Tiny particulates, one of the two most serious pollutants emitted from car exhausts, are calculated to kill 29,000 people a year - over 10 times as many as die in car accidents.
www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/10190942/Why-is-killer-diesel-still-poisoning-our-air.html
|
>> Tiny particulates, one of the two most serious pollutants emitted from car exhausts, are calculated
>> to kill 29,000 people a year - over 10 times as many as die in
>> car accidents.
>>
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/10190942/Why-is-killer-diesel-still-poisoning-our-air.html
>>
Long on assertions with only vague links to sources. If i have time later I'll check them out.
|
|
%ages are useless. These pollutants are thought to cause 30% of all new cases of asthma. 30% of 100 cases or 30% of 10,000? Stuff kills us, get used to it.
Last edited by: Meldrew on Sat 20 Jul 13 at 09:20
|
|
If you think diesels are a problem in Europe you should travel to some of the more remote and poorer parts of the world. It is unusual to see a really smoky diesel here, the opposite is the norm elsewhere. I think we may have a few anti diesel extremists here.
|
>> Stuff kills us, get used to
>> it.
>>
True, but some stuff kills more than others.
Also, amazingly, stuff with a commercial vested interest at stake kills less.
It would be highly ambarrasing, as well as expensive, to have to admit that diesel wasn't the clean wonder-fuel we were led to believe.
Ergo, diesel emissions are safe.
|
"Stuff kills us, get used to it."
You don't really mean that do you Meldrew
Certainly life cannot be without risk but if we can minimise risks obviously we should do so. If there is a proven link to asthma from diesel exhaust pollution you don't really think we should tell the victims (children) "Stuff kills us, get used to it." and continue as before.
|
|
Sort of! Almost anything you can take by mouth or nose has two effects, one is good and the other is bad, Some are very good with almost no side effects, some are very bad and can have unpleasant side effects, think statins for one.
|
|
You have to die of something.!
|
Probably better than the tiny particulates from petrol engines that go deeper into the lungs.
Like low-tar fags: studies have shown that smokers need to take a deeper puff to get their required hit of nicotine, drawing the crap into the more sensitive regions of the lungs. Thus Silk Cut are no 'safer' than Woodbines.
|
>>Probably better than the tiny particulates from petrol engines that go deeper into the lungs.
I'd like to read the proof of that probability but, gimme the petrol engined exhaust fumes any day.
If I was a biker/cyclist in a BIG city, I would wear an anti-polution face mask.
|
|
.
Last edited by: NIL on Sat 20 Jul 13 at 11:52
|
|
Unable to post what I typed for no obvious reason.
|
This?
www.tinyurl.com/m8oyxcd
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 20 Jul 13 at 11:55
|
|
.
Last edited by: NIL on Sat 20 Jul 13 at 12:17
|
|
Given time, this thread should separate the dieselfreaks from the petrolheads!
|
Not just yet, Les........................it hasn't drifted away and come back yet !
Ted
|
|
I much prefer the driving characteristics of a diesel car, compared with a petrol engined one.
|
|
Like many driving ( and other ) issues the question is, do we care about other people ? If diesel is harmful to people's health then I would not buy a diesel. It has been said previously stuff kills etc. No, I will not get over it. If it is something that can be controlled then it should be. I believe in freedom, providing it is not damaging others.
|
Just another yoghurt knitters stirring piece of journalism.
OK, let's ban diesel, get it off the roads. They'll soon moan when there's no food in sainsdascotross.
Real world, there's no viable alternative at the moment. Yes, diesels emit pollutants, as does petrol (at double the rate of diesel) Carbon Monoxide mixing with the environment = Carbon Dioxide. Both petrol and diesel come from the same raw material.
Hybrid is not the answer as it only shifts the emissions to the country but then that's not where the NIMBY yoghurt knitter lives.
Offer people alternatives and they will look into it. Pick on one of a multitude of sins and all you do alienate.
Maybe that is the intention of this piece of "journajism"
Last edited by: gmac on Sat 20 Jul 13 at 20:56
|
|
Like many things we are not given objective information on which to make a decision. gmac has made valid points ( but no need for yoghurt knitter jibe ) and we have to be pragmatic. However, when we are given facts then we should make a decision based on concern for everyone. Offering people practical alternatives and then they can choose. Unfortunately, too often views are entrenched without real knowledge or thought ( myself included )
|
Far point re- the yoghurt knitters comments. Feel suitably chastised.
