I'm concerned that 02/genie may try and trace me (location). Are there any phones that allow you to stay private

[email protected] posted
>On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:54:49 +0000, PeteM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It's not "irresponsible debt" as in "debt that won't be paid back". It
>>will be paid back.
>
>It isn't like that.
>
>The irony is that it's the opposite of what most people aspire to.
>
>People borrow money so that they can buy a house on a mortgage, and
>eventually own it outright. We generally see that as a better option
>than renting forever,.
>
>PFI takes hospitals and schools that were in public ownership, and
>gives them to private contractors

No it doesn't. PFI is used to fund *new* construction projects, either
brand-new hospitals (etc) where none existed before, or new hospitals to
replace the old and dilapidated ones.

>who redevelop, renovate (or in the
>case of one local school, repaint) the building, then hire it back to
>the original owner

The contract includes the ongoing cost of repairs and maintenance. The
PFI contractor contracts to undertake these activities and naturally the
client authority must reimburse them.

As a result, though, the building will at least be adequately maintained
and redecorated for its lifetime. This is in contrast to NHS hospitals
and LEA schools over the past 30 years, where maintenance budgets have
been one of the first to be cut when the operating authority experiences
financial hardships. The result of that policy was that buildings would
inevitably fall into that state of shabby dilapidation familiar to those
of us who have had to use them.


>f0r decades if not forever.

They are not forever. The property passes into public ownership at the
end of the contract, typically 40 years.


>In addition they sting the victims for huge service charges (for
>example, it costs £60 to have a patient wheeled from the ward to the
>operating theatre at our local hospital, and another £60 to wheel them
>back.

For some value of "it costs £60". What you mean is that somebody has
entered £60 in an Excel cell as the nominal value of that activity,
taking into account cost of labour, equipment, capital, energy and
everything else. That's done in any industry. It might even be that £60
is a fair approximation to the "real" cost, if such a thing can be said
to exist. I mean, what's the "real" cost of one copy a newspaper?

>The porter doing the pushing will be on little more than minimum
>wage,

He's only one part of the cost of the activity.

> but the PFI contractor has the trust over a barrel).

That is certainly one controversial aspect of PFI contracts. Nobody
pretends they are perfect.

--
PeteM

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

---

› See More: I'm concerned that 02/genie may try and trace me (location). Are there any phones that allow you to stay private

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> It is very clear that sending people to prison is neither a deterrent
> nor a rehabilitation. It does not prevent offending.

It prevents them re-offending while they are inside!

>
> Prison doesn't work. An uncomfortable fact.


So what do you suggest as an alternative - capital punishment? At least
*that* would prevent re-offending and may even act as a deterrent - as in
the days when you could incur it for sheep stealing!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Locking large numbers of people up, marking them as 'criminals',
> pushing them further into a life of crime, possibly putting them in an
> environment where drug abuse is endemic sounds like a problem to me.
>
> And, regarding "who knows until we try it"; what about closing all
> prisons and releasing the inmates- it might work.

Think of all the money we could save - not just in the prisons, but police,
governent etc. There would be no need for any laws if we weren't going to
enforce them. We could all live in a happy state of anarchy!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In message <[email protected]>, Tim <[email protected]>
writes
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>> It is very clear that sending people to
>>>> prison ... does not prevent offending.
>>>
>> "Roger Mills" wrote
>>>It prevents them re-offending while they are inside!
>>
><[email protected]> wrote
>> Not sure that's true, there's plenty of drug dealing
>> whilst inside, assault and similar crimes committed.
>
>Ah, but what the criminals get up to *inside* prison,
>does not affect the law-abiding people on the *outside*.
>
>So there's no cause for concern there!
>
>

Oh excellent..... so all we need is to set up a larger area, say
Newcastle for example, and declare it a law-free zone where all crime is
acceptable. We tell the law-abiding people to leave and we send all
criminals there to live and put a big fence round it.

--
Mike_B

>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>> It is very clear that sending people to
>>>>> prison ... does not prevent offending.
>>>>
>>> "Roger Mills" wrote
>>>>It prevents them re-offending while they are inside!
>>>
>><[email protected]> wrote
>>> Not sure that's true, there's plenty of drug dealing
>>> whilst inside, assault and similar crimes committed.
>>
> "Tim" wrote
>>Ah, but what the criminals get up to *inside* prison,
>>does not affect the law-abiding people on the *outside*.
>>
>>So there's no cause for concern there!
>
"Mike_B" wrote
> Oh excellent..... so all we need is to set up a larger area, say
> Newcastle for example, and declare it a law-free zone where all
> crime is acceptable. We tell the law-abiding people to leave and
> we send all criminals there to live and put a big fence round it.

