Insurance

[krw]

What are they on? We run a very small dog sitting business. We have to
be licenced by the council and we have to be insured. We have £5m of
public liability insurance cover (on the grounds that is smallest amount
going) to cover costs of third parties if dogs escape, savage sheep,
infect cattle, or (round here) cause a road accident.

And it costs c£150.

I know David is a poor farmer but frankly he should have handed this all
to insurers. Most insurers these days do not argue about liability
(they know the courts will not accept that) so merely argue about quantum.

No need to touch Heatherpet's half a million or anything else.

I am really wondering if I am no longer in a parallel universe but in
another dimension where normal rules of business have ceased to exist.

And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

[Mike]

Post by krw
I know David is a poor farmer but frankly he should have handed this all
to insurers. Most insurers these days do not argue about liability
(they know the courts will not accept that) so merely argue about quantum.
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

The Toodles family have been shouting the same thing since the subject of
lurgy aired itself for the first time, Ok, in a way it was helped along by
oodles of incompetence of the David and Pip varieties but, if the farm
insurance covers such stupidity, should David not have just informed his
insuers and left them to deal with the matter? There's Roof thinking that
the cost may be similar to the £20k that the other incompetence with the
tractor is costing them, well I think she has left off a naught or so, this
isnt going to be covered by their holiday fund!

As to Dobbie, she flits in and out as scripting and recording funds allow
but, when did she last do a stroke of non-hungarian based work???

Taking another R4 title.... Beyond Belief!

[John Ashby]

Post by Mike

Post by krw
I know David is a poor farmer but frankly he should have handed this all
to insurers. Most insurers these days do not argue about liability
(they know the courts will not accept that) so merely argue about quantum.
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

The Toodles family have been shouting the same thing since the subject of
lurgy aired itself for the first time, Ok, in a way it was helped along by
oodles of incompetence of the David and Pip varieties but, if the farm
insurance covers such stupidity, should David not have just informed his
insuers and left them to deal with the matter? There's Roof thinking that
the cost may be similar to the £20k that the other incompetence with the
tractor is costing them, well I think she has left off a naught or so, this
isnt going to be covered by their holiday fund!

After Friday... oops

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Surely we're being set up for David to suddenly realise that he could
cover the compensation by calling in the loan he made to his darling
brother, with hilarious consequences for the gin business.

john

[Chris McMillan]

Post by John Ashby

Post by Mike

Post by krw
I know David is a poor farmer but frankly he should have handed this all
to insurers. Most insurers these days do not argue about liability
(they know the courts will not accept that) so merely argue about quantum.
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

The Toodles family have been shouting the same thing since the subject of
lurgy aired itself for the first time, Ok, in a way it was helped along by
oodles of incompetence of the David and Pip varieties but, if the farm
insurance covers such stupidity, should David not have just informed his
insuers and left them to deal with the matter? There's Roof thinking that
the cost may be similar to the £20k that the other incompetence with the
tractor is costing them, well I think she has left off a naught or so, this
isnt going to be covered by their holiday fund!

After Friday... oops
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Surely we're being set up for David to suddenly realise that he could
cover the compensation by calling in the loan he made to his darling
brother, with hilarious consequences for the gin business.
john

Make that an OP John, we said the same.

Sincerely Chris

[Peter Percival]

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by John Ashby

Post by Mike

Post by krw
I know David is a poor farmer but frankly he should have handed this all
to insurers. Most insurers these days do not argue about liability
(they know the courts will not accept that) so merely argue about quantum.
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

The Toodles family have been shouting the same thing since the subject of
lurgy aired itself for the first time, Ok, in a way it was helped along by
oodles of incompetence of the David and Pip varieties but, if the farm
insurance covers such stupidity, should David not have just informed his
insuers and left them to deal with the matter? There's Roof thinking that
the cost may be similar to the £20k that the other incompetence with the
tractor is costing them, well I think she has left off a naught or so, this
isnt going to be covered by their holiday fund!

After Friday... oops
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Surely we're being set up for David to suddenly realise that he could
cover the compensation by calling in the loan he made to his darling
brother, with hilarious consequences for the gin business.
john

Make that an OP John, we said the same.
Sincerely Chris

And the gin business is going nowhere even if the loan isn't called in.

[Mike]

Post by Peter Percival

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by John Ashby

Post by Mike

Post by krw
I know David is a poor farmer but frankly he should have handed this all
to insurers. Most insurers these days do not argue about liability
(they know the courts will not accept that) so merely argue about quantum.
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

The Toodles family have been shouting the same thing since the subject of
lurgy aired itself for the first time, Ok, in a way it was helped along by
oodles of incompetence of the David and Pip varieties but, if the farm
insurance covers such stupidity, should David not have just informed his
insuers and left them to deal with the matter? There's Roof thinking that
the cost may be similar to the £20k that the other incompetence with the
tractor is costing them, well I think she has left off a naught or so, this
isnt going to be covered by their holiday fund!

After Friday... oops
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Surely we're being set up for David to suddenly realise that he could
cover the compensation by calling in the loan he made to his darling
brother, with hilarious consequences for the gin business.
john

Make that an OP John, we said the same.
Sincerely Chris

And the gin business is going nowhere even if the loan isn't called in.

In the be gin ing, there was darkness, (other peoples') money was expended,
there was still no gin...

[Vicky]

Post by Mike

Post by Peter Percival

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by John Ashby

Post by Mike

Post by krw
I know David is a poor farmer but frankly he should have handed this all
to insurers. Most insurers these days do not argue about liability
(they know the courts will not accept that) so merely argue about quantum.
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

The Toodles family have been shouting the same thing since the subject of
lurgy aired itself for the first time, Ok, in a way it was helped along by
oodles of incompetence of the David and Pip varieties but, if the farm
insurance covers such stupidity, should David not have just informed his
insuers and left them to deal with the matter? There's Roof thinking that
the cost may be similar to the £20k that the other incompetence with the
tractor is costing them, well I think she has left off a naught or so, this
isnt going to be covered by their holiday fund!

After Friday... oops
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Surely we're being set up for David to suddenly realise that he could
cover the compensation by calling in the loan he made to his darling
brother, with hilarious consequences for the gin business.
john

Make that an OP John, we said the same.
Sincerely Chris

And the gin business is going nowhere even if the loan isn't called in.

In the be gin ing, there was darkness, (other peoples') money was expended,
there was still no gin...

Well, Kenton needs to repay David so David can sort out the
liabilities. And Toby has already caused harm to Brookfield finances
in general. Pip would have got more cows and still be in with Adam if
not for giving Toby the money. Didn't it sound, when she talked with
Alice, as if she was beginning to see Toby for the waste of space and
taker that he is? Maybe Kenton will have to refuse the loan and Toby
will slink off some place.

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by John Ashby

Post by Mike

Post by krw
I know David is a poor farmer but frankly he should have handed this all
to insurers. Most insurers these days do not argue about liability
(they know the courts will not accept that) so merely argue about quantum.
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

The Toodles family have been shouting the same thing since the subject of
lurgy aired itself for the first time, Ok, in a way it was helped along by
oodles of incompetence of the David and Pip varieties but, if the farm
insurance covers such stupidity, should David not have just informed his
insuers and left them to deal with the matter? There's Roof thinking that
the cost may be similar to the £20k that the other incompetence with the
tractor is costing them, well I think she has left off a naught or so, this
isnt going to be covered by their holiday fund!

After Friday... oops
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Surely we're being set up for David to suddenly realise that he could
cover the compensation by calling in the loan he made to his darling
brother, with hilarious consequences for the gin business.

Yes, I've been expecting that, too.

[Vicky]

Post by Mike

Post by krw
I know David is a poor farmer but frankly he should have handed this all
to insurers. Most insurers these days do not argue about liability
(they know the courts will not accept that) so merely argue about quantum.
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

The Toodles family have been shouting the same thing since the subject of
lurgy aired itself for the first time, Ok, in a way it was helped along by
oodles of incompetence of the David and Pip varieties but, if the farm
insurance covers such stupidity, should David not have just informed his
insuers and left them to deal with the matter? There's Roof thinking that
the cost may be similar to the £20k that the other incompetence with the
tractor is costing them, well I think she has left off a naught or so, this
isnt going to be covered by their holiday fund!
As to Dobbie, she flits in and out as scripting and recording funds allow
but, when did she last do a stroke of non-hungarian based work???
Taking another R4 title.... Beyond Belief!

