Archers

[kosmo]

Why have David and Ruth completely changed what they said to Pip
about funding her cows at Home Farm?

They always said they would help future years by decreasing amounts.

I am not surprised Pip is upset. And Ruth knows the money has gone.

Totally unreasonable adults. Pip is being abused by management.

[Mike]

Post by kosmo
Why have David and Ruth completely changed what they said to Pip
about funding her cows at Home Farm?
They always said they would help future years by decreasing amounts.
I am not surprised Pip is upset. And Ruth knows the money has gone.
Totally unreasonable adults. Pip is being abused by management.

Look out, Troll Alert!

[kosmo]

Post by Mike

Post by kosmo
Why have David and Ruth completely changed what they said to Pip
about funding her cows at Home Farm?
They always said they would help future years by decreasing

amounts.

Post by Mike

Post by kosmo
I am not surprised Pip is upset. And Ruth knows the money has gone.
Totally unreasonable adults. Pip is being abused by management.

Look out, Troll Alert!
--
Toodle Pip

I have been catching up on recent omnibuses and was amazed to come
across a scene so monstrously at odds with past events.

The new editor is even worse at continuity than the last one. He is
making the programme a laughing stock.

[Marjorie]

Post by kosmo

Why have David and Ruth completely changed what they said to Pip >

about funding her cows at Home Farm? > > They always said they would
help future years by decreasing

amounts.

Post by kosmo
I am not surprised Pip is upset. And Ruth knows the money has

gone.

Post by kosmo
Totally unreasonable adults. Pip is being abused by management.

Look out, Troll Alert!
--
Toodle Pip

I have been catching up on recent omnibuses and was amazed to come
across a scene so monstrously at odds with past events.
The new editor is even worse at continuity than the last one. He is
making the programme a laughing stock.

Ruth, David and Jill are not making any sense. They don't seem to have
had a single honest conversation about all this with each other or with
Pip, and thus each of them has a different version of what Pip's
financial position is. That's what I find so odd about it: no one has
said to Pip, "Right, you now have £5000 profit to put back into the
scheme. How much extra will you need to replace the first lot of cows
with a similar batch? Why do you need any more than this?

Oh, and has this money just gone into Pip's personal bank account (and
out again)? Isn't it part of the farm income, declarable for tax etc?
The original loan must have come out of the farm money, so why is the
profit not returned to the same account, or at least to some farm
account, rather than Toby's grubby paws?

[Chris McMillan]

Post by Marjorie

Post by kosmo

Why have David and Ruth completely changed what they said to Pip >

about funding her cows at Home Farm? > > They always said they would
help future years by decreasing

amounts.

Post by kosmo
I am not surprised Pip is upset. And Ruth knows the money has

gone.

Post by kosmo
Totally unreasonable adults. Pip is being abused by management.

Look out, Troll Alert!
--
Toodle Pip

I have been catching up on recent omnibuses and was amazed to come
across a scene so monstrously at odds with past events.
The new editor is even worse at continuity than the last one. He is
making the programme a laughing stock.

Ruth, David and Jill are not making any sense. They don't seem to have
had a single honest conversation about all this with each other or with
Pip, and thus each of them has a different version of what Pip's
financial position is. That's what I find so odd about it: no one has
said to Pip, "Right, you now have £5000 profit to put back into the
scheme. How much extra will you need to replace the first lot of cows
with a similar batch? Why do you need any more than this?
Oh, and has this money just gone into Pip's personal bank account (and
out again)? Isn't it part of the farm income, declarable for tax etc?
The original loan must have come out of the farm money, so why is the
profit not returned to the same account, or at least to some farm
account, rather than Toby's grubby paws?

It was paid to Pip, presumably to her bank a/c hence why it fell into those
grubby paws

Sincerely Chris

[kosmo]

On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 16:34:06 GMT, Chris McMillan

Post by Chris McMillan
It was paid to Pip, presumably to her bank a/c hence why it fell into those
grubby paws

The lack of financial competence beggars belief.

[Btms]

Post by kosmo
On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 16:34:06 GMT, Chris McMillan

Post by Chris McMillan
It was paid to Pip, presumably to her bank a/c hence why it fell

into those

Post by Chris McMillan
grubby paws

The lack of financial competence beggars belief.

But it is a family business. Not saying it is right just that this is how
it is.

[Marjorie]

Post by Btms

Post by kosmo
On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 16:34:06 GMT, Chris McMillan

Post by Chris McMillan
It was paid to Pip, presumably to her bank a/c hence why it fell

into those

Post by Chris McMillan
grubby paws

The lack of financial competence beggars belief.

But it is a family business. Not saying it is right just that this is how
it is.

Still seems a bit odd to me: the project was financed by a loan from the
farm account, but the profits, which will be declarable for tax, just
seem to be squirreled and squandered away by Pip without having to
account to anyone.

[Btms]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Btms

Post by kosmo
On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 16:34:06 GMT, Chris McMillan

Post by Chris McMillan
It was paid to Pip, presumably to her bank a/c hence why it fell

into those

Post by Chris McMillan
grubby paws

The lack of financial competence beggars belief.

But it is a family business. Not saying it is right just that this is how
it is.

Still seems a bit odd to me: the project was financed by a loan from the
farm account, but the profits, which will be declarable for tax, just
seem to be squirreled and squandered away by Pip without having to
account to anyone.

Agreed. She has to be able to repay this loan before asking for more.
The agreement was that she would reinvest her profit share and Brookfield
would fund the herd increase for he nexy tweve months. It was not agreed
she could borrow money, squander the profits* and then ask for more.

Quite how the 5K profit has been achieved vis a vis the tax liability is
not clear, as Kosmo has flagged up.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Btms

Post by kosmo
On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 16:34:06 GMT, Chris McMillan

Post by Chris McMillan
It was paid to Pip, presumably to her bank a/c hence why it fell

into those

Post by Chris McMillan
grubby paws

The lack of financial competence beggars belief.

