using pieces from literature in a commercial setting? I'd like to use Vimes' Boot Theory in something I'm involved in. Nothing as crude as Pratchett endorses X but more an appreciation of that simple piece of economic clarity. I believe @SouthamObserver has copyright as his business?
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
Thanks. Would the full passage qualify as a few lines?
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
Right on the edge I would say!
Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive
Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which
Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
I'd agree. Strip it down - and for that matter paraphrase some or all of it, . So you can have
'A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
or (partly paraphrasing)
"'A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.' So ran Captain Vimes' theory of socioeconomic unfairness, as imagined by TP in Whatever Book It Was."
Or simply paraphrase the whole, so nobody can get you for (c), while mentioning the source, so nobody can get you for plagiarism.
The other point is that in copyright stuff, 'commercial' doesn't mean what you might think it does any more (but this is mainly an issue for stuff like academic/scholarly journals produced by learned societies and local history or natural history societies, not so much here).
Thanks, who needs pros when you have PB!
My even shorter paraphrase would be:
Buy goood stuff if you can afford it, it's cheaper in the long run.
On the subject of literary estates, even without seeing the show I can declare people moaning about the portrayal of Galadriel in the Rings of Power are barking up the wrong tree. Been reading 'Unfinished Tales' today, and it is pretty explicit that the entire backstory and character of Galadriel is inconsistent and in parts contradictory. The show might match none of it yet even if it did it woudl still contradict in parts.
Galadriel is the token female in a tale of patriarchal hegenomy and is thus painted as a whimsical bimbo despite in reality being a strong woman with her own motivations....do I get a woke medal?
Possibly. I should have specified those who moan about the portrayal not being true to the character are barking up the wrong tree. It could well be terrible for other reasons.
👀 NEW Conservative peer Gavin Barwell tonight on @LBC to @AndrewMarr9: “I think the UK needs a centre right party, and… we face the same dilemma maybe that moderates in the Labour Party faced during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.” #MiniBudget @GavinBarwell
On the subject of literary estates, even without seeing the show I can declare people moaning about the portrayal of Galadriel in the Rings of Power are barking up the wrong tree. Been reading 'Unfinished Tales' today, and it is pretty explicit that the entire backstory and character of Galadriel is inconsistent and in parts contradictory. The show might match none of it yet even if it did it woudl still contradict in parts.
Galadriel is the token female in a tale of patriarchal hegenomy and is thus painted as a whimsical bimbo despite in reality being a strong woman with her own motivations....do I get a woke medal?
Possibly. I should have specified those who moan about the portrayal not being true to the character are barking up the wrong tree. It could well be terrible for other reasons.
I confess to not having watched it....I just thought I should overreact without having seen it as training for joining twitter
Comments
(I didn't know enough at the time to assess the argument -- and still don't.)
Looks like it really gets people across Iran - but especially in Iranian Kurdistan - stirred up when the morality police go and murder a 22-year old young woman.
Since this is allegedly a betting site, bet you than none of these brave "morality" enforcers feel at all safe showing themselves ANYWHERE in the Islamic Republic today.
They're out of sorts in Sunderland
And terribly cross in Kent,
They're dull in Hull
And the Isle of Mull
Is seething with discontent,
They're nervous in Northumberland
And Devon is down the drain,
They're filled with wrath
On the firth of Forth
And sullen on Salisbury Plain,
In Dublin they're depressed, lads,
Maybe because they're Celts
For Drake is going West, lads,
And so is everyone else.
Hurray, hurray, hurray!
Misery's here to stay.
There are bad times just around the corner,
There are dark clouds hurtling through the sky
And it's no good whining
About a silver lining
For we know from experience that they won't roll by,
With a scowl and a frown
We'll keep our peckers down
And prepare for depression and doom and dread,
We're going to unpack our troubles from our old kit bag
And wait until we drop down dead.…
Why? Because they have ancient, noble identities quite apart from Islam. Iran is Persia; Egypt is Egypt of the pharaohs as well as the caliphs
I hope the patriarchal fucks in Tehran are trembling
Now I am not saying its good to be unhealthy living on an individual basis, on a national basis though don't complain about a demographic time bomb while insisting people live a healthier lifestyle so they live longer....its not joined up government
Yeah. What do you think happens to all those uncontrolled diabetes patients who end up losing a limb?
Though most of the 'Iranian' people I know here are very, very certain that they are 'Persian'.
I can believe it for smoking, lung cancer kills pretty quickly after all, but total economic costs for obesity are high IIRC. Must be some papers out there...
Also, there’s a time dependent issue here: we’re pushing the costs of obesity onto our healthcare service in the here & now, whereas the load those people might put on it if they were healthy is decades into the future.
Frankly all I am doing here is suggesting that claiming the obese,smokers and drinkers cost the country more money than the healthy living people is unproven so lets stop claiming they are the problem.