When the Bull was flooded there was no insurance, was there? Kenton
forgot to pay it. Maybe it is an Archer trait? Maybe David forgot too.
We're discussing insurance and B thought the household insurance was
renewed automatically by DD but even if you have DD it isn't as is
often a slightly bigger amount. And I stopped DD as there is a charge
for using it! I pay in one go.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

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

Post by Vicky
We're discussing insurance and B thought the household insurance was
renewed automatically by DD but even if you have DD it isn't as is
often a slightly bigger amount. And I stopped DD as there is a charge
for using it! I pay in one go.

I thought one of the major advantages of DD (as touted; I consider it a
major _dis_advantage, so disadvantage myself considerably by having as
few as possible) was that they _can_ take a varying amount, unlike say a
standing order? And as for a charge for using it, I've usually found the
opposite - they'll bribe you to let them use DD!

Though "I pay in one go" suggests it wasn't DD they were charging you
for, but the ability to pay in instalments - right?

[Peter Percival]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Vicky
We're discussing insurance and B thought the household insurance
was renewed automatically by DD but even if you have DD it isn't as
is often a slightly bigger amount. And I stopped DD as there is a
charge for using it! I pay in one go.

I thought one of the major advantages of DD (as touted; I consider it
a major _dis_advantage, so disadvantage myself considerably by having
as few as possible) was that they _can_ take a varying amount, unlike
say a standing order?

Yes, that is one of the differences.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
And as for a charge for using it, I've usually
found the opposite - they'll bribe you to let them use DD!
Though "I pay in one go" suggests it wasn't DD they were charging
you for, but the ability to pay in instalments - right?

[Vicky]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 16:56:46 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

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

Post by Vicky
We're discussing insurance and B thought the household insurance was
renewed automatically by DD but even if you have DD it isn't as is
often a slightly bigger amount. And I stopped DD as there is a charge
for using it! I pay in one go.

I thought one of the major advantages of DD (as touted; I consider it a
major _dis_advantage, so disadvantage myself considerably by having as
few as possible) was that they _can_ take a varying amount, unlike say a
standing order? And as for a charge for using it, I've usually found the
opposite - they'll bribe you to let them use DD!
Though "I pay in one go" suggests it wasn't DD they were charging you
for, but the ability to pay in instalments - right?

Yes, sorry, I mean that.

[krw]

Post by Vicky

Post by Mike

Post by krw
I know David is a poor farmer but frankly he should have handed this all
to insurers. Most insurers these days do not argue about liability
(they know the courts will not accept that) so merely argue about quantum.
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

The Toodles family have been shouting the same thing since the subject of
lurgy aired itself for the first time, Ok, in a way it was helped along by
oodles of incompetence of the David and Pip varieties but, if the farm
insurance covers such stupidity, should David not have just informed his
insuers and left them to deal with the matter? There's Roof thinking that
the cost may be similar to the £20k that the other incompetence with the
tractor is costing them, well I think she has left off a naught or so, this
isnt going to be covered by their holiday fund!
As to Dobbie, she flits in and out as scripting and recording funds allow
but, when did she last do a stroke of non-hungarian based work???
Taking another R4 title.... Beyond Belief!

When the Bull was flooded there was no insurance, was there? Kenton
forgot to pay it. Maybe it is an Archer trait? Maybe David forgot too.
We're discussing insurance and B thought the household insurance was
renewed automatically by DD but even if you have DD it isn't as is
often a slightly bigger amount. And I stopped DD as there is a charge
for using it! I pay in one go.

Different at the Bull. Kenton had paid but had failed to ensure proper
repairs after an earlier flooding. And that was building insurance not
public liability. SO slightly different rules. Even then I reckon the
insurers would have wanted a proper repair and would have coughed up.

[Peter Percival]

Post by krw
What are they on? We run a very small dog sitting business. We have

Yorkshire terriers? Chihuahua?

[Mike]

Post by Peter Percival

Post by krw
What are they on? We run a very small dog sitting business. We have

Yorkshire terriers? Chihuahua?

Rubbish Zoos?

[krw]

Post by Peter Percival

Post by krw
What are they on? We run a very small dog sitting business. We have

Yorkshire terriers? Chihuahua?

Yep we do those. And we have had two Irish wolfhounds at the same time
- not much floor left for anything else.

Bernese Mountain dogs were best.

Cockerpoos are great dogs.

[Btms]

Post by krw

Post by Peter Percival

Post by krw
What are they on? We run a very small dog sitting business. We have

Yorkshire terriers? Chihuahua?

Yep we do those. And we have had two Irish wolfhounds at the same time
- not much floor left for anything else.
Bernese Mountain dogs were best.
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

Sorry, sorry, ...but Poppy read this! Bit insensitive ol' bean. She's
gone into one now 🐩

[krw]

Post by Btms

Post by krw

Post by Peter Percival

Post by krw
What are they on? We run a very small dog sitting business. We have

Yorkshire terriers? Chihuahua?

Yep we do those. And we have had two Irish wolfhounds at the same time
- not much floor left for anything else.
Bernese Mountain dogs were best.
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

Sorry, sorry, ...but Poppy read this! Bit insensitive ol' bean. She's
gone into one now 🐩

Poppy has never been to stay. She might be top dog if she did.

[Btms]

Post by krw

Post by Btms

Post by krw

Post by Peter Percival

Post by krw
What are they on? We run a very small dog sitting business. We have

Yorkshire terriers? Chihuahua?

Yep we do those. And we have had two Irish wolfhounds at the same time
- not much floor left for anything else.
Bernese Mountain dogs were best.
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

Sorry, sorry, ...but Poppy read this! Bit insensitive ol' bean. She's
gone into one now 🐩

Poppy has never been to stay. She might be top dog if she did.

That is far from the point. The cockerpoo is a bit of and issue. I make a
bit too much fuss of them I think.

[Mike]

Post by Btms

Post by krw

Post by Peter Percival

Post by krw
What are they on? We run a very small dog sitting business. We have

Yorkshire terriers? Chihuahua?

Yep we do those. And we have had two Irish wolfhounds at the same time
- not much floor left for anything else.
Bernese Mountain dogs were best.
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

Sorry, sorry, ...but Poppy read this! Bit insensitive ol' bean. She's
gone into one now 🐩

Would rwin cockerpoos be called cockertwos?

[Mike]

Post by Mike

Post by Btms

Post by krw

Post by Peter Percival

Post by krw
What are they on? We run a very small dog sitting business. We have

Yorkshire terriers? Chihuahua?

Yep we do those. And we have had two Irish wolfhounds at the same time
- not much floor left for anything else.
Bernese Mountain dogs were best.
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

Sorry, sorry, ...but Poppy read this! Bit insensitive ol' bean. She's
gone into one now 🐩

Would rwin cockerpoos be called cockertwos?

Og nugger, I meant twin

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by krw
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

But what is the POINT of them (or any other of these modern mongrels?)
Most old breeds of dog were bred the way they are for a reason. What is
the reason for a cockerpoo, or yorkypoo or jug or whatever? Not to
mention the fact that if you cross A with B you won't necessarily get
something that resembles either of them, not will the puppies
necessarily retain the favourable attributes of either parent.

And as for the prices so many idiots are apparently prepared to pay...!
They are, when all is said and done, buying a mongrel.

Sorry, K Richard, not firing at you. You just gave me a platform for
one of my current top-ranking rants.

[Jim Easterbrook]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by krw
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

But what is the POINT of them (or any other of these modern mongrels?)
Most old breeds of dog were bred the way they are for a reason. What is
the reason for a cockerpoo, or yorkypoo or jug or whatever? Not to
mention the fact that if you cross A with B you won't necessarily get
something that resembles either of them, not will the puppies
necessarily retain the favourable attributes of either parent.
And as for the prices so many idiots are apparently prepared to pay...!
They are, when all is said and done, buying a mongrel.

With plants you can get "hybrid vigour". I don't know if it's the same for
dogs, but I've heard that some breeds are sufficiently inbred to have real
problems.

[Penny]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:34:39 +0100, Jim Easterbrook

Post by Jim Easterbrook

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by krw
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

But what is the POINT of them (or any other of these modern mongrels?)
Most old breeds of dog were bred the way they are for a reason. What is
the reason for a cockerpoo, or yorkypoo or jug or whatever? Not to
mention the fact that if you cross A with B you won't necessarily get
something that resembles either of them, not will the puppies
necessarily retain the favourable attributes of either parent.
And as for the prices so many idiots are apparently prepared to pay...!
They are, when all is said and done, buying a mongrel.