But it is a family business. Not saying it is right just that this is how
it is.

Still seems a bit odd to me: the project was financed by a loan from the
farm account, but the profits, which will be declarable for tax, just
seem to be squirreled and squandered away by Pip without having to
account to anyone.

Quite. If it had been a "loan" from the Bank of Mum & Dad she might get
away with it.

[Btms]

Post by Marjorie

Post by kosmo

Why have David and Ruth completely changed what they said to Pip >

about funding her cows at Home Farm? > > They always said they would
help future years by decreasing

amounts.

Post by kosmo
I am not surprised Pip is upset. And Ruth knows the money has

gone.

Post by kosmo
Totally unreasonable adults. Pip is being abused by management.

Look out, Troll Alert!
--
Toodle Pip

I have been catching up on recent omnibuses and was amazed to come
across a scene so monstrously at odds with past events.
The new editor is even worse at continuity than the last one. He is
making the programme a laughing stock.

Ruth, David and Jill are not making any sense. They don't seem to have
had a single honest conversation about all this with each other or with
Pip, and thus each of them has a different version of what Pip's
financial position is. That's what I find so odd about it: no one has
said to Pip, "Right, you now have £5000 profit to put back into the
scheme. How much extra will you need to replace the first lot of cows
with a similar batch? Why do you need any more than this?
Oh, and has this money just gone into Pip's personal bank account (and
out again)? Isn't it part of the farm income, declarable for tax etc?
The original loan must have come out of the farm money, so why is the
profit not returned to the same account, or at least to some farm
account, rather than Toby's grubby paws?

I think I agree in part. But this was an enterprise for Pip to run under
her own steam with a loan from Brookfield. However she has no profit to
reinvest. This was an investment and not an income stream for Pip. David
is not impressed with this. He spoke of ending up like many farmers who
are always working with an overdraft. Having been a bank clerk in a
farming community I think David makes a good point. The margins are so
tight, she will end up working to pay the bank and having little left.

Back in the day, there was a lady who borrowed some money to buy some
ducks. The ducks died rather soon after their purchase; she refused to
repay the bank because she now had no ducks. There is a logic in this
somewhere. The bank never got their money. Ah, them were the days. 😉

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
<201904942.512758903.603783.poppy-***@news.eternal-september.o
rg>, Btms <***@thetames.me.uk> writes:
[]

Post by Btms
Back in the day, there was a lady who borrowed some money to buy some
ducks. The ducks died rather soon after their purchase; she refused to
repay the bank because she now had no ducks. There is a logic in this
somewhere. The bank never got their money. Ah, them were the days. 0 >

The logic is, however, flawed. She did not borrow ducks from the bank,
she borrowed money. Unless the bank gave some advice concerning duck
purchase (when, breed, etc.), she hasn't a (webbed or otherwise) leg to
stand on.

[Btms]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]

Post by Btms
Back in the day, there was a lady who borrowed some money to buy some
ducks. The ducks died rather soon after their purchase; she refused to
repay the bank because she now had no ducks. There is a logic in this
somewhere. The bank never got their money. Ah, them were the days. 0 >

The logic is, however, flawed. She did not borrow ducks from the bank,
she borrowed money. Unless the bank gave some advice concerning duck
purchase (when, breed, etc.), she hasn't a (webbed or otherwise) leg to
stand on.

Of course its flwed. This was the joy of it!

[Mike]

Post by Btms

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]

Post by Btms
Back in the day, there was a lady who borrowed some money to buy some
ducks. The ducks died rather soon after their purchase; she refused to
repay the bank because she now had no ducks. There is a logic in this
somewhere. The bank never got their money. Ah, them were the days. 0 >

The logic is, however, flawed. She did not borrow ducks from the bank,
she borrowed money. Unless the bank gave some advice concerning duck
purchase (when, breed, etc.), she hasn't a (webbed or otherwise) leg to
stand on.

Of course its flwed. This was the joy of it!

Welsh? 😉

[Btms]

Post by Mike

Post by Btms

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]

Post by Btms
Back in the day, there was a lady who borrowed some money to buy some
ducks. The ducks died rather soon after their purchase; she refused to
repay the bank because she now had no ducks. There is a logic in this
somewhere. The bank never got their money. Ah, them were the days. 0 >

The logic is, however, flawed. She did not borrow ducks from the bank,
she borrowed money. Unless the bank gave some advice concerning duck
purchase (when, breed, etc.), she hasn't a (webbed or otherwise) leg to
stand on.

Of course its flwed. This was the joy of it!

Welsh? 😉

I refer you to the previous post. 😊. I could not comment as to whether the
Welsh are flawed. I certainly take no joy from this suggestion.

[BrritSki]

Post by Mike

Post by Btms
Of course its flwed. This was the joy of it!

Welsh? 😉

Any suggestion that the Welsh are flawed or flawed is reprehensible.

Speaking of which, did anyone watch Decline and Fall ? Wonderfully
barking mad :)

[Fenny]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 10:36:05 +0200, BrritSki

Post by BrritSki
Speaking of which, did anyone watch Decline and Fall ? Wonderfully
barking mad :)

I caught the second half. Possibly the best new thing I've seen the
Beeb do in years.

[kosmo]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 10:36:05 +0200, BrritSki

Post by BrritSki
Speaking of which, did anyone watch Decline and Fall ? Wonderfully
barking mad :)

I am hoping it is recorded awaiting my return.

[LFS]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Mike

Post by Btms
Of course its flwed. This was the joy of it!

Welsh? 😉

Any suggestion that the Welsh are flawed or flawed is reprehensible.
Speaking of which, did anyone watch Decline and Fall ? Wonderfully
barking mad :)

Yes, it's excellent, especially Jack Whitehall, perfect casting.

[Fenny]

Post by LFS
Yes, it's excellent, especially Jack Whitehall, perfect casting.

