Which is it , Malcolm?

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:22:22 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

email hidden said:

On Jun 14, 2:59 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
>>>> 2. The RAF seem to think taking part in rescue activities is good practice.
>>> Sure it is. But it could be paid for good practice.
>> It *is* paid for, by taxes.
> But not by the users.
If the users are UK citizens then they are taxpayers. The taxpayers
are the users, the users are paying. I'm happy to grant non-UK
taxpayers a concession that we'll rescue them if neccessary during a
visit to the UK. Without charge.

So why should taxpayers pay for anything at all? For instance, the
NHS charge motorists for treatment.

Er, sorry, you've lost me there. Are you saying that a motorist gets a
charge from the hospital for sorting them out?

Yes. There is a charge made to a motorist involved in an accident
which is usually paid for by the insurance company to the NHS.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> If you choose not to go walking and avail
>> yourself of the rescue services then that's your choice. Much the same
>> way childless couples don't get a rebate for not using schools, or
>> people who don't use the library don't get a rebate, and so on.
> Wrong way around. The examples you give do not cost the taxpayer
> thousands of pounds - they put less of a burden on the state.
Who's to say what they would cost individuals if they had to be paid
for at the point of use? Educating a child would certainly cost the
user 1000's if it wasn't paid for from general taxation. They wouldn't
put *any* burden on the state then.

But they don't if they don't have children and walkers wouldn't be a
burden if they didn't have accidents.

OK, if all couples will stop producing children, I might consider
stopping walking.

Roy.

So you want the people who are not a burden to pay and those who are a
burden not to pay.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

The message <[email hidden]>
from Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So why should taxpayers pay for anything at all? For instance, the
NHS charge motorists for treatment.

Quoted message said:

Er, sorry, you've lost me there. Are you saying that a motorist gets a
charge from the hospital for sorting them out?

Certainly used to be true. The driver was (and probably still is) held
responsible for the intial treatment of accident victims without regard
to who was to blame. Used to be a £12 10/- charge IIRC.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:22:22 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK, if all couples will stop producing children, I might consider
stopping walking.

Roy.

So you want the people who are not a burden to pay and those who are a
burden not to pay.

Erm, not sure now what you're suggesting. Perhaps we are talking at
cross purposes.

I am suggesting that if couples didn't produce children (thereby
reducing my tax burden to educate their offspring), I might consider
giving up walking in order to reduce my apparently massive cost to the
Exchequer.

Roy.

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:33:17 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

What? Pay to dance? I'm a Morris Dancer and it doesn't cost me a penny
to dance in public. Sometimes, we get paid!!

Roy.

I could have guessed as much :-))

Meaning?

Roy.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:36:44 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:22:22 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK, if all couples will stop producing children, I might consider
stopping walking.

Roy.

So you want the people who are not a burden to pay and those who are a
burden not to pay.

Erm, not sure now what you're suggesting. Perhaps we are talking at
cross purposes.

I am suggesting that if couples didn't produce children (thereby
reducing my tax burden to educate their offspring), I might consider
giving up walking in order to reduce my apparently massive cost to the
Exchequer.

Roy.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:36:44 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:22:22 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

> OK, if all couples will stop producing children, I might consider
> stopping walking.
>
> Roy.
So you want the people who are not a burden to pay and those who are a
burden not to pay.

Erm, not sure now what you're suggesting. Perhaps we are talking at
cross purposes.

I am suggesting that if couples didn't produce children (thereby
reducing my tax burden to educate their offspring), I might consider
giving up walking in order to reduce my apparently massive cost to the
Exchequer.

Roy.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Er... Did you press SEND too soon?

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:36:44 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:22:22 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK, if all couples will stop producing children, I might consider
stopping walking.

Roy.

So you want the people who are not a burden to pay and those who are a
burden not to pay.

Erm, not sure now what you're suggesting. Perhaps we are talking at
cross purposes.

I don't think so.

Quoted message said:

I am suggesting that if couples didn't produce children (thereby
reducing my tax burden to educate their offspring), I might consider
giving up walking in order to reduce my apparently massive cost to the
Exchequer.

Roy.

I am suggesting that you are quite happy to accept the benefit from
couples who don't produce children and who are reducing the tax burden
but you are not willing to contribute to the exchequer if you need
SAR.

But look at it another couple of ways which you seem to have ignored.