With plants you can get "hybrid vigour". I don't know if it's the same for
dogs, but I've heard that some breeds are sufficiently inbred to have real
problems.

Indeed, after suffering problems associated with pure bred retrievers we
acquired a retriever/labrador cross. She had the most wonderful temperament
and was a great family dog (although most strongly attached to my mother).
We tried to breed her with the lab at the farm up the road but he didn't
seem to know what to do. She did have several litters of delightful pups
with two loyal local suitors - a collie and a whippet - sometimes both in
the same litter!

[Btms]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by krw
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

But what is the POINT of them (or any other of these modern mongrels?)
Most old breeds of dog were bred the way they are for a reason. What is
the reason for a cockerpoo, or yorkypoo or jug or whatever? Not to
mention the fact that if you cross A with B you won't necessarily get
something that resembles either of them, not will the puppies
necessarily retain the favourable attributes of either parent.
And as for the prices so many idiots are apparently prepared to pay...!
They are, when all is said and done, buying a mongrel.
Sorry, K Richard, not firing at you. You just gave me a platform for
one of my current top-ranking rants.

Poppy is very taken with your mini rant. I have not alerted her to the
breeding history of giant poodles.

As for the why question; it seems folk want a dog that wont shed but with
the nature of whatever they are crossed with. As you say this is far from
an exact science. In our village we have what is supposed to be a
Labradoodle. Visually, just wouldn't think it is other than a golden
retriever. Many poodle crosses shed but they cost an exorbitant sum,as
you say.

Are there any shitpoos? Icmc

[Chris McMillan]

Post by Btms

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by krw
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

But what is the POINT of them (or any other of these modern mongrels?)
Most old breeds of dog were bred the way they are for a reason. What is
the reason for a cockerpoo, or yorkypoo or jug or whatever? Not to
mention the fact that if you cross A with B you won't necessarily get
something that resembles either of them, not will the puppies
necessarily retain the favourable attributes of either parent.
And as for the prices so many idiots are apparently prepared to pay...!
They are, when all is said and done, buying a mongrel.
Sorry, K Richard, not firing at you. You just gave me a platform for
one of my current top-ranking rants.

Poppy is very taken with your mini rant. I have not alerted her to the
breeding history of giant poodles.
As for the why question; it seems folk want a dog that wont shed but with
the nature of whatever they are crossed with. As you say this is far from
an exact science. In our village we have what is supposed to be a
Labradoodle. Visually, just wouldn't think it is other than a golden
retriever. Many poodle crosses shed but they cost an exorbitant sum,as
you say.
Are there any shitpoos? Icmc

I've seen labradoodles (in pictures from Guide Dogs UK) of curly haired
otherwise obviously labs, but so far none of my friends have them - but a
few are coming up to retiring their ten yr old or so dogs, things may be
very different in the next year or so.

Sincerely Chris

[Btms]

Post by Chris McMillan
I've seen labradoodles (in pictures from Guide Dogs UK) of curly haired
otherwise obviously labs, but so far none of my friends have them - but a
few are coming up to retiring their ten yr old or so dogs, things may be
very different in the next year or so.
Sincerely Chris

I believe they were originally bred in Oz as sight dogs for allergic folk.

[Marjorie]

Post by Btms

Post by Chris McMillan
I've seen labradoodles (in pictures from Guide Dogs UK) of curly haired
otherwise obviously labs, but so far none of my friends have them - but a
few are coming up to retiring their ten yr old or so dogs, things may be
very different in the next year or so.
Sincerely Chris

I believe they were originally bred in Oz as sight dogs for allergic folk.

I was puzzling as to why people with allergies would have problems with
vision and need seeing dog, but having read further down, ISWYM now.

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by Chris McMillan
I've seen labradoodles (in pictures from Guide Dogs UK) of curly haired
otherwise obviously labs, but so far none of my friends have them - but a
few are coming up to retiring their ten yr old or so dogs, things may be
very different in the next year or so.

My father had a (n accidental) Lab x Poodle in the 60s-70s. In fact, he
had 2 for a while, but unfortunately my mother ran one of them over
(another accident.)

Mum was our silver miniature poodle and Dad was a black Lab whose
parents were a black and a yellow. Needless to say, the pups were huge
for a little dog to deliver and 2 died during the difficult birth. The
two who survived were a dog (who lived to about 15) who started off
black but became more silver has he aged, and a bitch who was yellow or
apricot. (I never saw her in the flesh.)

We didn't call Humphrey a Labradoodle, we called him a cross-bred.

[Vicky]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:43:42 GMT, Chris McMillan

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by Btms

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by krw
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

But what is the POINT of them (or any other of these modern mongrels?)
Most old breeds of dog were bred the way they are for a reason. What is
the reason for a cockerpoo, or yorkypoo or jug or whatever? Not to
mention the fact that if you cross A with B you won't necessarily get
something that resembles either of them, not will the puppies
necessarily retain the favourable attributes of either parent.
And as for the prices so many idiots are apparently prepared to pay...!
They are, when all is said and done, buying a mongrel.
Sorry, K Richard, not firing at you. You just gave me a platform for
one of my current top-ranking rants.

Poppy is very taken with your mini rant. I have not alerted her to the
breeding history of giant poodles.
As for the why question; it seems folk want a dog that wont shed but with
the nature of whatever they are crossed with. As you say this is far from
an exact science. In our village we have what is supposed to be a
Labradoodle. Visually, just wouldn't think it is other than a golden
retriever. Many poodle crosses shed but they cost an exorbitant sum,as
you say.
Are there any shitpoos? Icmc

I've seen labradoodles (in pictures from Guide Dogs UK) of curly haired
otherwise obviously labs, but so far none of my friends have them - but a
few are coming up to retiring their ten yr old or so dogs, things may be
very different in the next year or so.
Sincerely Chris

We used to meet a labradoodle guide dog in the park. The owner had a
lbrador for a few years and one day it suddenly sat down on a walk and
said it didn't want to work any more so they were given a new one, and
it was just under the normal 2 years old when they normally finish
training and are matched with an owner.

This one was young to begin but picked up what to do in record time,
it was very clever and a very nice dog too. Still had puppy traits
when on recreation time, which is when we saw him, but very good at
work.

[Fenny]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:25:40 +0100, Jenny M Benson

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by krw
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

But what is the POINT of them (or any other of these modern mongrels?)
Most old breeds of dog were bred the way they are for a reason. What is
the reason for a cockerpoo, or yorkypoo or jug or whatever? Not to
mention the fact that if you cross A with B you won't necessarily get
something that resembles either of them, not will the puppies
necessarily retain the favourable attributes of either parent.

Some of they hybrids have characteristics such as being non-allergenic
and not shedding their hair. My boss has been told they are getting a
cockerpoo! [1]

Post by Jenny M Benson
And as for the prices so many idiots are apparently prepared to pay...!
They are, when all is said and done, buying a mongrel.

Yes, they have just put a deposit of £250 on a pup from a litter due
in September.

[1] Wife and son have decided they want a dog and a Cockerpoo is the
beast of choice. Boss is not against the idea, but needs to make sure
he's not the one left doing all the hard work. Son will be 14 in
October, so a bit of discipline and responsibility will be good for
him!

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by Fenny
Some of they hybrids have characteristics such as being non-allergenic
and not shedding their hair. My boss has been told they are getting a
cockerpoo! [1]

My understanding is that you can't rely on this. I was told by someone
who has a labradoodle that the pups who have poodle coats go for
significantly more than ones with labrador coats (hers is the latter
kind and looks like a very slim, elegant labrador). There's no
guarantee that any individual puppy will inherit that particular
characteristic.

[Marjorie]

Post by Fenny
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:25:40 +0100, Jenny M Benson

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by krw
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

But what is the POINT of them (or any other of these modern mongrels?)
Most old breeds of dog were bred the way they are for a reason. What is
the reason for a cockerpoo, or yorkypoo or jug or whatever? Not to
mention the fact that if you cross A with B you won't necessarily get
something that resembles either of them, not will the puppies
necessarily retain the favourable attributes of either parent.

Some of they hybrids have characteristics such as being non-allergenic
and not shedding their hair. My boss has been told they are getting a
cockerpoo! [1]

Post by Jenny M Benson
And as for the prices so many idiots are apparently prepared to pay...!
They are, when all is said and done, buying a mongrel.