P.S. Welcome to the forum...You'll fit in well, go with the flow, there are a few touch types, go with it...
|
|
Thanks - pleased you didn't take offence, especially as you were so helpful with my first post. Look forward to participating.
|
>> Look forward to participating.
Harrrumph... if a geezer who's a bit of a yoghurt knitter (what that? - Ed.) can take the relentless, merciless polemic that is...
Er, :o}
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 20 Jul 13 at 22:59
|
Funny how you pick up on the yoghurt knitter stuff but not the Journajism AC.
Yoghurt Knitter = Liberal ballcocks, Journajism is ANY left, centre, right ballcocks....
|
>> Funny how you pick up on the yoghurt knitter stuff but not the Journajism AC.
We aim to please gmac... but what journalism do you mean? There's a lot of it and it varies in quality.
I was just teasing our new recruit to make him feel at home, all right?
Journalism, left, left, left right left, ballcocks already... sheeesh!
|
;-)
I'm heading up the A1 north of Alnwick next Thursday if you want to reminisce.
|
Halos being polished as we speak, we're causing far less polutants than nearly all of you in our two Propane powered cars, you people ar just so Luddite stuck in your old ways.
By the way those new wind turbines near Crick beside the M1 are fantastic, some still turning merrily earlier in the week with not a breath of wind, amazing.
:-)
|
|
gb, der neuer Luft Klasse !!! When I Google that you need to switch to a CLA not some old bird from the 90's. ;-)
|
>>we're causing far less polutants than nearly all of you in our two Propane powered cars
I'll say a little prayer for your valve seats gb.
(*_*)
|
>> I'll say a little prayer for your valve seats gb.
>>
Well as it happens D, the old faithful MB is at this very moment in bits with my venerable indy.
CHG has been leaking oil outside the engine for some time, its done nearly 100k now and that engine is known for CHG failure anytime after this point, so decided to take the plunge and get it all done while i've got some spare dosh.
Whilst its in for that its had a new timing chain, oil cooler and water pump so should be good for another 17 years if i can keep the tin worm at bay.
MB forgot to order the water pump so midweek is now expected return, but, my indy tells me the cylinder head and valves are in perfect condition, which is more than can be said for its owners head and valves..;)
|
>>my indy tells me the cylinder head and valves are in perfect condition, which is more than can be said for its owners head and valves..;)
Is that down to MB engineering gord, or do you add a secret potion to the fuel when using LPG?
|
>> Is that down to MB engineering gord, or do you add a secret potion to
>> the fuel when using LPG?
Well my LPG man reckons German engine valve seats are hard enough to stand the extra heat, but being a belt and braces geezer he fitted a flashlube kit when the conversion was done which suited me too.
Also have a kit on the Mitsi.
Snake oil?, how should i know, still got 2 litres of the stuff left from a 5 litre bottle bought roughly 2 years ago for about £60, at that cost and usage rate its worth it to me for peace of mind.
www.vanmeenen.com/LPG-autogas-Vlaanderen/LPG-conversion-eng/flashlube.htm
|
>>Well my LPG man reckons German engine valve seats are hard enough to stand the extra heat, but being a belt and braces geezer he fitted a flashlube kit when the conversion was done which suited me too.
Obviously German engineering is a breed apart, and I would certainly use Flashlube *if* I used LPG but, I wonder how private hire vehicles get on with LPG, being they can cover starship mileages compared to the average bear.
Maybe the Flashlube system is always fitted to their vehicles?
What do you make of this gb: www.amrautos.co.uk/index.php/lpg-systems
|
>> Obviously German engineering is a breed apart, and I would certainly use Flashlube *if* I
>> used LPG but, I wonder how private hire vehicles get on with LPG, being they
>> can cover starship mileages compared to the average bear.
>> Maybe the Flashlube system is always fitted to their vehicles?
I ask my LPG man about any cars i might consider first, he's very well regarded considering the small business nature of the company, they're a two man band classic car specialist mainly, and know their stuff, very old school which is fine by me.
