Canal World

Join us absolutely Free in just two minutes to gain access to all our features. Once registered, you will be able to submit new content and get answers to your all your canal & boating questions all for absolutely Free!

Wanderer Vagabond

Member Donator
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Wanderer Vagabond last won the day on May 25

Wanderer Vagabond had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,030 Excellent

About Wanderer Vagabond

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Boat Name
  • Boat Location

Recent Profile Visitors

6,028 profile views
  1. Would that 'Labour' Government be the one described by Thatcher as 'her greatest achievement'?
  2. I have to agree that the only solution to the current housing crisis is for a boost in public authority housing, unfortunately the dogmatic approach is,"...the market will provide...." when clearly it never will. Private builders will never supply the number of homes that we need because it isn't in their interests to do so. The current broken housing market suits their needs perfectly, why would they try to change it? They can instantly pre-sell every house that they build (even putting people into them before they are finished), a permanent shortage of housing keeps the price up for them and they hold enough land to keep this farce running for decades. As a property owner myself I'm quite content to see house prices being depressed, even for them to fall to enable more people to be able to afford them. The way we are going property ownership will become very much a minority sport within my lifetime. They only way to undermine the current cartel is for another large scale house builder to enter the fray, like local authorities, but they need to do it through an intermediary since once they build public authority housing they then become obliged to sell it at a discount, which just prevents them from building more (probably the intention!)
  3. From what I've read of this attack, it is a 'ransomware' without the ransom! Apparently the crook who released the programme (discounting the NSA who rather carelessly got hacked and released it in the first place, along with the Wannacry ransomware) wanted the ransom to be paid in Bitcoin and once the victims had done so they were to send an e-mail notifying the crook that this had been done. The host of the e-mail account has frozen and disabled this e-mail account so those who may feel inclined to pay the ransom (always unwise) now have no means of telling the crook they have done so
  4. I'm not at all sure that I'd value the Duchess of Bedford's opinion of the spread of wealth very highly since she hardly worked very hard to achieve her (inherited) wealth, did she? I don't think that most people have objections to people acquiring wealth, so long as it isn't achieved on the backs of those suffering minimum wage. There is a fairly straightforward 'magic formula' for spreading the wealth within a company, those at the top are not permitted to be paid more than a certain multiplier of the wage of those at the bottom. It leaves them free to pay themselves whatever they they like, as long as the wealth creators at the bottom of the pay scale are similarly rewarded for their efforts. Whilst talking of anecdotes the one that rankled me at the time (and still does) was when South West Water was privatised (since your location is given as Cornwall you may remember it). The head of the newly privatised company was paid a phenomenal wage and when challenged about it at the time (when our water rates were rocketing in price) he had the arrogance to claim that he was,"....paid for what he knows, not for what he does....". When he eventually shuffled off (with the compulsory golden handshake) his job was clearly so important that it was amalgamated with another post and no-one noticed any difference. Since those at the bottom always have to justify why they should have a pay rise, it's about time those at the top did the same. Setting an easily achievable 'target' and then paying themselves a 'bonus' for achieving it doesn't really cut the mustard, as a number of Shareholder groups are now starting to realise and react to.
  5. Let us not kid ourselves that it is only Labour that are reckless with money, we now have May handing a totally unfunded £1 billion to the DUP to spend/frittter how they wish in NI (with more to follow). If you want to question the source of Corbyn's money for his manifesto plans you also need to ask where the DUP money came from. At least Corbyn gave a suggested source, May hasn't given any suggestion where this money will come from but my bet will be on further reduction of spending in England,Wales and Scotland.
  6. I think that their main complaint is that the negotiations have now started and that is where the discussions should be made. When May pulls a rabbit out of a hat at a totally unconnected summit meeting, oddly enough, those attending were absolutely unimpressed (why should they be?). They had no intention of discussing the matter there because it had nothing to do with the purpose of the summit. Barnier, the EU negotiator, then gets the proposals second hand and responds accordingly. If this is the juvenile way that we wish to negotiate then perhaps May should just pass her proposals to the Daily Wail and let them be to principal negotiators. Unless May can spend time in the negotiations herself (since she is PM that isn't a realistic proposal) then she needs to leave the actual negotiations to those extremely competent people() that she has put in the role, trying to micromanage is just going to completely screw the whole thing up. Whilst Brexit is clearly the most important thing on the planet for those in the UK, those remaining in the EU have other priorities and we seem to get upset when they don't see how important it is to us.
  7. Let me just refresh my memory here, wasn't 2011-2102 the period that Osborne flat lined the economy and was on the border of pushing the country back into recession? So tax receipts were down that year, how did that happen? .