Yes, they have just put a deposit of £250 on a pup from a litter due
in September.
[1] Wife and son have decided they want a dog and a Cockerpoo is the
beast of choice. Boss is not against the idea, but needs to make sure
he's not the one left doing all the hard work. Son will be 14 in
October, so a bit of discipline and responsibility will be good for
him!

My niece and family have a cockerpoo. I think they paid over £400 for
it. They chose it because it's cute and cuddly and pretty, although it
seems to be a nice natured dog too.

[Btms]

Post by Marjorie

Post by Fenny
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:25:40 +0100, Jenny M Benson

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by krw
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

But what is the POINT of them (or any other of these modern mongrels?)
Most old breeds of dog were bred the way they are for a reason. What is
the reason for a cockerpoo, or yorkypoo or jug or whatever? Not to
mention the fact that if you cross A with B you won't necessarily get
something that resembles either of them, not will the puppies
necessarily retain the favourable attributes of either parent.

Some of they hybrids have characteristics such as being non-allergenic
and not shedding their hair. My boss has been told they are getting a
cockerpoo! [1]

Post by Jenny M Benson
And as for the prices so many idiots are apparently prepared to pay...!
They are, when all is said and done, buying a mongrel.

Yes, they have just put a deposit of £250 on a pup from a litter due
in September.
[1] Wife and son have decided they want a dog and a Cockerpoo is the
beast of choice. Boss is not against the idea, but needs to make sure
he's not the one left doing all the hard work. Son will be 14 in
October, so a bit of discipline and responsibility will be good for
him!

My niece and family have a cockerpoo. I think they paid over £400 for
it. They chose it because it's cute and cuddly and pretty, although it
seems to be a nice natured dog too.

That sounds reasonable. When we were looking for a poodle the cross breeds
were around £800. Poppy is now eleven so quite a while back. She cost
£350 and not eligible for KC registration. Technically she is Welsh. If
Monmouth is in Wales.

[Penny]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 16:14:03 -0000 (UTC), Btms <***@thetames.me.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

Post by Btms
Poppy is now eleven so quite a while back. She cost
£350 and not eligible for KC registration. Technically she is Welsh. If
Monmouth is in Wales.

If she is Welsh she should be yellow ;)

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Btms
Technically she is Welsh. If
Monmouth is in Wales.

Never ask that question in Wales - unless you have an hour or two that
you don't mind losing.

[krw]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Btms
Technically she is Welsh. If
Monmouth is in Wales.

Never ask that question in Wales - unless you have an hour or two that
you don't mind losing.

It is these days. But historically it is all a bit questionable.

[Chris McMillan]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by krw
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

But what is the POINT of them (or any other of these modern mongrels?)
Most old breeds of dog were bred the way they are for a reason. What is
the reason for a cockerpoo, or yorkypoo or jug or whatever? Not to
mention the fact that if you cross A with B you won't necessarily get
something that resembles either of them, not will the puppies
necessarily retain the favourable attributes of either parent.
And as for the prices so many idiots are apparently prepared to pay...!
They are, when all is said and done, buying a mongrel.
Sorry, K Richard, not firing at you. You just gave me a platform for
one of my current top-ranking rants.

For assistance dogs, cross breeding the lab, retriever with a dog that does
not shed hair means people can rent property more easily, also it helps
allergic reactions. (And might shut up taxi drivers)

Sincerely Chris

[Btms]

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by krw
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

But what is the POINT of them (or any other of these modern mongrels?)
Most old breeds of dog were bred the way they are for a reason. What is
the reason for a cockerpoo, or yorkypoo or jug or whatever? Not to
mention the fact that if you cross A with B you won't necessarily get
something that resembles either of them, not will the puppies
necessarily retain the favourable attributes of either parent.
And as for the prices so many idiots are apparently prepared to pay...!
They are, when all is said and done, buying a mongrel.
Sorry, K Richard, not firing at you. You just gave me a platform for
one of my current top-ranking rants.

For assistance dogs, cross breeding the lab, retriever with a dog that does
not shed hair means people can rent property more easily, also it helps
allergic reactions. (And might shut up taxi drivers)
Sincerely Chris

But Poppy is entirely poodle and while she doesn't shed, she does provoke
son's asthma, albeit less than other breeds.

I was told the cross breeds are not guaranteed to acquire the non shed coat
until three generations down the line. This may not be true but what isn't
true is that poodles don't shed at all. Their coat is so tight that shed
hair is caught within the unshed and doesn't drop. It does get very matted
and because Poppy hates being groomed, she needs a trip to the hairdresser
every three months. Short back and sides, or the lamb cut as it is known.
The KC demand that silly lion cut if you want to show them.

[krw]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by krw
Cockerpoos are great dogs.

But what is the POINT of them (or any other of these modern mongrels?)
Most old breeds of dog were bred the way they are for a reason. What is
the reason for a cockerpoo, or yorkypoo or jug or whatever? Not to
mention the fact that if you cross A with B you won't necessarily get
something that resembles either of them, not will the puppies
necessarily retain the favourable attributes of either parent.
And as for the prices so many idiots are apparently prepared to pay...!
They are, when all is said and done, buying a mongrel.
Sorry, K Richard, not firing at you. You just gave me a platform for
one of my current top-ranking rants.

In defence of the various poo crosses we have looked after they exhibit
the sweet nature of a poodle but with interesting traits of the other
parent.

The two cockerpoos are Ellie and Boris. Ellie is a little madam and is
spaniel like into water etc. Boris is far more poodlish staying out of
puddles and wanting to look nice and clean. And both do not shed hairs
and are always good natured.

[Penny]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:45:20 +0100, krw <***@whitnet.uk> scrawled in the
dust...

Post by krw
The two cockerpoos are Ellie and Boris. Ellie is a little madam and is
spaniel like into water etc. Boris is far more poodlish staying out of
puddles and wanting to look nice and clean. And both do not shed hairs
and are always good natured.

I've always assumed, since the word Pudel is derived from the Low German
verb meaning "to splash about" that the dogs were bred as water dogs (my
grandmother's was called Splash). The French used the larger Standard
Poodle for duck hunting. So both are really water dogs (although the French
use the miniatures as truffle hounds).

[Btms]

Post by Penny
dust...

Post by krw
The two cockerpoos are Ellie and Boris. Ellie is a little madam and is
spaniel like into water etc. Boris is far more poodlish staying out of
puddles and wanting to look nice and clean. And both do not shed hairs
and are always good natured.

I've always assumed, since the word Pudel is derived from the Low German
verb meaning "to splash about" that the dogs were bred as water dogs (my
grandmother's was called Splash). The French used the larger Standard
Poodle for duck hunting. So both are really water dogs (although the French
use the miniatures as truffle hounds).

All true. The poodle has genes from the Portugese water dog. Their sense
of smell is outstanding but their independent nature (to put it politely)
mitigates against their use as rescue dogs. All dogs are hybrids really.
The KC have worked to standardise breeds and some would say the outcomes
have been cruel.

However, our Poppy is not keen on water. She paddles in the village river
just because she likes to drink it. Won't go in the sea.

[Chris McMillan]

Post by Btms

Post by Penny
dust...

Post by krw
The two cockerpoos are Ellie and Boris. Ellie is a little madam and is
spaniel like into water etc. Boris is far more poodlish staying out of
puddles and wanting to look nice and clean. And both do not shed hairs
and are always good natured.

I've always assumed, since the word Pudel is derived from the Low German
verb meaning "to splash about" that the dogs were bred as water dogs (my
grandmother's was called Splash). The French used the larger Standard
Poodle for duck hunting. So both are really water dogs (although the French
use the miniatures as truffle hounds).

All true. The poodle has genes from the Portugese water dog. Their sense
of smell is outstanding but their independent nature (to put it politely)
mitigates against their use as rescue dogs. All dogs are hybrids really.
The KC have worked to standardise breeds and some would say the outcomes
have been cruel.
However, our Poppy is not keen on water. She paddles in the village river
just because she likes to drink it. Won't go in the sea.

Labs are devils for water quite often, they can smell the slightest hint of
a watery ditch and be off like a bat out of hell. This is where the
obedient dog on a harness or in their home environment can be as unruly as
your average teenager. My friend who lives near where Mr Ruddock used to
live has had a couple of black labs for whom hidden ditches were like
magnets.

Fortunately not while they've been out for me ....