Why should walkers not have to pay for SAR through insurance if
motorists are obliged to pay for hospital treatment?

And If walking should be a free recreation why should ALL recreational
activities not be free?

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:37:19 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:33:17 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

What? Pay to dance? I'm a Morris Dancer and it doesn't cost me a penny
to dance in public. Sometimes, we get paid!!

Roy.

I could have guessed as much :-))

Meaning?

I could have guessed as much.

Quoted message said:

Roy.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:25:09 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:36:44 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:22:22 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>
> wrote:

>> OK, if all couples will stop producing children, I might consider
>> stopping walking.
>>
>> Roy.
> So you want the people who are not a burden to pay and those who are a
> burden not to pay.
Erm, not sure now what you're suggesting. Perhaps we are talking at
cross purposes.

I am suggesting that if couples didn't produce children (thereby
reducing my tax burden to educate their offspring), I might consider
giving up walking in order to reduce my apparently massive cost to the
Exchequer.

Roy.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Er... Did you press SEND too soon?

I think I must have :-)

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:37:19 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:33:17 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>
wrote:

> What? Pay to dance? I'm a Morris Dancer and it doesn't cost me a penny
> to dance in public. Sometimes, we get paid!!
>
> Roy.
I could have guessed as much :-))

Meaning?

I could have guessed as much.

What? That we sometimes get paid?

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:36:44 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:22:22 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

> OK, if all couples will stop producing children, I might consider
> stopping walking.
>
> Roy.
So you want the people who are not a burden to pay and those who are a
burden not to pay.

Erm, not sure now what you're suggesting. Perhaps we are talking at
cross purposes.

I don't think so.

Quoted message said:

I am suggesting that if couples didn't produce children (thereby
reducing my tax burden to educate their offspring), I might consider
giving up walking in order to reduce my apparently massive cost to the
Exchequer.

Roy.

I am suggesting that you are quite happy to accept the benefit from
couples who don't produce children and who are reducing the tax burden
but you are not willing to contribute to the exchequer if you need
SAR.

Blimey. it's getting a bit late and I've had a couple of brandys but
I'll give it a go.

I was suggesting that I (as one half of a childless couple) will
consider eliminating the burden you feel I place on other tax payers as
a walker if they (the child bearing couples) will cease their "sponging"
on the general (including childless) tax paying populace.

Quoted message said:

But look at it another couple of ways which you seem to have ignored.

Why should walkers not have to pay for SAR through insurance if
motorists are obliged to pay for hospital treatment?

Well I pay NI so I don't think as a motorist I should be charged either.

Quoted message said:

And If walking should be a free recreation why should ALL recreational
activities not be free?

Indeed, why not?

Roy.

Message-ID: <[email hidden]> from Roy contained the
following:

Quoted message said:

Er... Did you press SEND too soon?

Always.

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

In message <[email hidden]>, Malcolm
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy Leighton
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:59:51 +0100,
[email hidden] <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Most others have to be paid for. Swimming

Surely not. I've had a dips in various lochs and the sea but didn't pay
anyone.

I don't suppose that Angus has ever realised one can swim other than in
a municipal swimming pool :-))

I really can't see angus lowering himself to mix with the riffraff in a
municipal swimming pool, can you?
--
Philip Powell
Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland
to The Cheviot

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:24:36 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:36:44 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:22:22 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>
> wrote:

>> OK, if all couples will stop producing children, I might consider
>> stopping walking.
>>
>> Roy.
> So you want the people who are not a burden to pay and those who are a
> burden not to pay.
Erm, not sure now what you're suggesting. Perhaps we are talking at
cross purposes.

I don't think so.

Quoted message said:

I am suggesting that if couples didn't produce children (thereby
reducing my tax burden to educate their offspring), I might consider
giving up walking in order to reduce my apparently massive cost to the
Exchequer.

Roy.

I am suggesting that you are quite happy to accept the benefit from
couples who don't produce children and who are reducing the tax burden
but you are not willing to contribute to the exchequer if you need
SAR.

Blimey. it's getting a bit late and I've had a couple of brandys but
I'll give it a go.

I was suggesting that I (as one half of a childless couple) will
consider eliminating the burden you feel I place on other tax payers as
a walker if they (the child bearing couples) will cease their "sponging"
on the general (including childless) tax paying populace.