>> What do you make of this gb: www.amrautos.co.uk/index.php/lpg-systems
>>
Interesting that D, a LR specialist and finding that modern LR's don't make the grade (surprise.;) and can't cope with LPG, i suspect LR are his bread and butter but there could be other reasons not disclosed for the decision to cease converting.
According to the linked Prinz list of unsuitable cars our Outlander suffers from premature valve seat recession, it was a makers approved conversion when new and has now done 87k, the first 80k were covered without a flashlube system and so far no problems, indeed i often see LPG'd from new Outy's for sale with up to 150k on them.
Thats not to say that at some point the heads hasn't been off those high milers and replaced or refurbed, and daresay say that some cars in that list could well suffer from VSR, i've bookmarked that list for future reference, thanks.
edit, did you notice from the list that the only MB's not approved for LPG were FWD's, rest my case..;)
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Sun 21 Jul 13 at 10:38
|
>>edit, did you notice from the list that the only MB's not approved for LPG were FWD's, rest my case..;)
Say n'more gb (nudge/wink)
"Subaru, Hondas, Toyotas, Lexus and Nissans can suffer in less than 10,000 miles, even with lubrication systems such as Flashlube fitted these oil injection systems help a little but will not prevent wear entirely".
A mechanic at my Subaru pain dealer mentioned about the possible effect of using LPG in a Subaru, and (as I've mentioned before) it's an engine out job to adjust the valve clearences :(
Might be cheaper to stick a Taunus V4 lump in it :)
|
|
It is an MB from the days when the engineers built them up to a quality and before the accountants built them down to a price!
|
>> It is an MB from the days when the engineers built them up to a
>> quality and before the accountants built them down to a price!
Yes there's probably a fair amount of truth in that Melders, i did have a serious issue with it caused by engine wiring loom degrading which this model is prone to at around 12 years, but the drive train has proved dependable and durable and body/interior/fittings/equipment wise the car is still solid reliable and shows little sign of wear.
I think the same goes for more modern Benz's too well those with RWD anyway (not convinced about MB FWDs), invariably if looked after they last well, it seems to be rust on late 90's early 00's cars and electrical issues and rather silly design issues that are eye wateringly expensive to fix on some later 00's cars but the engines and drivetrains appear still very good.
The trouble if you can call it that with MB's is that they do not take as kindly to neglect as some big Japanese cars will, main dealer care is for those with Luds money.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Sun 21 Jul 13 at 08:47
|
>> I think the same goes for more modern Benz's too well those with RWD anyway ........... but the engines and drivetrains appear still very good.
Yes, indeed....(cough, cough, chortle, chortle....) ;-)
|
>> Yes, indeed....(cough, cough, chortle, chortle....) ;-)
>>
Hello ST, actually you're just the chap to bring us up to date.
Are they still a worthwhile buy, so long as avoid SBC and W215/230 with air susp?
Is the C class from 2007 (W204?) still proving a good bet...4 cyl supercharged suitable for LPG?
|
>> By the way those new wind turbines near Crick beside the M1 are fantastic, some
>> still turning merrily earlier in the week with not a breath of wind, amazing.
>>
>> :-)
>>
They are probably running on their backup diesels. :-)
tinyurl.com/nfkflzx
|
|
Everyone goes on about London air pollution as tho its the worse thing on earth. Its not, its no worse than it was (considerably better in fact) so how they can equate "the rising tide of asthma" with diesel pollution is beyond me. (asthma is on the rise in the country too so that kicks that one in the head) Its a problem looking for a cause.
|
>> Everyone goes on about London air pollution as tho its the worse thing on earth.
>> Its not, its no worse than it was (considerably better in fact) so how they
>> can equate "the rising tide of asthma" with diesel pollution is beyond me. (asthma is
>> on the rise in the country too so that kicks that one in the head)
>> Its a problem looking for a cause.
>>
Sounds like they're saying air pollution is now more world ending than it ever was when you were a nipper Zero. Come on, your generation are just having the rest of us on how bad it REALLY was. The Government are telling us it is much worse now than it was than when you were a nipper. The Government say so, so it must be true !!!!
Flippancy aside. It's ballcocks, they (the Government are broke at the end of each month) they haven't got tuppence h'apenny to rub together at the end of the month. They're looking for a new revenue stream, that's the top and bottom of it.