Sincerely Chris

[Vicky]

On Mon, 01 May 2017 11:54:54 GMT, Chris McMillan

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by Btms

Post by Penny
dust...

However, our Poppy is not keen on water. She paddles in the village river
just because she likes to drink it. Won't go in the sea.

Labs are devils for water quite often, they can smell the slightest hint of
a watery ditch and be off like a bat out of hell. This is where the
obedient dog on a harness or in their home environment can be as unruly as
your average teenager. My friend who lives near where Mr Ruddock used to
live has had a couple of black labs for whom hidden ditches were like
magnets.
Fortunately not while they've been out for me ....
Sincerely Chris

Bobby, a pointer/beagle cross, loves water and mud. He is not bothered
about it being cold, which is bad for his arthritis. Molly German
Shepherd/Podenko, was always cautious as, when a puppy in Spain, she
once jumped onto a patch of green that turned out not to be grass, but
scum and weed on top of a pond. She got a nasty shock and did make it
to the side and got out but after that she never wanted to swim. She
would walk into water and paddle and was good about washing mud off in
cleaner bits of streams when we told her to. She knew coming home
muddy might mean a bath and she hated baths.

[Fenny]

Post by Vicky
She knew coming home
muddy might mean a bath and she hated baths.

Mrs End of the Block's dog, Spike, hates baths so much that even
hearing the word will send him running from the room. OTOH, he likes
the word "brush", cos he likes being brushed. It's funny to tease him
with "B" words, but we usually spell out the one he doesn't like.

[Fenny]

Post by krw
No need to touch Heatherpet's half a million or anything else.

From what Ruth said, it sounds as though that's almost gone. Or how
much are they likely to be paying for all these replacement cows?

[John Finlay]

Post by Fenny

Post by krw
No need to touch Heatherpet's half a million or anything else.

From what Ruth said, it sounds as though that's almost gone. Or how
much are they likely to be paying for all these replacement cows?

If David has to replace Tonys' cows, shouldn't he have the cost reduced
by the amount Tony makes on the sale of the cows he has?

[Fenny]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:17:32 +0100, John Finlay

Post by John Finlay

Post by Fenny

Post by krw
No need to touch Heatherpet's half a million or anything else.

From what Ruth said, it sounds as though that's almost gone. Or how
much are they likely to be paying for all these replacement cows?

If David has to replace Tonys' cows, shouldn't he have the cost reduced
by the amount Tony makes on the sale of the cows he has?

Possibly, but it sounds as though they are practically worthless now.
I don't know if IBR affects their ability to be used in food products.

It all sounds too much like one of those old exam howler questions.

Q. A farmer has 20 cows. He sells 8 of them for £64. What will the
other cows realise?

A. Some of their friends are missing

[krw]

Post by John Finlay

Post by Fenny

Post by krw
No need to touch Heatherpet's half a million or anything else.

From what Ruth said, it sounds as though that's almost gone. Or how
much are they likely to be paying for all these replacement cows?

If David has to replace Tonys' cows, shouldn't he have the cost reduced
by the amount Tony makes on the sale of the cows he has?

Yes.

[krw]

Post by Fenny

Post by krw
No need to touch Heatherpet's half a million or anything else.

From what Ruth said, it sounds as though that's almost gone. Or how
much are they likely to be paying for all these replacement cows?

There was some nonsense about paying tax. Heatherpet left £200k in a
life assurance policy and about £300k. The former would not form part
of the estate as Ruth would be sole beneficiary under the policy. Sol
left everything to Hpet, so the estate would have to be worth £650k
before paying tax. As I said this is crap and dire.

And Brian. Either he transfers the land or he doesn't. According to
the transmission he is giving away 10/13the but will still own it. NO
HE WONT!!

[Btms]

Post by krw

Post by Fenny

Post by krw
No need to touch Heatherpet's half a million or anything else.

From what Ruth said, it sounds as though that's almost gone. Or how
much are they likely to be paying for all these replacement cows?

There was some nonsense about paying tax. Heatherpet left £200k in a
life assurance policy and about £300k. The former would not form part
of the estate as Ruth would be sole beneficiary under the policy. Sol
left everything to Hpet, so the estate would have to be worth £650k
before paying tax. As I said this is crap and dire.
And Brian. Either he transfers the land or he doesn't. According to
the transmission he is giving away 10/13the but will still own it. NO
HE WONT!!

I do trust your professional knowledge KRW but find it unbelievable that
the research is so poor. I need to lay down in a darkened room.

[John Ashby]

Post by Btms

Post by krw
There was some nonsense about paying tax. Heatherpet left £200k in a
life assurance policy and about £300k. The former would not form part
of the estate as Ruth would be sole beneficiary under the policy. Sol
left everything to Hpet, so the estate would have to be worth £650k
before paying tax. As I said this is crap and dire.
And Brian. Either he transfers the land or he doesn't. According to
the transmission he is giving away 10/13the but will still own it. NO
HE WONT!!

I do trust your professional knowledge KRW but find it unbelievable that
the research is so poor. I need to lay down in a darkened room.

Wouldn't it be better to turn the light on so you can see if you are
laying the down evenly?

Sorry, but after your remark up there about selective pedantry, I felt a
wave of transitive/intransitive distinction washing over me.

john

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by krw
And Brian. Either he transfers the land or he doesn't. According to
the transmission he is giving away 10/13the but will still own it. NO
HE WONT!!

I'm not sure he owns it now.

After Ruairi came to live with them, he came to a new arrangement with
the family and I'm pretty sure he gave large chunks of the farm to Adam,
Debbie and Ruairi at that stage. I'm pretty sure it wasn't just a
promise of what would be in Brian's will but at least some of it meant
significantly more money in the short term.

Kate and Alice were explicitly excluded from getting any of the farm,
which is why Jenny gave them each one of her holiday cottages.

Can anyone remember / find details of what the arrangement they reached
then?

[krw]

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by krw
And Brian. Either he transfers the land or he doesn't. According to
the transmission he is giving away 10/13the but will still own it. NO
HE WONT!!

I'm not sure he owns it now.
After Ruairi came to live with them, he came to a new arrangement with
the family and I'm pretty sure he gave large chunks of the farm to Adam,
Debbie and Ruairi at that stage. I'm pretty sure it wasn't just a
promise of what would be in Brian's will but at least some of it meant
significantly more money in the short term.
Kate and Alice were explicitly excluded from getting any of the farm,
which is why Jenny gave them each one of her holiday cottages.
Can anyone remember / find details of what the arrangement they reached
then?

I don't remember any change in land ownership. There has been some
playing around with the sharing out of the profits and we also discussed
at length how Brian's only son would end up inheriting but I do not
believe that they did anything (then) with the land. Kate and Alice
were excluded then because of the cottages. It was more a case of Adam
and Debbie getting more money at that time to reflect what they were doing.

[Marjorie]

Post by krw

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by krw
And Brian. Either he transfers the land or he doesn't. According to
the transmission he is giving away 10/13the but will still own it. NO
HE WONT!!

I'm not sure he owns it now.
After Ruairi came to live with them, he came to a new arrangement with
the family and I'm pretty sure he gave large chunks of the farm to
Adam, Debbie and Ruairi at that stage. I'm pretty sure it wasn't just
a promise of what would be in Brian's will but at least some of it
meant significantly more money in the short term.
Kate and Alice were explicitly excluded from getting any of the farm,
which is why Jenny gave them each one of her holiday cottages.
Can anyone remember / find details of what the arrangement they
reached then?

I don't remember any change in land ownership. There has been some
playing around with the sharing out of the profits and we also discussed
at length how Brian's only son would end up inheriting but I do not
believe that they did anything (then) with the land. Kate and Alice
were excluded then because of the cottages. It was more a case of Adam
and Debbie getting more money at that time to reflect what they were doing.

I thought the reason that Kate and Alice got a cottage each is that they
were henceforth to gain nothing from the farm, whereas the others were
to retain some sort of rights or interest and would eventually inherit
it in the future. I hope Adam remembers this and asks for a house.

[krw]

Post by Marjorie
I thought the reason that Kate and Alice got a cottage each is that they
were henceforth to gain nothing from the farm, whereas the others were
to retain some sort of rights or interest and would eventually inherit
it in the future. I hope Adam remembers this and asks for a house.

That rings a bell, although I think it was linked to Kate and Alice not
being employed by the overall business - Adam and Debbie were and I
think this was before Ruaridgh was absorbed into the family.