Possibly the only time I've seen him when I didn't think he was a
complete imbecile. I think I've only ever seen him on chat shows and
the like, where he's supposedly being himself.

[Btms]

Post by Fenny

Post by LFS
Yes, it's excellent, especially Jack Whitehall, perfect casting.

Possibly the only time I've seen him when I didn't think he was a
complete imbecile. I think I've only ever seen him on chat shows and
the like, where he's supposedly being himself.

Dahling......these theatricals are never themselves. They are actors.

[Penny]

On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 08:14:15 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com> scrawled
in the dust...

Post by Btms

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
In message
[]

Post by Btms
Back in the day, there was a lady who borrowed some money to buy some
ducks. The ducks died rather soon after their purchase; she refused to
repay the bank because she now had no ducks. There is a logic in this
somewhere. The bank never got their money. Ah, them were the days. 0 >

The logic is, however, flawed. She did not borrow ducks from the bank,
she borrowed money. Unless the bank gave some advice concerning duck
purchase (when, breed, etc.), she hasn't a (webbed or otherwise) leg to
stand on.

Of course its flwed. This was the joy of it!

Welsh? ?

Flw might be Welsh for flu but I've a feeling there's a double f and
another vowel in there - ffliw?

[kosmo]

Post by Btms
I think I agree in part. But this was an enterprise for Pip to run under
her own steam with a loan from Brookfield. However she has no

profit to

Post by Btms
reinvest. This was an investment and not an income stream for Pip.

David

In accordance with all the advice I have read before and since
retirement Pip has redirected her profit into another investment
giving her much needed portfolio diversity.

She should be applauded for being so farsighted.

[Btms]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Btms
I think I agree in part. But this was an enterprise for Pip to run

under

Post by Btms
her own steam with a loan from Brookfield. However she has no

profit to

Post by Btms
reinvest. This was an investment and not an income stream for Pip.

David
In accordance with all the advice I have read before and since
retirement Pip has redirected her profit into another investment
giving her much needed portfolio diversity.
She should be applauded for being so farsighted.

Ehrm...doesn't something called due diligence become a factor before such
action. Oh and leaving another business under capitalised?

[kosmo]

Post by Btms
Ehrm...doesn't something called due diligence become a factor

before such

Post by Btms
action. Oh and leaving another business under capitalised?

But both Pip and I knew the family would fund the next lots of
fattening stock. David changed the rules.

[Btms]

Post by Btms

Post by Btms
Ehrm...doesn't something called due diligence become a factor

before such

Post by Btms
action. Oh and leaving another business under capitalised?

But both Pip and I knew the family would fund the next lots of
fattening stock. David changed the rules.

"Help fund", not give. Pip was expected to start building up a business,
which would include some reserves. What she has done is squander her
profit by investing in a high risk start up without due diligence and now
wants to be funded again. If she had borrowed from the bank she would have
paid interest. If the interest was unpaid, she would struggle to get
another loan unless she could provide the bank with a good case as to why
she has no profit. Of course this did used to happen - can't say how it
would be today as banking has changed so much. Small business people would
arrange finance for their business and then use it for home improvements or
flashy cars. The bank was not too co operative when they couldn't pay
their business bills. In essence it is the same with Pip. She is living
above her means. These days folk simply spend to the limit on their credit
cards and fail to recognise quite what this costs them.

How we laughed when we saw the interest rate charged on the innovative
Barclaycard. Obviously a free card was daft because nobody would be daft
enough to pay those interest charges and would be sure to pay it off each
month. Who knew? Not us.

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Btms
These days folk simply spend to the limit on their credit
cards and fail to recognise quite what this costs them.

Have you seen any of the "Live Well for Less" programmes? I know
that they obviously select families whose behaviour is extreme
enough to make good TV, but there are times when I sit almost
open-mouthed at some of the details.

One woman had made an impulse purchase of a second-hand Evoke, at
a time when she had given up work to look after her daughter, and
kept having to be bailed out by her husband.

Chris

[Nick Odell]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Btms
These days folk simply spend to the limit on their credit
cards and fail to recognise quite what this costs them.

Have you seen any of the "Live Well for Less" programmes? I know
that they obviously select families whose behaviour is extreme
enough to make good TV, but there are times when I sit almost
open-mouthed at some of the details.
One woman had made an impulse purchase of a second-hand Evoke, at
a time when she had given up work to look after her daughter, and
kept having to be bailed out by her husband.

Erme - what's an Evoke? Whatever it is, I suppose she's one of the
lucky ones who has someone to bail them out.

Nick

[Btms]

Post by Nick Odell

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Btms
These days folk simply spend to the limit on their credit
cards and fail to recognise quite what this costs them.

Have you seen any of the "Live Well for Less" programmes? I know
that they obviously select families whose behaviour is extreme
enough to make good TV, but there are times when I sit almost
open-mouthed at some of the details.
One woman had made an impulse purchase of a second-hand Evoke, at
a time when she had given up work to look after her daughter, and
kept having to be bailed out by her husband.

Erme - what's an Evoke? Whatever it is, I suppose she's one of the
lucky ones who has someone to bail them out.
Nick

A popular digital radio m'lud

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Nick Odell

Post by Chris J Dixon
Have you seen any of the "Live Well for Less" programmes? I know
that they obviously select families whose behaviour is extreme
enough to make good TV, but there are times when I sit almost
open-mouthed at some of the details.
One woman had made an impulse purchase of a second-hand Evoke, at
a time when she had given up work to look after her daughter, and
kept having to be bailed out by her husband.

Erme - what's an Evoke? Whatever it is, I suppose she's one of the
lucky ones who has someone to bail them out.

This sort of thing:
<http://www.usedvehicles.landrover.co.uk/model-range-rover-evoque#/details/2763850>

Chris

[Vicky]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Btms
These days folk simply spend to the limit on their credit
cards and fail to recognise quite what this costs them.

Have you seen any of the "Live Well for Less" programmes? I know
that they obviously select families whose behaviour is extreme
enough to make good TV, but there are times when I sit almost
open-mouthed at some of the details.