  8. I think that you need to source that particular statement otherwise you sound just the same as Trump when he is challenged on anything, he just makes it up. As an example Trump spouted utter nonsense about how Comey had better hope that his conversations with Trump weren't recorded (implying that they may have been). Comey's quite reasonable response was 'Bring it on' causing Trump to have to then back down (looking just as ridiculous as he always does) and confirm that there, in fact, are no tapes. You also use the straw man argument in refuting something that has not been claimed. What has been claimed is that the Russians interfered in the US election since they saw it as being to their advantage to have an idiot elected to the US Presidency, they got their wish. What has been alleged is that Trump's associates Michael Flynn (subsequently sacked for lying) and Jeff Sessions (Attorney General) had 'dubious' contact with Russian sources, this is what is currently being investigated, along with Trump's suggestion that the investigation into Flynn should be dropped because 'he was a good guy'. These people are close enough to Trump to be of serious concern, after all let's not forget that Nixon did not personally break into the Watergate building, this crime was committed by others, it didn't stop Nixon being taken down by it, I hope the same outcome lies ahead for Trump before he causes too much damage to both America and international relations. His support of the world's leading Terrorist nation, Saudi Arabia has already emboldened their new Crown Prince to provoke Iran further, should this result in a 'hot' war between Saudi Arabia and Iran (there is already a proxy war between them in Syria and Yemen) it is clear that Trump will be on the side of the terrorists (Saudi Arabia) whose side will the UK be on?
  9. I'd like to see it to be honest, it'll be the making of history, the first time that the geratrics have ever rioted, it'll be a sight to see
  10. The difference between you and me I suppose is that I do not trust our government to act in our interest unless absolutely forced to do so, which is what the EU has been doing over the past 40 years. Without the EU directives you'd still be swimming in raw sh*t when you go to swim in the sea. The EU directives and Blue Flag put paid to that. You can see how little interest the UK government have in our well-being (as opposed to the well-being of the companies that donate money to them) in the fact that they have so fare been repeatedly prosecuted for failing to meet basic air quality standards, once again these came from the EU because the UK government, if left to their own devices, can't be *rsed about it. Once we are out of the EU they wont even have to bother about it at all, just change the law and hey presto no need to worry about annoying pressure groups like Client Earth keep taking them to court and we can have the 'freedom' and 'sovereignty' to suck up all these diesel fumes that the Government have no real interest in doing anything about, let's cut the red tape is their motto, whether or not that 'red tape' is actually keeping us safe and healthy. As a final point of my lack of trust in our government and how they will suck up to foreign powers is the inquiry commissioned by Cameron whilst he was still in office into who are the international sponsors of terrorism. It now appears that the report will, in all probability, never be published due to 'sensitive' information that it contains. The 'sensitive' information it contains is the fact that one of our principal export markets, Saudi Arabia, is the world's largest sponsor of terrorism. You trust our government to act with honour? you are in the minority, us realists know that they don't.
  11. I think that is where the clarification is going to be needed. I understand they are currently surveying tower blocks to establish those under the same risk as Grenfell and, given that instantaneously rehousing hundreds of people is 'at risk' properties isn't going to be viable in the short term they need to be made aware that in the event of a fire they need to evacuate the building ASAP. As you say this may not be necessary for all properly constructed buildings, but those at risk need to be made aware of any change in advice. On a side note, I am glad that the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 was brought in as there is at least a likelihood that someone may ultimately be held to account. When you look at disastrous fires of the past (the Bradford City Stadium fire of 1985 particularly comes to mind) where the cause has been down to neglect/incompetence/poor practice no-one has ever really been held to account. Hopefully someone will be for this disaster.
  12. Sadly, your 'vote for the future' will be to totally screw up the future for those still here long after you and I are dead. When we leave the EU we will not be returning to some non-existent 1970's idyll of where we were before we joined, we will be in the world of today where the UK has, for a number of years, punched above it's weight due to its connections within the EU. Now we will be punching to our weight, which is considerably lower, and your estimation of 10 years of uncertainty and pain is probably a considerable under-estimate. But you can be sure that for as long as I'm around I will keep on reminding you what a crap idea leaving the EU was every time another dose of 'pain' is inflicted.
  13. In some respects I'm not that surprised at the policy, particularly if you are talking about a tall building with lots of residents. It starts off OK on the top floors as people all start to all leave simultaneously but the further down the building the more crowded it is going to get until you reach a point at which there becomes an equal chance of death by crushing on the stairways as there is of dying in the fire (since use of the lifts is ill advised in a fire). If you add to that the likelihood of disabled people being housed on the upper floors, evacuation of them is going to slow down evacuation of others and increase the crush risk. That said, my survival instinct would be to do what I could to get out of a burning building, whatever the advice given may be.
  14. I think that one area of clarification is going to be needed quite soon, whether it be from the Fire Authority, Local Authorities,Government or whoever. At the moment the advice for tower block residents seems to stand that in the event of a fire they should remain in their flats, whilst this may be reasonable advice in tower blocks not lined with this material (personally I'd rather get out of any building that is on fire) there needs to be a general statement that evacuation is the principle reaction. I would suggest that a number of the deaths in Grenfell were as a result of the uncertainty of whether to get out or to remain (once the fire has fully taken hold the answer becomes obvious but, by that time, evacuation become a less likely outcome). I don't think that the definitive advice can await the outcome of the public enquiry/criminal investigation, it needs to be put into the public domain now.
  15. Priceless And your homework for the weekend is to find out who Princess Anne is