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by krw

Post by Marjorie
I thought the reason that Kate and Alice got a cottage each is that
they were henceforth to gain nothing from the farm, whereas the others
were to retain some sort of rights or interest and would eventually
inherit it in the future. I hope Adam remembers this and asks for a
house.

That rings a bell, although I think it was linked to Kate and Alice not
being employed by the overall business - Adam and Debbie were and I
think this was before Ruaridgh was absorbed into the family.

My memory, as I said, earlier in this thread, is that this was because
they wouldn't be inheriting the farm. Ruairi was definitely part of
this, it was not long after he came to live at home farm. There was a
certain amount of discontent because Brian insisted on counting him in
the farming side of the family, rather than with the non-farming Kate
and Alice.

The main driver for the arrangement was the anxiety from Adam and
Debbie, about their future on the farm and their inheritance, after
Ruairi became part of the family.

[Flop]

Post by krw

Post by Fenny

Post by krw
No need to touch Heatherpet's half a million or anything else.

From what Ruth said, it sounds as though that's almost gone. Or how
much are they likely to be paying for all these replacement cows?

There was some nonsense about paying tax. Heatherpet left £200k in a
life assurance policy and about £300k. The former would not form part
of the estate as Ruth would be sole beneficiary under the policy. Sol
left everything to Hpet, so the estate would have to be worth £650k
before paying tax. As I said this is crap and dire.
And Brian. Either he transfers the land or he doesn't. According to
the transmission he is giving away 10/13the but will still own it. NO
HE WONT!!

You can do magic with companies these days.

Company A contains all the family with appropriate shares but no voting
rights.

Company B contains Company A and Brian *with* voting rights.

Brian rules ok :-)

[krw]

Post by Flop
You can do magic with companies these days.
Company A contains all the family with appropriate shares but no voting
rights.
Company B contains Company A and Brian *with* voting rights.
Brian rules ok :-)

You can - but I am sure Brian contradicted himself. I suspect that the
writer has no idea.

[Marjorie]

Post by krw

Post by Fenny

Post by krw
No need to touch Heatherpet's half a million or anything else.

From what Ruth said, it sounds as though that's almost gone. Or how
much are they likely to be paying for all these replacement cows?

There was some nonsense about paying tax. Heatherpet left £200k in a
life assurance policy and about £300k. The former would not form part
of the estate as Ruth would be sole beneficiary under the policy. Sol
left everything to Hpet, so the estate would have to be worth £650k
before paying tax. As I said this is crap and dire.
And Brian. Either he transfers the land or he doesn't. According to
the transmission he is giving away 10/13the but will still own it. NO
HE WONT!!

I agree about the IHT. I am in the throes of sorting out my late
step-mother's estate and have just spent a morning wallowing through IHT
forms. (Do you know, the guidance notes are 92 pages long!). Ruth
shouldn't have run into IHT, especially as the house was not worth as
much as they had anticipated.

Nor should she have been silly enough to tie up all or most of her other
savings in pension and Bonds which can't be cashed in.

But at least this Editor is trying to tie up the many loose ends that
the previous one left behind.

[krw]

Post by Marjorie
Bonds which can't be cashed in.

If you can buy bonds then you can sell them. Both the bonds and the
pension "fund" can almost certainly be used as an asset against which
money can be borrowed to settle the claims from Home and Bridge farms -
of course the insurance will actually cover those - but then who has
insurance against the unexpected in business. Oh yes that is right -
everyone!

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

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

Post by Marjorie
Nor should she have been silly enough to tie up all or most of her
other savings in pension and Bonds which can't be cashed in.

[]
It's always^Woften easy to criticize others' financial decisions,
especially with hindsight. It might have seemed a very good decision at
the time (maybe it was made when the farm was going well and seemed
likely to continue to do so?).

[Serena Blanchflower]

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

Post by Marjorie
Nor should she have been silly enough to tie up all or most of her
other savings in pension and Bonds which can't be cashed in.

[]
It's always^Woften easy to criticize others' financial decisions,
especially with hindsight. It might have seemed a very good decision at
the time (maybe it was made when the farm was going well and seemed
likely to continue to do so?).

I agree, especially given the problem that pensioning off the older
generation frequently is for family farms.

[Sally Thompson]

Post by Serena Blanchflower

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

Post by Marjorie
Nor should she have been silly enough to tie up all or most of her
other savings in pension and Bonds which can't be cashed in.

[]
It's always^Woften easy to criticize others' financial decisions,
especially with hindsight. It might have seemed a very good decision at
the time (maybe it was made when the farm was going well and seemed
likely to continue to do so?).

I agree, especially given the problem that pensioning off the older
generation frequently is for family farms.

Must clean my glasses. I read that as "poisoning off the older generation".

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Serena Blanchflower

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

Post by Marjorie
Nor should she have been silly enough to tie up all or most of her
other savings in pension and Bonds which can't be cashed in.

[]
It's always^Woften easy to criticize others' financial decisions,
especially with hindsight. It might have seemed a very good decision at
the time (maybe it was made when the farm was going well and seemed
likely to continue to do so?).

I agree, especially given the problem that pensioning off the older
generation frequently is for family farms.

Must clean my glasses. I read that as "poisoning off the older generation".

Well, that's one solution to the problem...

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Serena Blanchflower

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

Post by Marjorie
Nor should she have been silly enough to tie up all or most of her
other savings in pension and Bonds which can't be cashed in.

[]
It's always^Woften easy to criticize others' financial decisions,
especially with hindsight. It might have seemed a very good decision at
the time (maybe it was made when the farm was going well and seemed
likely to continue to do so?).

I agree, especially given the problem that pensioning off the older
generation frequently is for family farms.

Must clean my glasses. I read that as "poisoning off the older generation".

Well, that's one solution to the problem...

Mmm, soylent green ...

[Paul Herber]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Serena Blanchflower

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

Post by Marjorie
Nor should she have been silly enough to tie up all or most of her
other savings in pension and Bonds which can't be cashed in.

[]
It's always^Woften easy to criticize others' financial decisions,
especially with hindsight. It might have seemed a very good decision at
the time (maybe it was made when the farm was going well and seemed
likely to continue to do so?).

I agree, especially given the problem that pensioning off the older
generation frequently is for family farms.

Must clean my glasses. I read that as "poisoning off the older generation".

Well, that's one solution to the problem...

Mmm, soylent green ...

I thought Solent Green was a retirement village in Southsea.

[Vicky]

On Mon, 1 May 2017 23:59:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Serena Blanchflower

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

Post by Marjorie
Nor should she have been silly enough to tie up all or most of her
other savings in pension and Bonds which can't be cashed in.

[]
It's always^Woften easy to criticize others' financial decisions,
especially with hindsight. It might have seemed a very good decision at
the time (maybe it was made when the farm was going well and seemed
likely to continue to do so?).

I agree, especially given the problem that pensioning off the older
generation frequently is for family farms.

Must clean my glasses. I read that as "poisoning off the older generation".

Well, that's one solution to the problem...

Mmm, soylent green ...

BTN for Jp or Serena

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by Vicky
On Mon, 1 May 2017 23:59:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Serena Blanchflower

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

Post by Marjorie
Nor should she have been silly enough to tie up all or most of her
other savings in pension and Bonds which can't be cashed in.

[]
It's always^Woften easy to criticize others' financial decisions,
especially with hindsight. It might have seemed a very good decision at
the time (maybe it was made when the farm was going well and seemed
likely to continue to do so?).

I agree, especially given the problem that pensioning off the older
generation frequently is for family farms.

Must clean my glasses. I read that as "poisoning off the older generation".

Well, that's one solution to the problem...

Mmm, soylent green ...

BTN for Jp or Serena

Yes, it was rather naughty of Serena, wasn't it? I think I'll accept
that one.

[Serena Blanchflower]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by Vicky
On Mon, 1 May 2017 23:59:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Serena Blanchflower

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

Post by Marjorie
Nor should she have been silly enough to tie up all or most of her
other savings in pension and Bonds which can't be cashed in.

[]
It's always^Woften easy to criticize others' financial decisions,
especially with hindsight. It might have seemed a very good decision at
the time (maybe it was made when the farm was going well and seemed
likely to continue to do so?).

I agree, especially given the problem that pensioning off the older
generation frequently is for family farms.

Must clean my glasses. I read that as "poisoning off the older generation".

Well, that's one solution to the problem...

Mmm, soylent green ...