Last edited by: gmac on Sat 20 Jul 13 at 23:40
|
>> Sounds like they're saying air pollution is now more world ending than it ever was
>> when you were a nipper Zero. Come on, your generation are just having the rest
>> of us on how bad it REALLY was. The Government are telling us it is
>> much worse now than it was than when you were a nipper. The Government say
>> so, so it must be true !!!!
Yeah, lord knows how I ever managed to survive 59 years in and around London.
|
|
It's OK, our posts will be amended and our children made to pay in future for our insolence in years from now.
|
I will not be surprised if a significant chunk of the reduction of cardiovascular mortality noted across Europe over the last 20 years is due to catalytic convertors more than everyone taking statins.
And I suspect asthma rates are actually declining compared to the 80s/90s.
Separating the wheat from the chaff in mortality/health stats is nigh on impossible however...
And as an aside, during the Great 'pea-souper' in London of the 1952, I recall something like 10,000 extra deaths in one week from respiratory problems in London alone.
edit wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog#Health_effects
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 21 Jul 13 at 00:01
|
A Sheffield tram at dawn around 1960, chainsmoking steelworkers on their way to the converters and blast furnaces, but the 40 Park Drive a day were only half the problem. Bent green-in-the-face geezers, salt of the earth, poisoned by big industry like their fathers and grandfathers before them... Most of that stuff is abroad now. That's why people say there's no work for the young here and there isn't a proper decent working class any more.
All aspects of the human tragi-comedy.
|
A hard-left intellectual friend had the privilege many years ago of accompanying some early visitors from the Chinese mainland, then seen as the leftiest place on the planet, on a brief tour of the US. Mao was still in charge in China and this was even before the 'great proletarian cultural revolution'.
Looking down at some smoke-belching, smog-shrouded industrial city - Cleveland perhaps, can't remember - the westerners started to rabbit about the scandal of industrial pollution shortening workers' lives, etc.
Somewhat to their surprise, the Chinese comrades were wide-eyed with smiling admiration of what they saw as a wonderful concentration of 'productive forces'. They didn't give a damn about the workers. Another amusing moment in the human comedy, and a direct pointer to the present.
|
>>during the Great 'pea-souper' in London of the 1952, I recall something like 10,000 extra deaths in one week from respiratory problems in London alone<<
"The London fog of 1952 resulted in larger increases in mortality in infants less than 1 year of age than in older children,34 and it is interesting that the lungs of adults who died during the fog contain mainly aggregates of UF soot that are compatible with DEP" (Diesel exhaust particles)
adc.bmj.com/content/86/2/79.full
|
Found the report of the experts' committee mentioned as source material.
tinyurl.com/6a5gzer (pdf)
No time to read in full and discover full range of assumptions etc used or extent to which non diesel pm is present/problematic.
The 29,000 deaths figure is quoted in the summary. It is immediately followed by a disclaimer about accuracy as follows:
The uncertainties in these estimates need to be recognised: they could vary from about a sixth to double the figures shown
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 21 Jul 13 at 08:32
|
|
The world is overpopulated and the population is growing at an unprecedented rate, so perhaps killing off some of the population with exhaust gas particulates isn't all that bad. We've reduced the number of people being killed through wars, disease, and starvation etc. so we need something to counterbalance those factors.
|
>> The world is overpopulated and the population is growing at an unprecedented rate, so perhaps
>> killing off some of the population with exhaust gas particulates isn't all that bad. We've
>> reduced the number of people being killed through wars, disease, and starvation etc. so we
>> need something to counterbalance those factors.
Totally agree, we keep the elderly alive too long for example, how about we bad all medical treatment to anyone over the age of 65?
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 21 Jul 13 at 09:11
|
"how about we ban all medical treatment to anyone over the age of 65?"
It would be start but you might need a more pro-active solution to really get those pension and NHS costs down quickly. Besides it would be unkind to let them suffer.
|
>> "how about we ban all medical treatment to anyone over the age of 65?"
>>
>> It would be start but you might need a more pro-active solution to really get
>> those pension and NHS costs down quickly. Besides it would be unkind to let them
>> suffer.