I see, but you're missing a basic point. Child bearing couples are
potentially producing taxpaying offspring.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But look at it another couple of ways which you seem to have ignored.

Why should walkers not have to pay for SAR through insurance if
motorists are obliged to pay for hospital treatment?

Well I pay NI so I don't think as a motorist I should be charged either.

Well they are and so should walkers who use much more expensive SAR

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And If walking should be a free recreation why should ALL recreational
activities not be free?

Indeed, why not?

Roy.

Because they are using other people's resources. If the government
wants to buy all walking land then that would be fair enough. You
would then be walking on land paid for by the taxpayer.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:18:26 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:37:19 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:33:17 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>
> wrote:
>
>> What? Pay to dance? I'm a Morris Dancer and it doesn't cost me a penny
>> to dance in public. Sometimes, we get paid!!
>>
>> Roy.
> I could have guessed as much :-))
Meaning?

I could have guessed as much.

What? That we sometimes get paid?

No, that it's just another thing you do that doesn't cost you a penny.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

"Roy" <roy@somedomainsomewhere> wrote

Quoted message said:

What? That we sometimes get paid?

Keep at him Roy I think he's cornered! :-)

Graham

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:18:26 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:37:19 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>
wrote:

> [email hidden] wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:33:17 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What? Pay to dance? I'm a Morris Dancer and it doesn't cost me a penny
>>> to dance in public. Sometimes, we get paid!!
>>>
>>> Roy.
>> I could have guessed as much :-))
> Meaning?
>
I could have guessed as much.

What? That we sometimes get paid?

No, that it's just another thing you do that doesn't cost you a penny.

Ooh, I forgot to mention. We also have a dispensation under law which
means we can play our noisy instruments in pubs which don't have a
public entertainment licence. It's enough to make an old sod miserable.

Roy.

In message <[email hidden]>, Roy
<roy@somedomainsomewhere.?.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:18:26 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:37:19 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>
> wrote:
>
>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:33:17 +0100, Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What? Pay to dance? I'm a Morris Dancer and it doesn't cost me a
>>>>penny to dance in public. Sometimes, we get paid!!
>>>>
>>>> Roy.
>>> I could have guessed as much :-))
>> Meaning?
>>
> I could have guessed as much.
>
What? That we sometimes get paid?

No, that it's just another thing you do that doesn't cost you a
penny.

Ooh, I forgot to mention. We also have a dispensation under law which
means we can play our noisy instruments in pubs which don't have a
public entertainment licence. It's enough to make an old sod miserable.

Disgraceful - it's time that was put a stop to.

Come on angus - we'll all be right behind you pushing hard to put a stop
to those scroungers.
--
Philip Powell
Looking north across the Derwent Valley and Northumberland
to The Cheviot

Roger said...

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So why should taxpayers pay for anything at all? For instance, the
NHS charge motorists for treatment.

Quoted message said:

Er, sorry, you've lost me there. Are you saying that a motorist gets a
charge from the hospital for sorting them out?

Certainly used to be true. The driver was (and probably still is) held
responsible for the intial treatment of accident victims without regard
to who was to blame. Used to be a £12 10/- charge IIRC.

<Nods in agreement> I've had bills before now for being scraped up off
the road (I used to commute to work in London on a small Honda scooter)
- and in decimal money, too 'cos this would have been the 70s and 80s.

--
Fran
To email me see 'from' in headers; use your net know-how to find the
domain, and put my real name in front thereof.

In article <[email hidden]>, Fran
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Roger said...

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Roy <roy@somedomainsomewhere> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

> So why should taxpayers pay for anything at all? For instance, the
> NHS charge motorists for treatment.

Quoted message said:

Er, sorry, you've lost me there. Are you saying that a motorist gets a
charge from the hospital for sorting them out?

Certainly used to be true. The driver was (and probably still is) held
responsible for the intial treatment of accident victims without regard
to who was to blame. Used to be a £12 10/- charge IIRC.

<Nods in agreement> I've had bills before now for being scraped up off
the road (I used to commute to work in London on a small Honda scooter)
- and in decimal money, too 'cos this would have been the 70s and 80s.

A motorcyclist was sent a bill by Argyll & Bute Council earlier this
year for the cost of the council workmen clearing up the remains of a
deer which leaped out in front of him causing a collision. He refused to
pay and when taken to court the sheriff threw the case out.

--
Malcolm