Yes they seem to be very stupid people. They also seem able to afford
the reckless spending. I suspect people who are on a smaller budget
are not so worried about designer labels and know how to shop around
to get better value. I didn't like the new presenters, the one from
Breakfast tv and the one from the 7pm show. They seemed to make it
even stupider. I don't think we'll watch it again.

I'm definitely a grumpy old woman now. I have stopped watching several
series and films after ten minutes. I'm conscious of dwindling time
and not wanting to waste it.

Post by Chris J Dixon
One woman had made an impulse purchase of a second-hand Evoke, at
a time when she had given up work to look after her daughter, and
kept having to be bailed out by her husband.
Chris

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Vicky
I didn't like the new presenters, the one from
Breakfast tv and the one from the 7pm show. They seemed to make it
even stupider. I don't think we'll watch it again.

Yes, it is rather different from the previous "Eat Well for
Less".

I see that Steph McGovern has an interesting CV

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steph_McGovern>

including

<https://www.theengineer.co.uk/inspiration/gap-year-pioneers-make-their-mark/>

and

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/17582665>

Chris

[Marjorie]

Post by Vicky

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Btms
These days folk simply spend to the limit on their credit
cards and fail to recognise quite what this costs them.

Have you seen any of the "Live Well for Less" programmes? I know
that they obviously select families whose behaviour is extreme
enough to make good TV, but there are times when I sit almost
open-mouthed at some of the details.

Yes they seem to be very stupid people. They also seem able to afford
the reckless spending. I suspect people who are on a smaller budget
are not so worried about designer labels and know how to shop around
to get better value. I didn't like the new presenters, the one from
Breakfast tv and the one from the 7pm show. They seemed to make it
even stupider. I don't think we'll watch it again.
I'm definitely a grumpy old woman now. I have stopped watching several
series and films after ten minutes. I'm conscious of dwindling time
and not wanting to waste it.

Post by Chris J Dixon
One woman had made an impulse purchase of a second-hand Evoke, at
a time when she had given up work to look after her daughter, and
kept having to be bailed out by her husband.
Chris

It's amazing how stupid some people can be. Every week, there's an
exchange where they're told: ""If you stop buying a new shirt every week
at £40 a time, you'll save over £2000 a year!" and they go "No! That's
incredible!"

[Btms]

Marjorie <***@springequinox.co.uk> wrote:

[]

Post by Marjorie
It's amazing how stupid some people can be. Every week, there's an
exchange where they're told: ""If you stop buying a new shirt every week
at £40 a time, you'll save over £2000 a year!" and they go "No! That's
incredible!"

Aha, yes, I have seen this. Or part of it. There was a woman who was
obsessed with buying new clothes.
Stupid doesn't cover it. I think it falls somewhere into the category of
mental health.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Btms
[]

Post by Marjorie
It's amazing how stupid some people can be. Every week, there's an
exchange where they're told: ""If you stop buying a new shirt every week
at £40 a time, you'll save over £2000 a year!" and they go "No! That's
incredible!"

Aha, yes, I have seen this. Or part of it. There was a woman who was
obsessed with buying new clothes.
Stupid doesn't cover it. I think it falls somewhere into the category of
mental health.

As a card-carrying cynic, does anyone know if there's some kind of
fact-checking agency who looks into this kind of programme to see if all
is legit & honest?
Having heard of almost nothing except D. Trumps tweets for the last eon,
I do wonder if there's some kind of alternative reality involved.

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Sam Plusnet
As a card-carrying cynic, does anyone know if there's some kind of
fact-checking agency who looks into this kind of programme to see if all
is legit & honest?
Having heard of almost nothing except D. Trumps tweets for the last eon,
I do wonder if there's some kind of alternative reality involved.

Well, ISTMT researchers obviously select families whose existing
behaviour is near enough the edge of the bell curve to permit
lots of savings to be made.

Whilst improvements are always possible, I don't think we would
provide enough material for a gripping (or even mildly diverting)
programme.

I have no reason to doubt the maths when they are comparing
expensive brands with cheaper substitutes. It is interesting to
see which ones are readily accepted, and which "own" products are
not recognised and thus rejected as unacceptable replacements.

Chris

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, Marjorie
<***@springequinox.co.uk> writes:
[]

Post by Marjorie
It's amazing how stupid some people can be. Every week, there's an
exchange where they're told: ""If you stop buying a new shirt every
week at £40 a time, you'll save over £2000 a year!" and they go "No!
That's incredible!"

(Well, arithmetic, though it _is_ taught, often doesn't stick.)

_I_ am pretty certain I have never spent anywhere near that on a shirt
in my life, and am unlikely to do so in the future! 4 to 10 is more my
norm (when I can _find_ what I want, plain colour [other than white]
short-sleeved polycotton, which I've mentioned the scarcity of before).

[Btms]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Marjorie
It's amazing how stupid some people can be. Every week, there's an
exchange where they're told: ""If you stop buying a new shirt every
week at £40 a time, you'll save over £2000 a year!" and they go "No!
That's incredible!"

(Well, arithmetic, though it _is_ taught, often doesn't stick.)
_I_ am pretty certain I have never spent anywhere near that on a shirt
in my life, and am unlikely to do so in the future! 4 to 10 is more my
norm (when I can _find_ what I want, plain colour [other than white]
short-sleeved polycotton, which I've mentioned the scarcity of before).

I have heard Asda sell this sort. Made with child labour I was told.

[Peter Percival]

Post by Btms

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Marjorie
It's amazing how stupid some people can be. Every week, there's an
exchange where they're told: ""If you stop buying a new shirt every
week at £40 a time, you'll save over £2000 a year!" and they go "No!
That's incredible!"

(Well, arithmetic, though it _is_ taught, often doesn't stick.)
_I_ am pretty certain I have never spent anywhere near that on a shirt
in my life, and am unlikely to do so in the future! 4 to 10 is more my
norm (when I can _find_ what I want, plain colour [other than white]
short-sleeved polycotton, which I've mentioned the scarcity of before).