Mrs J has an interesting (and funny) anecdote about one of her interactions with their paramilitary predecessors when she was a child over there in the 1980s, just after the revolution. She's led a much more interesting life than me...
Not even the Soviets were able to break free of it.
When I was in Hungary and Yugoslavia mid-1980s most men smoked, many like chimneys, more so than US & UK, even more than France! Prices for domestic brands were affordable for local and cheap for American smokers such as I was way back then.
Cheapest were Albanian imports that cost about a nickle a pack and kicked like a mule. Reminiscent of old-school "Picayune" non-filtered cigarettes, popular back in the day in New Orleans & south Louisiana.
I suspect he won't last.
She takes up a lot less space on the front bench than Therese Coffey.
Don't be so silly.
You're right about that; I should have remembered the state monopoly part of that argument.
(Times change: In WW II, American soldiers were issued six packs of cigarettes a week and, early in the war, there were complaints about the unpopular brands they were getting.)
https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-dealing-copyright-explained
It really depends on your purposes. If you are out to make money you are allowed a few lines, is all
One thing I'm curious about after today is if the SNP Government will recognise that lower taxes bring in more revenues and match the Tory tax cuts, or if they'll have systematically higher taxes in Scotland? And if they do have higher taxes in Scotland, will that then see anyone moving as a result?
Or, in reverse, Burma getting into religious persecution after temporarily shedding the junta and Libya going batshit Islamist after losing Gaddafi.
Not many examples of extremist ideological states becoming non-extremist after losing an ideology, unless it was one imported or forced on them like the former communist Eastern European countries. Post war Germany and Japan were occupied so the dynamic is different there.
'The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-smoking-to-the-nhs-in-england-2015/cost-of-smoking-to-the-nhs-in-england-2015
this was 2.6 billion
here is a chart of tobacco revenues which includes 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016
https://www.statista.com/statistics/284329/tobacco-duty-united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts/
both years 9.485 billion
now I may be mathematically challenged here but I think in my mind 9.485 is a bigger number than 2.6 by a factor of at least 2
Mortgage rates are going to spike.
Reform? Yes.
Hopefully, a new roof and solar panels over the winter should cut this quite drastically...?
If 50% of diabetics lose a limb thats a big deal....if its 0.05% then hardly disrupting the figures.
You are a doctor...what percentage of diabetics lose a limb?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yde6t4WG5uY&ab_channel=WinstonWolf
I am struggling to understand Kwarteng's aims The only rational explanation from the evidence is that Kwarteng thinks rich people aren't rich enough and poor people relatively not poor enough. But I can't think why a politician would see advantage in persuing that ideology.
Also, the past is not a guide to the future yadda yadda. However policy today - the here and now - is a total clusterfuck. Maybe it will all be wonderful later. Why should we believe that? So it is all voodoo.
It does seem like a 'from the gut' response of massive significance, poorly thought through, and cobbled together in a few hours; and the initial response is not positive.
See also rent.
Other more sympathetic observers might attribute this to integrity. I attribute it to them being a bunch of f***ing idiots, and naive to boot. I think its what you get a couple of years after clearing out your talent because they won't drink the kool aid on Brexit.
https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/1573387425791070208/photo/1
"Raising the threshold to £250,000 means that a third of all homes currently for sale (33%) are now completely exempt from stamp duty in England (up from 7% when the threshold was £125,000)"
Seek pro advice perhaps. Getting this wrong can be quite expensive
Some authors/publishers are extremely litigious. Others don’t give a toss. And you never know which is which
Don’t ever get on the wrong side of the guy that wrote the lyrics to “postman pat”. (And his black and white cat). I’m serious
There are about 4 million diabetic people in the country.
England's answer - bring on Shaw
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63013356
Might give Liz Truss ideas....
From what I’m seeing in this referendum, with IDs, paper ballots, & a clear chain of custody, the DPR, LPR, Kherson, Zaporozhye regions have far more fair & transparent elections than the U.S., in SPITE of attempted shelling by Ukraine. Yet the U.S media-politic calls it a sham.
https://twitter.com/FiorellaIsabelM/status/1573256902389403651
'A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.'
or (partly paraphrasing)
"'A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.' So ran Captain Vimes' theory of socioeconomic unfairness, as imagined by TP in Whatever Book It Was."
Or simply paraphrase the whole, so nobody can get you for (c), while mentioning the source, so nobody can get you for plagiarism.
The other point is that in copyright stuff, 'commercial' doesn't mean what you might think it does any more (but this is mainly an issue for stuff like academic/scholarly journals produced by learned societies and local history or natural history societies, not so much here).
And thats me as a United fan...
My even shorter paraphrase would be:
Buy goood stuff if you can afford it, it's cheaper in the long run.
#MiniBudget @GavinBarwell