The regime which took power in 1979 forced councils to give up
maintenance departments they all had and tender to private companies
instead. The one which took over in 1997 didn't change any of this.

Consequently cash-starved councils (3/4 of their money comes ,
grudgingly, from central government) can't send a few workmen round to
sort out small repairs as they would have done in the past.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:58:41 -0500, Gareth Owen wrote:

The regime which took power in 1979 forced councils to give up
maintenance departments they all had and tender to private companies
instead. The one which took over in 1997 didn't change any of this.

Consequently cash-starved councils (3/4 of their money comes ,
grudgingly, from central government) can't send a few workmen round to
sort out small repairs as they would have done in the past.



But they appear to carry out NO repairs at all, either by their own
staff or by the use of contractors.
--
Cheers

Peter

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:25:32 +0100, Petert
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:58:41 -0500, Gareth Owen wrote:

The regime which took power in 1979 forced councils to give up
maintenance departments they all had and tender to private companies
instead. The one which took over in 1997 didn't change any of this.

Consequently cash-starved councils (3/4 of their money comes ,
grudgingly, from central government) can't send a few workmen round to
sort out small repairs as they would have done in the past.


But they appear to carry out NO repairs at all, either by their own
staff or by the use of contractors.

If we are talking about state schools then (for a Foundation School)
repairs have to come out of revenue. In most cases this is already
allocated for salaries etc so there is none left for maintenance.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:01:17 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:25:32 +0100, Petert
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:58:41 -0500, Gareth Owen wrote:

The regime which took power in 1979 forced councils to give up
maintenance departments they all had and tender to private companies
instead. The one which took over in 1997 didn't change any of this.

Consequently cash-starved councils (3/4 of their money comes ,
grudgingly, from central government) can't send a few workmen round to
sort out small repairs as they would have done in the past.


But they appear to carry out NO repairs at all, either by their own
staff or by the use of contractors.

If we are talking about state schools then (for a Foundation School)
repairs have to come out of revenue. In most cases this is already
allocated for salaries etc so there is none left for maintenance.

So what you are saying is that rather than carry out repairs to school
buildings, the policy is to let them deteriorate until funding can be
found to rebuild them.

What a brilliant policy
--
Cheers

Peter

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:24:09 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:


However the tory cuts are bad for two main reasons: - They are actually
far too small to make a real difference. - They are cutting the wrong
things.

I agree with your second point, but not your first - unless the
'difference' you had in mind was that you wanted things to become much,
much worse. :-)

No. Not at all. Only that the planned cuts will only make a very
small dent in the overall level of government borrowing and, as you
pointed out, may actually make things worse.

There are better ways IMHO.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In article , Mark
wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:24:09 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:


However the tory cuts are bad for two main reasons: - They are
actually far too small to make a real difference. - They are cutting
the wrong things.

I agree with your second point, but not your first - unless the
'difference' you had in mind was that you wanted things to become much,
much worse. :-)

No. Not at all. Only that the planned cuts will only make a very small
dent in the overall level of government borrowing and, as you pointed
out, may actually make things worse.

There are better ways IMHO.

Indeed.

Watching the ConDemned goverment doing this is a reminder that the only
thing we learn from history is... that people don't learn anything from
history. :-) They just stubbornly re-make mistakes we have known are
idiotic errors for, in this case, well over 60 years. Suits their dogma and
their fellow millionaires, I guess.

Still, as (IIRC) Galbraith said, the biggest misfortune that can befall an
economist is to have his theories put into practice. So we are in for an
'educational' time, I guess. At least for the survivors.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Jul 6, 5:46*pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , J G Miller
I'm wondering where you are all buying copies. So far as I know, a
newspaper called the 'Daily Worker' vanished many years ago. Have you not
noticed, or am I imagining that it became 'Morning Star'?... *:-)


Yes, I was being a bit retro for emphasis. Trying to raise Trotsky's
ghost.


If you dislike the BBC so much Bill,
I don't dislike the BBC, I love it, and that's why I'm concerned that
it has innate left wing liberal bias. I just think that they should
try to be a bit more balanced. The news and current affairs programmes
are usually quite OK; it's the light entertainment that annoys me. All
this politically correct lefty liberal greeny ********, yet they take
the **** out of people for being old on a regular basis. The BBC
pushes onto us the values of the metropolitan middle class young
professional, ignoring the values that many of us elderly bucolic
working class horny handed sons of toil despise.

I suggest you watch Ajazeera instead.
Not bloody likely, it's full of wogs.

It's now on freeview.
Is it?

Bill

On Wednesday, July 7th, 2010 at 13:03:30h -0700, Wright's Aerials declared:

it's full of wogs.

Like David Frost?

"Racist Pikey Gob****e who once claimed never to watch TV"
wrote in message
...

I don't dislike the BBC, I love it, and that's why I'm concerned that
it has innate left wing liberal bias. I just think that they should
try to be a bit more balanced. The news and current affairs programmes
are usually quite OK; it's the light entertainment that annoys me. All
this politically correct lefty liberal greeny ********, yet they take
the **** out of people for being old on a regular basis. The BBC
pushes onto us the values of the metropolitan middle class young
professional, ignoring the values that many of us elderly bucolic
working class horny handed sons of toil despise.

I suggest you watch Ajazeera instead.
Not bloody likely, it's full of wogs.

Golly!
After reading this, I've got a mental image of a cage-full of gorillas called
"The Aljazeera Wogs". They live in a zoo with "Political Correctness" the zebra,
"Double Standards" the lion, a termite colony known as "The Silent Majority" and
a lonely, overfed walrus called "Indigenous Accidental Cock Haemorrhage".

Not bloody likely, it's full of wogs.

**** off.