I have heard Asda sell this sort. Made with child labour I was told.

If it weren't for those labouring children, more families would go
hungry than do at present.

[Btms]

Post by Peter Percival

Post by Btms

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Marjorie
It's amazing how stupid some people can be. Every week, there's an
exchange where they're told: ""If you stop buying a new shirt every
week at £40 a time, you'll save over £2000 a year!" and they go "No!
That's incredible!"

(Well, arithmetic, though it _is_ taught, often doesn't stick.)
_I_ am pretty certain I have never spent anywhere near that on a shirt
in my life, and am unlikely to do so in the future! 4 to 10 is more my
norm (when I can _find_ what I want, plain colour [other than white]
short-sleeved polycotton, which I've mentioned the scarcity of before).

I have heard Asda sell this sort. Made with child labour I was told.

If it weren't for those labouring children, more families would go
hungry than do at present.

True but I find it difficult when it is suggested that more expensive
options are being overcharged for. Or that the customer is being duped.

[Marjorie]

Post by Btms

Post by Peter Percival

Post by Btms

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Marjorie
It's amazing how stupid some people can be. Every week, there's an
exchange where they're told: ""If you stop buying a new shirt every
week at £40 a time, you'll save over £2000 a year!" and they go "No!
That's incredible!"

(Well, arithmetic, though it _is_ taught, often doesn't stick.)
_I_ am pretty certain I have never spent anywhere near that on a shirt
in my life, and am unlikely to do so in the future! 4 to 10 is more my
norm (when I can _find_ what I want, plain colour [other than white]
short-sleeved polycotton, which I've mentioned the scarcity of before).

I have heard Asda sell this sort. Made with child labour I was told.

If it weren't for those labouring children, more families would go
hungry than do at present.

True but I find it difficult when it is suggested that more expensive
options are being overcharged for. Or that the customer is being duped.

We have no way of knowing, in most cases, whether a shirt costing £40 is
made with cheap child labour. It's quite likely that the business simply
takes a bigger slice in profits. The people in this show buy expensive
things because they're snobs, and want to have "labels" and know that
their gear coast a lot of money. I've never heard any of them extol the
economic or environmental superiority of their chosen attire.

[Penny]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 17:21:38 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie
We have no way of knowing, in most cases, whether a shirt costing £40 is
made with cheap child labour. It's quite likely that the business simply
takes a bigger slice in profits. The people in this show buy expensive
things because they're snobs, and want to have "labels" and know that
their gear coast a lot of money. I've never heard any of them extol the
economic or environmental superiority of their chosen attire.

It fascinates me, as a bargain hunter, how the offer price attracts
different buyers for what is essentially the same thing. Possibly more so
now than in the past and not just on 'fashion' items.

The husgod was a firm believer in 'you get what you pay for' and tended
towards 'the best I can afford' when buying things like tools. This may be
a good idea if you use the tools on a daily basis to make your living (and
can keep them secure from theft at all times) but for the odd bit of DIY an
adequate cheap tool is often fine, even if you throw it away at the end of
the job in hand.

Since those who buy top end 'fashion' items are unlikely to wear their most
expensive clothes more than once it can only be an exercise in showing off.

[Btms]

Post by Penny
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 17:21:38 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie
We have no way of knowing, in most cases, whether a shirt costing £40 is
made with cheap child labour. It's quite likely that the business simply
takes a bigger slice in profits. The people in this show buy expensive
things because they're snobs, and want to have "labels" and know that
their gear coast a lot of money. I've never heard any of them extol the
economic or environmental superiority of their chosen attire.

It fascinates me, as a bargain hunter, how the offer price attracts
different buyers for what is essentially the same thing. Possibly more so
now than in the past and not just on 'fashion' items.
The husgod was a firm believer in 'you get what you pay for' and tended
towards 'the best I can afford' when buying things like tools. This may be
a good idea if you use the tools on a daily basis to make your living (and
can keep them secure from theft at all times) but for the odd bit of DIY an
adequate cheap tool is often fine, even if you throw it away at the end of
the job in hand.
Since those who buy top end 'fashion' items are unlikely to wear their most
expensive clothes more than once it can only be an exercise in showing off.

Not sure I can be so certain of the motives of others. It might be that
for some their lack of self confidence os boosted when they wear top end
stuff.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@4ax.com>, Penny
<***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes:
[]

Post by Penny
It fascinates me, as a bargain hunter, how the offer price attracts
different buyers for what is essentially the same thing. Possibly more so
now than in the past and not just on 'fashion' items.

I'm convinced that a lot of supermarket own brands (and the invented
brands in Lidl and Aldi) products _are_ made in the same factories,
rather than just striving to appear to be (as close as they can get
without being guilty of "passing off", which often seems amazingly close
to me).

Post by Penny
The husgod was a firm believer in 'you get what you pay for' and tended

That used to be the case pretty widely, with a few exceptions. Nowadays,
although it does in a lot of things, there are many where it doesn't.

Post by Penny
towards 'the best I can afford' when buying things like tools. This may be
a good idea if you use the tools on a daily basis to make your living (and
can keep them secure from theft at all times) but for the odd bit of DIY an
adequate cheap tool is often fine, even if you throw it away at the end of
the job in hand.

And the ones in poundshops and the like, or a lot of them anyway (the
tools I mean not the shops), do appear to be of surprisingly good
quality: maybe they _won't_ last as long as - I was going to say named
brands, but I'll say ones costing many times as much: but, I think the
payback is good - they might last three time units, whereas ones costing
five times as much might last five time units. Or something like that.
As you say, for those seriously using tools as part of their job, the
convenience of knowing that the tool won't have broken when you want it
may be worth paying for.

Post by Penny
Since those who buy top end 'fashion' items are unlikely to wear their most
expensive clothes more than once it can only be an exercise in showing off.