You are so much more militant than I.
|
|
Shades of the Wannsee conference here?
|
>> Shades of the Wannsee conference here?
I'd be very careful how you talk about SS-Obergruppenführer GCNorwich if I were you.
|
|
The name is already in my book.
|
|
The Special Wanted List, Ja? Honoured I'm sure:)
|
"You are so much more militant than I."
No, simply more practical.
|
>> The world is overpopulated and the population is growing at an unprecedented rate, so perhaps
>> killing off some of the population with exhaust gas particulates isn't all that bad. We've
>> reduced the number of people being killed through wars, disease, and starvation etc. so we
>> need something to counterbalance those factors.
A large volcanic eruption maybe - you'd know all about air pollution if that happened.
|
One big natural event, earthquake, volcanic eruption, tsunami, meteor hit, etc. could wipe out millions (or billions) of us. If that doesn't the wars over resources will.
Beat me to it corax. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 21 Jul 13 at 09:13
|
>> The world is overpopulated and the population is growing at an unprecedented rate, so perhaps
>> killing off some of the population with exhaust gas particulates isn't all that bad. We've
>> reduced the number of people being killed through wars, disease, and starvation etc. so we
>> need something to counterbalance those factors.
>>
That's a glib comment considering that your easy retirement has effectively come at the expense of the generations to follow you.
|
>> That's a glib comment considering that your easy retirement has effectively come at the expense
>> of the generations to follow you.
>>
My "easy retirement" has come largely at my expense. I planned my retirement income. To ensure that I had a satisfactory retirement income, for quite a few years of my working life I had to put into my occupational pension scheme the maximum that was allowed by Inland Revenue (now HMRC).
|
>> >> That's a glib comment considering that your easy retirement has effectively come at the
>> expense
>> >> of the generations to follow you.
>> >>
>>
>> My "easy retirement" has come largely at my expense. I planned my retirement income. To
>> ensure that I had a satisfactory retirement income, for quite a few years of my
>> working life I had to put into my occupational pension scheme the maximum that was
>> allowed by Inland Revenue (now HMRC).
>>
+1
And as a result had to forgo the pleasures of exotic holidays etc enjoyed by others..
As for banning medical care for the over 65s, it already happens. It's called the "Liverpool Pathway". Now discontinued and due to be called summat else.
|
>> +1
>> And as a result had to forgo the pleasures of exotic holidays etc enjoyed by
>> others..
+2.
Or to put it into real working class terms, used the money wisely instead of p'ing it up the wall and expecting others to pick the tab up when the time comes.
|
|
A.C I can cope with any 'relentless, merciless polemic' . I have worked in education for 40 years which has had to endure many relentless and merciless criticisms. Fortunately I was fortunate with colleagues and community and able to enjoy my career. Like madf I paid and planned for my retirement - although I prefer the word liberation. Pensions should not be included as welfare I paid a considerable proportion of income and am now getting a return, which you should do with any financial scheme. It is not a welfare benefit : it is paid for. Back to the post. As I put previously people need objective information on which to make an informed decision based on decent values. I trust many of previous posts were ironic.
|
+3
A reduced disposable income during my working life, a mortgage paid off ten years before retiring and financial planning allowed me to retire debt free. I paid for my pension and have no regrets and a financially comfortable retirement.
|
belucky22
Without details of who your employers were and the area of education, I can only quote the following:
The Teachers Pension Scheme is not a funded scheme – the pensions of today’s retired teachers are not paid from a pension fund. Instead, they are paid from the proceeds of the pension contributions made by today’s teachers and their employers, plus top-up funding from the Treasury. -
Whilst you may believe that you have funded it, any withdrawal of todays teachers from contributing to the old scheme could jeopardise the funding. Making you totally reliant on the generosity of the taxpayer.
Last edited by: pmh on Sun 21 Jul 13 at 16:07
|
>> The Teachers Pension Scheme is not a funded scheme
...similar to our NHS scheme where currently over £1bn per year more is paid by staff contributions than is paid out by the scheme.
The press of course would have you believe that 'unfunded' means the same as 'non-contributory' which it certainly isn't.