BTN for Jp or Serena

Yes, it was rather naughty of Serena, wasn't it? I think I'll accept
that one.

<beam>

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by Vicky
On Mon, 1 May 2017 23:59:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

[]

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by Vicky

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by Sally Thompson
Must clean my glasses. I read that as "poisoning off the older generation".

Well, that's one solution to the problem...

Mmm, soylent green ...

BTN for Jp or Serena

Yes, it was rather naughty of Serena, wasn't it? I think I'll accept
that one.

<beam>

Can a BTN(/A) be shared?

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by Vicky
On Mon, 1 May 2017 23:59:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

[]

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by Vicky

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Serena Blanchflower

Post by Sally Thompson
Must clean my glasses. I read that as "poisoning off the older generation".

Well, that's one solution to the problem...

Mmm, soylent green ...

BTN for Jp or Serena

Yes, it was rather naughty of Serena, wasn't it? I think I'll accept
that one.

<beam>

Can a BTN(/A) be shared?
--

It can if BT is compounded by a second Umrat, but in this case I felt
your post was triggered by Serena's BT but didn't really add to it in a
way which justified accepting a Nomination. I admit this COULD be
because the BTM hasn't actually seen the film, so might have missed
something, but the BTM's decisions are final and not to be questioned!

[Marjorie]

Post by krw
What are they on? We run a very small dog sitting business. We have to
be licenced by the council and we have to be insured. We have £5m of
public liability insurance cover (on the grounds that is smallest amount
going) to cover costs of third parties if dogs escape, savage sheep,
infect cattle, or (round here) cause a road accident.
And it costs c£150.
I know David is a poor farmer but frankly he should have handed this all
to insurers. Most insurers these days do not argue about liability
(they know the courts will not accept that) so merely argue about quantum.
No need to touch Heatherpet's half a million or anything else.
I am really wondering if I am no longer in a parallel universe but in
another dimension where normal rules of business have ceased to exist.
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

[Fenny]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:15:17 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie
But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

But if, unlike David, the others have had their cows checked for IBR
status and they haven't been in contact with any other souce of IBR,
could it really have come from anywhere?

But insurers don't usually like anyone admitting liability for
anything. Or is that just for car accidents?

[Marjorie]

Post by Fenny
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:15:17 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie
But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

But if, unlike David, the others have had their cows checked for IBR
status and they haven't been in contact with any other souce of IBR,
could it really have come from anywhere?
But insurers don't usually like anyone admitting liability for
anything. Or is that just for car accidents?

Well, Alistair seemed to imply that the infection could have come from
boots, tyres, etc.
That would still mean Brookfield was at fault but the path of the
infection remained unclear. Of course, direct infection by the escaped
cattle would be a much more likely path, but at the time, they were
insisting that this wasn't a possibility.

[krw]

Post by Fenny
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:15:17 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie
But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

But if, unlike David, the others have had their cows checked for IBR
status and they haven't been in contact with any other souce of IBR,
could it really have come from anywhere?
But insurers don't usually like anyone admitting liability for
anything. Or is that just for car accidents?

Car accidents. Insurers know the courts will not stand for denial of
liability when it is clear cut evidence trail as in this case.

[Flop]

Post by krw

Post by Fenny
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:15:17 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie
But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

But if, unlike David, the others have had their cows checked for IBR
status and they haven't been in contact with any other souce of IBR,
could it really have come from anywhere?
But insurers don't usually like anyone admitting liability for
anything. Or is that just for car accidents?

Car accidents. Insurers know the courts will not stand for denial of
liability when it is clear cut evidence trail as in this case.

But the opposite is always possible.

A driver admits liability. Later, the insurance company discovers that
liability is not so clear cut.

Eg.. In shock, a driver says " I didn't see him coming". Clear admission
of liability.
Later the insurance company discovers that the third party had no
licence, no insurance, was over the limit and was driving the wrong way
down a one-way street.

But liability had been admitted.

[krw]

Post by Flop

Post by krw

Post by Fenny
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 13:15:17 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie
But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

But if, unlike David, the others have had their cows checked for IBR
status and they haven't been in contact with any other souce of IBR,
could it really have come from anywhere?
But insurers don't usually like anyone admitting liability for
anything. Or is that just for car accidents?

Car accidents. Insurers know the courts will not stand for denial of
liability when it is clear cut evidence trail as in this case.

But the opposite is always possible.
A driver admits liability. Later, the insurance company discovers that
liability is not so clear cut.
Eg.. In shock, a driver says " I didn't see him coming". Clear admission
of liability.
Later the insurance company discovers that the third party had no
licence, no insurance, was over the limit and was driving the wrong way
down a one-way street.
But liability had been admitted.

I should have said that when driving a car it is different to what we
are discussing for public liability. The two cannot be easily compared.

[krw]

Post by Marjorie

Post by krw
What are they on? We run a very small dog sitting business. We have to
be licenced by the council and we have to be insured. We have £5m of
public liability insurance cover (on the grounds that is smallest amount
going) to cover costs of third parties if dogs escape, savage sheep,
infect cattle, or (round here) cause a road accident.
And it costs c£150.
I know David is a poor farmer but frankly he should have handed this all
to insurers. Most insurers these days do not argue about liability
(they know the courts will not accept that) so merely argue about quantum.
No need to touch Heatherpet's half a million or anything else.
I am really wondering if I am no longer in a parallel universe but in
another dimension where normal rules of business have ceased to exist.
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

David would tell insurers the cows mingled - so he and the insurers
cannot deny liability.

[Btms]

[]

Post by krw

Post by Marjorie
But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

David would tell insurers the cows mingled - so he and the insurers
cannot deny liability.

Mingled you say? How very shocking!

[krw]

Post by Btms
[]

Post by krw

Post by Marjorie
But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

David would tell insurers the cows mingled - so he and the insurers
cannot deny liability.

Mingled you say? How very shocking!

More shocking if they mingled with Tony's bull.

[steveski]

Post by krw

Post by Btms
[]

Post by krw

Post by Marjorie
But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

David would tell insurers the cows mingled - so he and the insurers
cannot deny liability.

Mingled you say? How very shocking!

More shocking if they mingled with Tony's bull.

Or David . . .

[Peter Percival]

Post by steveski

Post by krw

Post by Btms
[]

Post by krw

Post by Marjorie
But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

David would tell insurers the cows mingled - so he and the insurers
cannot deny liability.

Mingled you say? How very shocking!

More shocking if they mingled with Tony's bull.

Or David . . .

That would be the last straw.

[Btms]

Post by Peter Percival

Post by steveski

Post by krw

Post by Btms
[]

Post by krw

Post by Marjorie
But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

David would tell insurers the cows mingled - so he and the insurers
cannot deny liability.

Mingled you say? How very shocking!

More shocking if they mingled with Tony's bull.

Or David . . .

That would be the last straw.

If he wants it he should put a ring on it. 🐂

[Nick Leverton]

Post by Btms
[]

Post by krw

Post by Marjorie
But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

David would tell insurers the cows mingled - so he and the insurers
cannot deny liability.

Mingled you say? How very shocking!

Do they tingle when they mingle ?

Nick

[Marjorie]

Post by krw

Post by Marjorie

Post by krw
What are they on? We run a very small dog sitting business. We have to
be licenced by the council and we have to be insured. We have £5m of
public liability insurance cover (on the grounds that is smallest amount
going) to cover costs of third parties if dogs escape, savage sheep,
infect cattle, or (round here) cause a road accident.
And it costs c£150.
I know David is a poor farmer but frankly he should have handed this all
to insurers. Most insurers these days do not argue about liability
(they know the courts will not accept that) so merely argue about quantum.
No need to touch Heatherpet's half a million or anything else.
I am really wondering if I am no longer in a parallel universe but in
another dimension where normal rules of business have ceased to exist.
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

But wouldn't their insurers say, "Hang on, why have you admitted
liability for this? It could have come from anywhere. Tell the others
affected that they should claim on their own insurance, not yours." I
can't see why Brookfield insurers would agree to cover the losses of
other farmers in the area. But maybe that's what you meant?

David would tell insurers the cows mingled - so he and the insurers
cannot deny liability.

Could he do this without the facts being disclosed to the other farms
affected? I would expect David's insurers to contact the other farms to
assess the extent of their losses, and in so doing they might well
mention the mingling of cattle, or even ask them to confirm that this
was what happened.