(And in some circles it's a matter of shame to be seen to be doing so
[or to be seen wearing the same thing as someone else, too].)

[Btms]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Btms
These days folk simply spend to the limit on their credit
cards and fail to recognise quite what this costs them.

Have you seen any of the "Live Well for Less" programmes? I know
that they obviously select families whose behaviour is extreme
enough to make good TV, but there are times when I sit almost
open-mouthed at some of the details.
One woman had made an impulse purchase of a second-hand Evoke, at
a time when she had given up work to look after her daughter, and
kept having to be bailed out by her husband.
Chris

No I haven't. I think I may have caught bits or a trailer. It would wind
me up! No doubt not always about overspending.

[Chris McMillan]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Btms
These days folk simply spend to the limit on their credit
cards and fail to recognise quite what this costs them.

Have you seen any of the "Live Well for Less" programmes? I know
that they obviously select families whose behaviour is extreme
enough to make good TV, but there are times when I sit almost
open-mouthed at some of the details.
One woman had made an impulse purchase of a second-hand Evoke, at
a time when she had given up work to look after her daughter, and
kept having to be bailed out by her husband.
Chris

Yes, we watch them.

Sincerely Chris

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Btms
These days folk simply spend to the limit on their credit
cards and fail to recognise quite what this costs them.

Have you seen any of the "Live Well for Less" programmes? I know
that they obviously select families whose behaviour is extreme
enough to make good TV, but there are times when I sit almost
open-mouthed at some of the details.

And the latest moves, reported on the meeja today until the St.
Petersburg event swamped everything, are to in effect get the card
companies to bail them out. Now, while {I have a reasonable amount of
despision* for the card companies, whose activities have to some extent
encouraged these people to get into the situation and who have admitted
(they can't really do otherwise) that it is this group of people they
make most of their money from}, I don't think that is the proper answer:
it _won't_ teach the people to mend their ways.

* from "despise"; I can never remember the correct word.
[]

[Mike]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Btms
These days folk simply spend to the limit on their credit
cards and fail to recognise quite what this costs them.

Have you seen any of the "Live Well for Less" programmes? I know
that they obviously select families whose behaviour is extreme
enough to make good TV, but there are times when I sit almost
open-mouthed at some of the details.

And the latest moves, reported on the meeja today until the St.
Petersburg event swamped everything, are to in effect get the card
companies to bail them out. Now, while {I have a reasonable amount of
despision* for the card companies, whose activities have to some extent
encouraged these people to get into the situation and who have admitted
(they can't really do otherwise) that it is this group of people they
it _won't_ teach the people to mend their ways.
* from "despise"; I can never remember the correct word.
[]

Now Jpeg, if only you had a brother involved in lexicography - you could
ask him!😉

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

Post by Mike

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
despision* for the card companies, whose activities have to some extent

[]

Post by Mike

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
* from "despise"; I can never remember the correct word.
[]

Now Jpeg, if only you had a brother involved in lexicography - you could
ask him!0 >

No, I've been told the word (it isn't anything complicated - something
like disregard, disrespect, derision, but I don't think any of those) -
I just can't _remember_ it, at least when the word "despise" is in mind.

[Peter Percival]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Mike

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
despision* for the card companies, whose activities have to some extent

[]

Post by Mike

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
* from "despise"; I can never remember the correct word.
[]

Now Jpeg, if only you had a brother involved in lexicography - you could
ask him!0 >

No, I've been told the word (it isn't anything complicated - something
like disregard, disrespect, derision, but I don't think any of those) -
I just can't _remember_ it, at least when the word "despise" is in mind.

Despect.

[Peter Percival]

Post by Mike

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Chris J Dixon

Post by Btms
These days folk simply spend to the limit on their credit
cards and fail to recognise quite what this costs them.

Have you seen any of the "Live Well for Less" programmes? I know
that they obviously select families whose behaviour is extreme
enough to make good TV, but there are times when I sit almost
open-mouthed at some of the details.

And the latest moves, reported on the meeja today until the St.
Petersburg event swamped everything, are to in effect get the card
companies to bail them out. Now, while {I have a reasonable amount of
despision* for the card companies, whose activities have to some extent

despect, believe it or not.

Post by Mike

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
encouraged these people to get into the situation and who have admitted
(they can't really do otherwise) that it is this group of people they
it _won't_ teach the people to mend their ways.
* from "despise"; I can never remember the correct word.
[]

Now Jpeg, if only you had a brother involved in lexicography - you could
ask him!😉

[Penny]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:44:24 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

the latest moves, reported on the meeja today ... are to in effect get the card
companies to bail them out. Now, while {I have a reasonable amount of
despision* for the card companies, whose activities have to some extent
encouraged these people to get into the situation and who have admitted
(they can't really do otherwise) that it is this group of people they
it _won't_ teach the people to mend their ways.

Have I told umra about an acquaintance of mine who, in the depths of
depression following a failed marriage, loss of job and some other
troubles, formulated a plan. This was around the time every post seemed to
bring unsolicited offers of credit cards.

He applied for every card going and went on a bit of a spree. This included
a nostalgia trip around the Balierics (where he'd spent happy times in his
youth) and finished up by Lake Garda (where he'd honeymooned with his
wife).

He ate a splendid meal one evening and drank a lot of wine before stripping
off on the shore and swimming out into the lake, not expecting to return.

And then he met a snake, also swimming across the lake. Having a horror of
snakes he managed to swim back to shore and passed out on the beach.

He spent a while in a monastery after that but when he eventually returned
to England and the credit cards caught up with him he took advice and went
to court over his debts. The judge took the view that anyone who lent money
to a man with no job should not expect to be repaid so he didn't have to.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
[]

Post by Btms

Post by kosmo
In accordance with all the advice I have read before and since
retirement Pip has redirected her profit into another investment
giving her much needed portfolio diversity.
She should be applauded for being so farsighted.