And, pmh, if you think private pension schemes are somehow safer because they are 'funded' I wouldn't be holding my breath once more people want money out of the funds than are paying in, and the Ponzi scheme does 2008 all over again.
|
>>And, pmh, if you think private pension schemes are somehow safer because they are 'funded' I wouldn't be holding my breath once more people want money out of the funds than are paying in, and the Ponzi scheme does 2008 all over again.<<
I was aware that NHS was similarly 'funded' and will continue to work provided that the NHS remains a large employer and while its salaried employees continue paying in to that scheme. If privatisation is pursued and direct employee numbers fall, presumably the Treasury ( taxpayer) will pick up the bill?
Private schemes that are audited are only safer provided that the economy does not collapse - devaluing the value of the investments.
I was just trying to make the OP understood that a 'fund' does not actually exist, and his contributions had not funded his entitlement, only entitling him to a specified benefit.
Last edited by: pmh on Sun 21 Jul 13 at 17:50
|
"and the population is growing at an unprecedented rate, "
Not true.
World Population in the world is currently growing at a rate of around 1.14% per year. The average population change is currently estimated at around 80 million per year.
Annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2% and above. The rate of increase has therefore almost halved since its peak of 2.19 percent, which was reached in 1963.
The annual growth rate is currently declining and is projected to continue to decline in the coming years. Currently, it is estimated that it will become less than 1% by 2020 and less than 0.5% by 2050.
The big problem facing the world particularly the Western nations is supporting an ageing population with a dwindling working population
|
|
I paid significant contributions over the years. I could have got a better deal myself but we had to be part of the scheme. Whatever, was done with the money I don't know. Perhaps the wonderful politicians were flexible with its use. I do know that I have paid in full for the income I now receive. In taxation and national insurance contributions I have paid in full and I am entitled to what I get now. I am not receiving 'benefits'
|
>>I could have got a better deal myself
Probably not.
The public schemes, if they were ever roughly comparable to private funds, have strode ahead in the past 10-15 years as annuity rates have been decimated.
|
You need a lot of capital to stay ahead of the game these days. Money is pretty well useless in any normal quantities with interest rates the way they are now.
Almost makes you nostalgic for Mrs Thatcher. In her late days (or was it a bit after?) the money market interest rate touched 14.5 per cent. If you had a hundred grand in liquid out there you could live a frugal life without laying a finger on the principal.
But then there was tax and crap like that. Unforeseen unnecessary expenses and so on. All things pass innit?
|
|
Indeed. It wasn't unknown for middle class Victorians to live on the interest of the interest on the principle. How times have changed.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Sun 21 Jul 13 at 21:16
|
|
All this talk about pensions is all very well, but it doesn't answer Dog's original question.
|
>>All this talk about pensions is all very well, but it doesn't answer Dog's original question.
Basically if we don't crank up the airborne pollutants, pensions will simply become more and more expensive...
It's a double whammy: reducing pollution means longer life expectancy, and also costs money to achieve thus reducing investment growth.
|
|
There are none so blind as those who will not see, L'es.
|
|
I cant see anything, too much pollution.
|
I look out my window, but I can't see the sky
'Cos the air pollution is
fogging up my eyes
I want to get out of this city alive
And make like an ape man
|
Apologies for becoming involved in pensions discussions. Final comment on that : in 1971 I, and others,entered into a contract to pay a percentage of our salaries to our employers. In return we would receive a guaranteed pension entitlement. Nothing to do with any generosity in the future. A contract is a contract ( I have a law degree )
Back to the OP. There needs to be an intelligent and informed discussion as to policy. Unfortunately, profits and big business overrides other, in my opinion, more important considerations. But unless we are told the truth it is impossible to take a view with any real authority.
|
>> Apologies for becoming involved in pensions discussions. Final comment on that : in 1971 I,
>> and others,entered into a contract to pay a percentage of our salaries to our employers.
>> In return we would receive a guaranteed pension entitlement. Nothing to do with any generosity
>> in the future. A contract is a contract ( I have a law degree )
In 1973 I entered into an agreement to pay a percentage of my salary to my employers pensio fund and I would receive a guaranteed percentage of my salary upon retirement. In 2010 they reneged on that.
The problem is I and you are not in a contract, they can and might change the terms of your pension at any time. Your law degree should have realised that.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 21 Jul 13 at 22:48
|
I had the same experience with final salary section watered down in 2007 and closed to further accrual in 2010.