An EXCELLENT idea - glad you agree!
[Why not use the Isle of Wight? ;-) ]

Tim <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Oh excellent..... so all we need is to set up a larger area, say
> > Newcastle for example, and declare it a law-free zone where all
> > crime is acceptable. We tell the law-abiding people to leave and
> > we send all criminals there to live and put a big fence round it.
>
> An EXCELLENT idea - glad you agree!
> [Why not use the Isle of Wight? ;-) ]

ITYM 'France'.

Send all the world's criminals over there.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Jon <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> > Prison doesn't work. An uncomfortable fact.
>
> What's the answer then?

Shoot the ****ers.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 07:05:31 -0000, Jon <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Prison" itself is not the problem I don't think. Longer sentencing
>might work - who knows until we try it?

It has been tried. It is counter-productive. Have you starter reading
the Daily Hate Mail? I'm sure you weren't as ridiculous as this in the
past.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 18:42:28 -0000, "Roger Mills"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It prevents them re-offending while they are inside!

It most certainly does not. There are more crimes committed inside
prisons than outside.

>
>>
>> Prison doesn't work. An uncomfortable fact.
>
>
>So what do you suggest as an alternative - capital punishment? At least
>*that* would prevent re-offending and may even act as a deterrent - as in
>the days when you could incur it for sheep stealing!

No, that's been tried, and although it does prevent re-offending, it
does not act as an effective deterrent. The opposite in many cases,
for reasons that this isn't the place to explain.

What would I suggest as an alternative? You want a simple answer to a
question that has defied societies all over the world for generations?
I'm touched by your faith in me, but I have to admit that I don't have
a simple answer.

What I do know is that when something has the opposite effect to what
you want, it is bloody stupid to keep using that method and not
looking at a better alternative.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:52:01 +0000, PeteM <[email protected]> wrote:

>No it doesn't. PFI is used to fund *new* construction projects, either
>brand-new hospitals (etc) where none existed before, or new hospitals to
>replace the old and dilapidated ones.

If only that were true. Yes, it does get used for new buildings (our
local hospital was partly demolished and rebuilt that way), but it
also takes over old ones.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:52:01 +0000, PeteM <[email protected]> wrote:

>For some value of "it costs £60". What you mean is that somebody has
>entered £60 in an Excel cell as the nominal value of that activity,
>taking into account cost of labour, equipment, capital, energy and
>everything else. That's done in any industry. It might even be that £60
>is a fair approximation to the "real" cost, if such a thing can be said
>to exist. I mean, what's the "real" cost of one copy a newspaper?

No, this is the marginal charge for the activity. The equipment,
capital, energy and everything else are already covered by other
aspects of the PFI swindle.

>
>>The porter doing the pushing will be on little more than minimum
>>wage,
>
>He's only one part of the cost of the activity.

He's the only marginal cost involved.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> What I do know is that when something has the opposite effect to what
> you want, it is bloody stupid to keep using that method and not
> looking at a better alternative.

Tell that to Blair! I can't think of a single thing his mob have done which
*hasn't* had the opposite effect to that intended!

[Iraq, NHS targets, education reforms, Part-P - to name but a few!]
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

In message <[email protected]>, Steve Terry
<[email protected]> writes
>Seems to me the main purpose of PFI is to put large quantities
>of public money into the pockets of this Govs friends,

That is one purpose but the main purpose is to hide Government borrowing
by putting it 'off balance sheet'.

--
John Boyle

[email protected] posted
>On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:52:01 +0000, PeteM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>For some value of "it costs £60". What you mean is that somebody has
>>entered £60 in an Excel cell as the nominal value of that activity,
>>taking into account cost of labour, equipment, capital, energy and
>>everything else. That's done in any industry. It might even be that £60
>>is a fair approximation to the "real" cost, if such a thing can be said
>>to exist. I mean, what's the "real" cost of one copy a newspaper?
>
>No, this is the marginal charge for the activity. The equipment,
>capital, energy and everything else are already covered by other
>aspects of the PFI swindle.

There is too much disinformation in this field for me to believe that
without seeing the source data.


--
PeteM

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[email protected] posted
>On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 16:52:01 +0000, PeteM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>No it doesn't. PFI is used to fund *new* construction projects, either
>>brand-new hospitals (etc) where none existed before, or new hospitals to
>>replace the old and dilapidated ones.
>
>If only that were true. Yes, it does get used for new buildings (our
>local hospital was partly demolished and rebuilt that way), but it
>also takes over old ones.
>

Well, please cite a case where "PFI takes hospitals and schools that
were in public ownership, and gives them to private contractors", and
tell us the financial details of the deal, including end-of-life
arrangements.

--
PeteM

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com