Ehrm...doesn't something called due diligence become a factor before such
action. Oh and leaving another business under capitalised?

It's far from clear to me whether it was only the _profit_ from the last
round, or the whole sale proceeds (i. e. including original capital,
less operating costs [feed, vets, etc.], not just profit), that she
"lent" to Toby.

[kosmo]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 11:45:25 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
It's far from clear to me whether it was only the _profit_ from the last

Only the profit money and interest were offered to parents and the
interest refused.

[Mike]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Btms
I think I agree in part. But this was an enterprise for Pip to run

under

Post by Btms
her own steam with a loan from Brookfield. However she has no

profit to

Post by Btms
reinvest. This was an investment and not an income stream for Pip.

David
In accordance with all the advice I have read before and since
retirement Pip has redirected her profit into another investment
giving her much needed portfolio diversity.
She should be applauded for being so farsighted.

..... tripp-trapp over the rickety bridge.

[LFS]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Btms
I think I agree in part. But this was an enterprise for Pip to run

under

Post by Btms
her own steam with a loan from Brookfield. However she has no

profit to

Post by Btms
reinvest. This was an investment and not an income stream for Pip.

David
In accordance with all the advice I have read before and since
retirement Pip has redirected her profit into another investment giving
her much needed portfolio diversity.
She should be applauded for being so farsighted.

<grin> But profit? Seems to me that all the discussions have related to
cash amounts. Pip must have incurred some costs, surely.

[kosmo]

Post by LFS
<grin> But profit? Seems to me that all the discussions have

related to

Post by LFS
cash amounts. Pip must have incurred some costs, surely.

Few. She bought the cows, fed them on Adam's grasses. Sold them and
allegedly ended up with 5k profit after all haulage and auctioneer
costs. On 15 animals. I find it hard to believe. Adam paid her a
fee for managing his beasts but she admitted to spending that on
living costs mainly feeding Toby and the new settee.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@nntp.aioe.org>, kosmo
<***@whitnet.uk> writes:
[]

Post by kosmo
costs mainly feeding Toby and the new settee.

(All together now:) why did the new settee need feeding?

[Peter Percival]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by kosmo
costs mainly feeding Toby and the new settee.

(All together now:) why did the new settee need feeding?

I don't know, but if it's carnivorous should feed Tony to it.

[Mike]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by kosmo
costs mainly feeding Toby and the new settee.

(All together now:) why did the new settee need feeding?

Because you can only go sofa on the odd sandwich.

[kosmo]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 16:56:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(All together now:) why did the new settee need feeding?

Because Pip needed stuffing.

[Btms]

Post by kosmo
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 16:56:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
(All together now:) why did the new settee need feeding?

Because Pip needed stuffing.

Well, financially, she is already stuffed.

[Marjorie]

Post by LFS

Post by LFS
<grin> But profit? Seems to me that all the discussions have

related to

Post by LFS
cash amounts. Pip must have incurred some costs, surely.

Few. She bought the cows, fed them on Adam's grasses. Sold them and
allegedly ended up with 5k profit after all haulage and auctioneer
costs. On 15 animals. I find it hard to believe. Adam paid her a fee
for managing his beasts but she admitted to spending that on living
costs mainly feeding Toby and the new settee.

Was it only 15 cows? That sounds like quite a sum to have made as clear
profit.

She didn't spend it on feeding Toby ( and I don't think they ever got a
new settee); she "invested" it in his business, and he has promised to
repay her as soon as his sales take off. I mean, he's made 20 bottles
this week, and if his business plan ("Sell all my gin to Kenton") is
sound, he'll have made perhaps a couple of pounds profit on each bottle.
Shouldn't take long at all to pay back £5000.

[krw]

Post by Marjorie
Was it only 15 cows? That sounds like quite a sum to have made as clear
profit.

Apparently. Somewhere this story has had a rewrite as Adam wanted the
Foulbrethern to put 200 on the leys - and I was pretty sure that last
year the Archers funded Pip for 50; but it was very clear when talking
to David and Ruth that she wanted to go from 15 to 20 or 25. I thought
£5k on 15 was a lot to make - but possible I suspect.

Post by Marjorie
She didn't spend it on feeding Toby ( and I don't think they ever got a
new settee); she "invested" it in his business, and he has promised to
repay her as soon as his sales take off. I mean, he's made 20 bottles
this week, and if his business plan ("Sell all my gin to Kenton") is
sound, he'll have made perhaps a couple of pounds profit on each bottle.
Shouldn't take long at all to pay back £5000.

Clearly he has not got a hope in hell.

However I still maintain that D&R said they would fund the cows on the
leys on a declining basis over a number of years and they are not
sticking to that. Indeed David came up with new rules the other day.
Inescapable as putting the £5k into Toby's business without a business
plan the editor is not achieving continuity nor he is understanding his
characters. Pip has seen the ptf wand and that is not just down to Toby
- that might make her spend the £5k but it would not lead her to fail to
mend a fence that she agreed to do.

And I am back Cyprus was very nice. Thank you for asking.

[Marjorie]

Post by Btms

Post by Marjorie

Post by kosmo

Why have David and Ruth completely changed what they said to Pip >

about funding her cows at Home Farm? > > They always said they would
help future years by decreasing

amounts.

Post by kosmo
I am not surprised Pip is upset. And Ruth knows the money has

gone.

Post by kosmo
Totally unreasonable adults. Pip is being abused by management.

Look out, Troll Alert!
--
Toodle Pip

I have been catching up on recent omnibuses and was amazed to come
across a scene so monstrously at odds with past events.
The new editor is even worse at continuity than the last one. He is
making the programme a laughing stock.