The previous accruals and the increases thereon were not touched at each change. That was the relevant contractual obligation.
Unfortunately. Or fortunately. Dependent on which end of the telescope you look down.
|
|
Diesels are great. Especially Renaults. It's SUVs and 4x4s that are the real problem.
|
>> Diesels are great. Especially Renaults. It's SUVs and 4x4s that are the real problem.
>>
I've a feeling this subject is far more complex than the piece in the Telegraph suggests ?
Hong Kong where I lived did not permit diesel passenger cars, buses had particulate traps but many older lorries belched smoke. It has far worse pollution levels than the article describes but its problems also stem from the manufacturing 30 miles North in Shenzhen.
The arguments I've seen imply that modern petrol cars also contribute to PM2.5 levels, it strikes me that the only real answer is to ban anything which isn't ZEV from city centres but I can't see that being popular?
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Mon 22 Jul 13 at 01:36
|
I used to stay in hotels in the Centre of London and watch the 6.30am cars driving in.. BMWs Mercedes,Astons etc etc.
With the tube system quite empty at that time, I saw no need for cars in Central London.
Still do not...
|
>> With the tube system quite empty at that time, I saw no need for cars
>> in Central London.
>>
>> Still do not...
>>
For 6 years I lived in North Finchley and worked in Westminster..and...my employer provided me with free bus/tube travel.
Yet I drove in every day.
Shift work was part of it, I had to be in by 0630 for an early shift, which combined with the walk to the tube had me getting up much more early.and..finishing on a late shift I had to share the journey with all the drunks.... 'no thankyou'...but the other part was other people in general, a day shift had you crammed in like a sardine, some people smell, some insist on wearing those infernal things in their ears that pulsate and irritate...no, not for me, I was happy to pay my car running costs.
|
>> you crammed in like a sardine, some people smell,
Couldn't agree more.
I was in London last week on a crowded Jubilee Line on a 29°C day. Frankly, people should have to pass a basic personal hygiene test before being allowed near the Tube. And women are worse offenders than men I reckon.
|
>> Frankly, people should have to pass a basic personal hygiene test before being allowed near
>> the Tube.
Would that apply to yourself as well?
:-D
|
>> the only real answer is to ban anything which isn't ZEV from city centres
ZEV = tomorrows world?
www.honestjohn.co.uk/road-tests/honda/honda-fcx-clarity-2009-road-test//?section=video
|
Zero, a legal contract is binding or there is no point in a contract. I remember that from my law degree although it was a few years ago.
State pension is also a result of making contributions over the years. It is not a free gift to people like myself - it is paid for over years of work.
Apologies for not being related to the thread but I'm fed up of my generation being considered 'lucky'. High interest rates, higher taxes to make reference to just two items. Then, having saved for the future, interest rates slashed which reduces income and this is to help people borrowing to get what they haven't earned.
|
'. High interest rates, higher taxes to make reference to just two items.
>> Then, having saved for the future, interest rates slashed which reduces income and this is
>> to help people borrowing to get what they haven't earned.
>>
err no.
It's to bail out the banks and keep interest rates low on the money the Government borrowed to keep the economy and the banks afloat.
|
>>
>> Apologies for not being related to the thread but I'm fed up of my generation
>> being considered 'lucky'. High interest rates, higher taxes to make reference to just two items.
>> Then, having saved for the future, interest rates slashed which reduces income and this is
>> to help people borrowing to get what they haven't earned.
>>
Not sure that's correct, NI would be considered a Ponzi scheme if operated by a financial institution. People paying tax today are paying your pension - not your contributions of yesteryear which (in fairness) paid someone else's pension. The trouble is that when you were burdened with paying someone else's pension (I'm assuming you're retired) they didn't tend to live as long as you will (on average of course). Net result is that you will cost those who follow you more in real terms than your predecessors cost you. It is unsustainable and means that my generation can probably look forward to much less than you currently have and/or working longer.
Many of my generation have also saved for the future, possibly saved more than your generation did on average too - and yet can look forward to neither decent returns or a pension.
So, I contend that you are lucky. I absolutely share your resentment in funding both the lifestyles of those who continue to live beyond their means and the failures of financial institutions.
|
National insurance contributions don't just pay for pensions.