[krw]

Post by Marjorie
Could he do this without the facts being disclosed to the other farms
affected? I would expect David's insurers to contact the other farms to
assess the extent of their losses, and in so doing they might well
mention the mingling of cattle, or even ask them to confirm that this
was what happened.

Yes. He needs to admit the full facts to his insurers and they merely
handle the quantum. The evidence trail is clear.

[Chris McMillan]

Post by krw
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

Isn't she Adam's advisor or whatever modern words are ?

Sincerely Chris

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

Isn't she Adam's advisor or whatever modern words are ?
Sincerely Chris

I think so; I also STR she _did_ do a lot at home farm before she went.
(Also, isn't what she does in Hungary related to Home Farm - or is she
entirely working for someone else? I forget.)

Of course, in terms of wills and the like, nobody has to justify
anything; Brine can do what he likes.

[Marjorie]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

Isn't she Adam's advisor or whatever modern words are ?
Sincerely Chris

I think so; I also STR she _did_ do a lot at home farm before she went.
(Also, isn't what she does in Hungary related to Home Farm - or is she
entirely working for someone else? I forget.)
Of course, in terms of wills and the like, nobody has to justify
anything; Brine can do what he likes.

It isn't a Will, though, it's a partnership to start soon.
I suppose Debbie is at least a farmer with loads of experience, some of
it on Home Farm. Alice, Kate and Ruari have no experience or knowledge
of farming at all.

[Vicky]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:42:20 +0100, Marjorie

Post by Marjorie

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

Isn't she Adam's advisor or whatever modern words are ?
Sincerely Chris

I think so; I also STR she _did_ do a lot at home farm before she went.
(Also, isn't what she does in Hungary related to Home Farm - or is she
entirely working for someone else? I forget.)
Of course, in terms of wills and the like, nobody has to justify
anything; Brine can do what he likes.

It isn't a Will, though, it's a partnership to start soon.
I suppose Debbie is at least a farmer with loads of experience, some of
it on Home Farm. Alice, Kate and Ruari have no experience or knowledge
of farming at all.

In a partnership you can have non-voting partners, can't you?
Presumably Rory would be one such for now. Presumably they can have
different shares of the partnership. In all fairness, as he does most
of the work, Adam should have a bigger share than Alice, who does
none. Or Krait. Or Rory. Or would there be some mechanism to change
the ratios if Rory later began to take part in farm work? When i said
shares I meant for owneership but also for voting rights, and those
need not be the same shares, or need they?

[krw]

Post by Vicky
Presumably Rory would be one such for now.

Brian said someone would be appointed to manage his vote. Brian really
needs to think this through more closely. He owns it (although were
there a divorce Jenny would own 50%. In the suggested structure he can
easily be outvoted. That is unwise. It needs a lot more work before I
would agree to it.

And if Adam is only getting 2/13 of the profits what will he live on -
he is on a profit share with Brian at the moment and getting far more
than 2/13 I bet.

Plus why is Brian not using Bryce? This new guy is writing a path to a
disaster.

[Chris McMillan]

Post by krw

Post by Vicky
Presumably Rory would be one such for now.

Brian said someone would be appointed to manage his vote. Brian really
needs to think this through more closely. He owns it (although were
there a divorce Jenny would own 50%. In the suggested structure he can
easily be outvoted. That is unwise. It needs a lot more work before I
would agree to it.
And if Adam is only getting 2/13 of the profits what will he live on -
he is on a profit share with Brian at the moment and getting far more
than 2/13 I bet.
Plus why is Brian not using Bryce? This new guy is writing a path to a
disaster.

Who's Bryce?

Sincerely Chris

[krw]

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw

Post by Vicky
Presumably Rory would be one such for now.

Brian said someone would be appointed to manage his vote. Brian really
needs to think this through more closely. He owns it (although were
there a divorce Jenny would own 50%. In the suggested structure he can
easily be outvoted. That is unwise. It needs a lot more work before I
would agree to it.
And if Adam is only getting 2/13 of the profits what will he live on -
he is on a profit share with Brian at the moment and getting far more
than 2/13 I bet.
Plus why is Brian not using Bryce? This new guy is writing a path to a
disaster.

Who's Bryce?
Sincerely Chris

Bryce used to be Brian's advisor on financial matters. He would not
have come up with this load of codswallop because he knows the family.

Adam will go ape shit.

[Vicky]

Post by krw

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw

Post by Vicky
Presumably Rory would be one such for now.

Brian said someone would be appointed to manage his vote. Brian really
needs to think this through more closely. He owns it (although were
there a divorce Jenny would own 50%. In the suggested structure he can
easily be outvoted. That is unwise. It needs a lot more work before I
would agree to it.
And if Adam is only getting 2/13 of the profits what will he live on -
he is on a profit share with Brian at the moment and getting far more
than 2/13 I bet.
Plus why is Brian not using Bryce? This new guy is writing a path to a
disaster.

Who's Bryce?
Sincerely Chris

Bryce used to be Brian's advisor on financial matters. He would not
have come up with this load of codswallop because he knows the family.
Adam will go ape shit.

Have you been peeking at the spoilers?

[krw]

Post by Vicky

Post by krw

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw

Post by Vicky
Presumably Rory would be one such for now.

Brian said someone would be appointed to manage his vote. Brian really
needs to think this through more closely. He owns it (although were
there a divorce Jenny would own 50%. In the suggested structure he can
easily be outvoted. That is unwise. It needs a lot more work before I
would agree to it.
And if Adam is only getting 2/13 of the profits what will he live on -
he is on a profit share with Brian at the moment and getting far more
than 2/13 I bet.
Plus why is Brian not using Bryce? This new guy is writing a path to a
disaster.

Who's Bryce?
Sincerely Chris

Bryce used to be Brian's advisor on financial matters. He would not
have come up with this load of codswallop because he knows the family.
Adam will go ape shit.

Have you been peeking at the spoilers?

Oddly I found the spoilers after I had posted this. Somewhere on
Facebook I said something similar at the weekend - but frankly for Brian
to only have 3 out of 13 votes is clearly nonsense.

And with the prospect of no farming grants in 2 years' time I doubt if
Brian and Jenny can afford the reduction in profit share from - what 75%
to 6/13? And is it just Home Farm or all Brian's assets - BL, the share
in the farm in Hungary?

Even if Brian is voting Ruaridgh's share, Adam and Debbie have 4 votes.
Jenny will side with her favourite son. 4 plus 3 makes 7 - a simple
majority will carry the day every time. Sorry but this plan makes no
sense at all and I am not certain it will really save tax. What if the
children (once Ruaridgh is of age) decide that they can rent out the
Home Farm farmhouse for extra income. Brian and Jenny would be outvoted.

Do turkeys vote for Christmas? Brian is apparently.

[Chris McMillan]

Post by krw

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw

Post by Vicky
Presumably Rory would be one such for now.

Brian said someone would be appointed to manage his vote. Brian really
needs to think this through more closely. He owns it (although were
there a divorce Jenny would own 50%. In the suggested structure he can
easily be outvoted. That is unwise. It needs a lot more work before I
would agree to it.
And if Adam is only getting 2/13 of the profits what will he live on -
he is on a profit share with Brian at the moment and getting far more
than 2/13 I bet.
Plus why is Brian not using Bryce? This new guy is writing a path to a
disaster.

Who's Bryce?
Sincerely Chris

Bryce used to be Brian's advisor on financial matters. He would not
have come up with this load of codswallop because he knows the family.
Adam will go ape shit.

Thanks KRW, I had completely forgotten this name.

Sincerely Chris

[Chris McMillan]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

Isn't she Adam's advisor or whatever modern words are ?
Sincerely Chris

I think so; I also STR she _did_ do a lot at home farm before she went.
(Also, isn't what she does in Hungary related to Home Farm - or is she
entirely working for someone else? I forget.)
Of course, in terms of wills and the like, nobody has to justify
anything; Brine can do what he likes.

I thought she'd got some fabulous new job so she couldn't hang about in
Ambridge.

Sincerely Chris

[krw]

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

Isn't she Adam's advisor or whatever modern words are ?
Sincerely Chris

No. On one of her visits she stopped doing that.

[Chris McMillan]

Post by krw

Post by Chris McMillan

Post by krw
And since when has Debbie done anything on Home Farm to justify an extra
share of what?

Isn't she Adam's advisor or whatever modern words are ?
Sincerely Chris

No. On one of her visits she stopped doing that.

When she got the new job I think she did?

Sincerely Chris