Ruth, David and Jill are not making any sense. They don't seem to have
had a single honest conversation about all this with each other or with
Pip, and thus each of them has a different version of what Pip's
financial position is. That's what I find so odd about it: no one has
said to Pip, "Right, you now have £5000 profit to put back into the
scheme. How much extra will you need to replace the first lot of cows
with a similar batch? Why do you need any more than this?
Oh, and has this money just gone into Pip's personal bank account (and
out again)? Isn't it part of the farm income, declarable for tax etc?
The original loan must have come out of the farm money, so why is the
profit not returned to the same account, or at least to some farm
account, rather than Toby's grubby paws?

I think I agree in part. But this was an enterprise for Pip to run under
her own steam with a loan from Brookfield. However she has no profit to
reinvest.

She had £5000 profit that she was supposed reinvest. She squandered it
on her dishonest parasite of a boyfriend. Now she's looking for David to
replace it for her. I can't understand why he hasn't asked about it - if
she actually hadn't made a profit, the project wold have failed, and if
she has, it should be available now.

[Btms]

Post by kosmo
Why have David and Ruth completely changed what they said to Pip
about funding her cows at Home Farm?
They always said they would help future years by decreasing amounts.
I am not surprised Pip is upset. And Ruth knows the money has gone.
Totally unreasonable adults. Pip is being abused by management.

She has nothing to contribute herself and this was not the deal.

[kosmo]

Post by Btms

Post by kosmo
Why have David and Ruth completely changed what they said to Pip
about funding her cows at Home Farm?
They always said they would help future years by decreasing

amounts.

Post by Btms

Post by kosmo
I am not surprised Pip is upset. And Ruth knows the money has gone.
Totally unreasonable adults. Pip is being abused by management.

She has nothing to contribute herself and this was not the deal.

But David has arbitrarily changed the rules. That is wrong.

[Btms]

Post by kosmo

Post by Btms

Post by kosmo
Why have David and Ruth completely changed what they said to Pip
about funding her cows at Home Farm?
They always said they would help future years by decreasing

amounts.

Post by Btms

Post by kosmo
I am not surprised Pip is upset. And Ruth knows the money has

gone.

Post by Btms

Post by kosmo
Totally unreasonable adults. Pip is being abused by management.

She has nothing to contribute herself and this was not the deal.

But David has arbitrarily changed the rules. That is wrong.

This is not what I remember, or what David describes as the agreement. Of
course ubdelying yhis is the problem with how arrangements with family
businesses are arranged. But Pip knew her profit was not intended to be
taken by her and then more donated the next year. This is very immature.

[kosmo]

Post by Btms
businesses are arranged. But Pip knew her profit was not intended to be
taken by her and then more donated the next year. This is very immature.

Agreed. But Ruth could easily provide the shortfall out of the
inheritance and the family should be providing a loan as before. She
had 15 cows last time and made 5k. But David has definitely changed
the rules.

[Btms]

Post by Btms

Post by Btms
businesses are arranged. But Pip knew her profit was not intended

to be

Post by Btms
taken by her and then more donated the next year. This is very

immature.
Agreed. But Ruth could easily provide the shortfall out of the
inheritance and the family should be providing a loan as before. She
had 15 cows last time and made 5k. But David has definitely changed
the rules.

I disagree. Ruth is also aware of what Pip has done with her capital and
why she can't increase her stock from last year. Pip's track record is
poor. I wouldn't risk my money on her. She is not showing evidence of a
business like thinking. Quite the reverse.

[Vicky]

Post by Btms

Post by Btms

Post by Btms
businesses are arranged. But Pip knew her profit was not intended

to be

Post by Btms
taken by her and then more donated the next year. This is very

immature.
Agreed. But Ruth could easily provide the shortfall out of the
inheritance and the family should be providing a loan as before. She
had 15 cows last time and made 5k. But David has definitely changed
the rules.

I disagree. Ruth is also aware of what Pip has done with her capital and
why she can't increase her stock from last year. Pip's track record is
poor. I wouldn't risk my money on her. She is not showing evidence of a
business like thinking. Quite the reverse.

I think Ruth should tell Jill why Pip needs a lean again, because she
lent her 5k to Toby. Jill might not want to lend Pip the money in
case this happens again, but if she does there should be some legally
binding document Pip has to sign to make sure any profit or monies
from the next lot of cows is used to pay back Jill and re-invest and
there is no way Toby can get his hands on it. Also until he pays back
the load no further loan after this will be given to Pip,.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@4ax.com>, Vicky
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]

Post by Vicky
there is no way Toby can get his hands on it. Also until he pays back
the load no further loan after this will be given to Pip,.

All very well in theory, but the parable of the prodigal son shows that,
where families are concerned, bad business sense (if not just complete
lack of feck; I haven't actually read the parable for probably about 40
years) is sometimes forgiven, even repeatedly.

[Jane Vernon]

Why have David and Ruth completely changed what they said to Pip about
funding her cows at Home Farm?
They always said they would help future years by decreasing amounts.
I am not surprised Pip is upset. And Ruth knows the money has gone.
Totally unreasonable adults. Pip is being abused by management.

There was a reason given a week or so back. I forget the details but it
was along the lines of whether this is a new business or a continuing
one and buying replacement cows didn't fit the description of what David
said he'd agreed to. I got the feeling Ruth might have lent Pip the
money anyway but the only way for David to understand the need for more
money would be to tell him what Pip did with the last lot.

[krw]

Post by Jane Vernon

Why have David and Ruth completely changed what they said to Pip about
funding her cows at Home Farm?
They always said they would help future years by decreasing amounts.
I am not surprised Pip is upset. And Ruth knows the money has gone.
Totally unreasonable adults. Pip is being abused by management.

There was a reason given a week or so back. I forget the details but it
was along the lines of whether this is a new business or a continuing
one and buying replacement cows didn't fit the description of what David
said he'd agreed to. I got the feeling Ruth might have lent Pip the
money anyway but the only way for David to understand the need for more
money would be to tell him what Pip did with the last lot.

The explanation given was that when the leys were scrapped by Brian
David thought it would be a new business with a new plan. But long ago
last year it was clear that help would be needed in future years. With
the added complication of Pip moving her investment elsewhere.