As the name suggests, it's also an insurance scheme that covers you in case you become sick or unemployed.
The contribution rates are obviously ludicrously low - no insurance company could offer indefinite lifetime cover to high-risk people for such premiums.
So the analogy with a regular insurance contract falls down - it's simply another bit of taxation under a different name.
|
>> National insurance contributions don't just pay for pensions.
>> As the name suggests, it's also an insurance scheme that covers you in case you
>> become sick or unemployed.
>> The contribution rates are obviously ludicrously low - no insurance company could offer indefinite lifetime
>> cover to high-risk people for such premiums.
>> So the analogy with a regular insurance contract falls down - it's simply another bit
>> of taxation under a different name.
>>
I deliberately chose to use the word tax in my last post because of this, to (perhaps) bring this back to a motoring theme - I see an analogy to motoring taxes, your car tax and fuel duties cover a lot more than is spent directly on roads and motorists.
|
>>The trouble is that when you were
>> burdened with paying someone else's pension (I'm assuming you're retired) they didn't tend to live
>> as long as you will (on average of course). Net result is that you will
>> cost those who follow you more in real terms than your predecessors cost you. It
>> is unsustainable and means that my generation can probably look forward to much less than
>> you currently have and/or working longer.
This is true. The general concensus is that we need more babies (workers) to support the aging population. But if you do that you're just going to store up the same problem on a larger scale for future generations. So how do you deal with the problem?
Problem is that we are going against natures intentions and in doing so shooting ourselves in the foot.
|
It's actually entirely logical to think that the massive productivity improvements of the last 70 or so years should make it possible for a much smaller proportion of the total population to work to support everybody - which is, de facto, what is happening.
I haven't quite worked out which factors are undermining this most. Free healthcare, the way welfare is delivered, and the insurance industry are in there somewhere!
|
>> It's actually entirely logical to think that the massive productivity improvements of the last 70
>> or so years should make it possible for a much smaller proportion of the total
>> population to work to support everybody - which is, de facto, what is happening.
>>
>> I haven't quite worked out which factors are undermining this most. Free healthcare, the way
>> welfare is delivered, and the insurance industry are in there somewhere!
Its probably because huge gains in productivity have not, actually, been delivered. Sure less people are needed to do stuff but that leaves more people not earning.
|
>>Sure less people
>> are needed to do stuff
Isn't that the definition of improved productivity?
>>but that leaves more people not earning.
and the problem is that the workers keep most of the benefits. The two-worker nuclear family hasn't helped.
The most commonly found household in the 60s I'd guess was two adults plus children, with one adult being the breadwinner and the other at home.
I saw some stats a while back noting the demise of this once common arrangement, and that it was by then rarer than any of the single parent household, the two-worker household, and the two-unemployed household.
I don't mean to say which parent should stay at home - I don't mind.
We took the view (and were lucky that we could) that we didn't want our children brought up by anyone else. If I'm honest I resented the fact that I could not use my wife's tax allowance, a promise that has been broken more than once. It wouldn't be possible now because house prices are congruent with two wages being available to pay the mortgage.
Not progress.
(and probably not a lot to do with particulates)
|
>>
>> >>Sure less people
>> >> are needed to do stuff
>>
>> Isn't that the definition of improved productivity?
No?
how about "same amount of people to produce more"
how about "same amount of people to produce higher value output"
how about "same amount of people to produce additional not made before stuff"
We need "growth" not "productivity"
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 29 Jul 13 at 12:58
|
>> Problem is that we are going against natures intentions and in doing so shooting ourselves in the foot. >>
War & pestilence usually sorted that on out.
|
>> War & pestilence usually sorted that on out.
I watched a program last night on BBC2 about 'The Mystery Of Rome's X Tombs', in which they mentioned the Antonine Plague. It's estimated that it wiped out around 5 million people.
Sanitation and medical knowledge were terrible at the time. They were basically spreading disease by sharing the same baths and passing it through trade between different countries.
|
>> War & pestilence usually sorted that on out.
>>
Or indeed 'killer diesel' perhaps ?
Do I get a prize for negotiating back to the original topic ?
|
Why is killer diesel still poisoning our air? - Bromptonaut
