Some of the UK media are now searching for a scapegoat to blame for failing
to prevent the "bomb suspect" from leaving the UK, probably in a Eurostar
train after 21 July.  As "onlyme" onlyme_sitting@home.com  wrote on
Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:08:00 +0000 (UTC) :



>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4732607.stm
>
>Extra passport checks could be brought in as ministers look into how a bomb
>suspect was able to leave the UK, Leader of the Commons Geoff Hoon says.
>
>Osman Hussain, also named as Hamdi Isaac, is thought to have left from
>London Waterloo station after 21 July.
>

<SNIP>

>A Eurostar spokesman said a permanent passport checking point, manned by
>French officials, is in place at Waterloo Station.
>
>He said that there is no permanent point manned by UK officials, but checks
>are implemented at times of heightened security.
>
>The spokesman added that the Home Office and Immigration Service are
>responsible for passport checks, not Eurostar.
>
>The Home Office has confirmed immigration controls were stepped up at all
>UK departure points - including Waterloo - after a request from police.
>
>Officials were in place from 7 July to 17 July but were reinstated on 21
>July.
>
>But the Home Office would not comment on how Osman Hussain was able to get
>past these checks and leave the country.
>
>Earlier, shadow home secretary David Davis said: "This demonstrates the
>vital and immediate necessity for the government to get a grip on our
>porous borders, both in terms of people coming into the country and in
>terms of people leaving."
>
>British Transport Police said they have no plans to enhance existing
>security at Waterloo.


But what would be the point of re-introducing routine examination of the
passports (or ID cards) of passengers leaving the UK when it is evident that
the duplicate British and French passport examination then in force at
Waterloo * in the aftermath of the London bomb explosions and with
photographs of the suspects on display nearby * was ineffective?

And why aren't the media concerned about the possibility that Osman Hussain,
also named as Hamdi Isaac, might have taken one of the spare bombs with him
on the Eurostar train?

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels)

Yet again, the Government has found to be wanting in the face of a
crisis.

I was in France and Belgium a week before the first bombs, and at both
Folkestone & Calais the passport checks consisted of a glance at the
cover in my hand and a nod of approval. Could have  been my son's
passport. I saw very few cars being searched and wonder if searches
have increased.

It is little surprise this fugative escaped - probably on a false
passport.

The move to axe checks by UK staff on outward Eurostar trips was
probebly made on cost grounds, but you also have to ask yourself that
given the apathy of customs & immingration staff, would the x-ray have
spotted a bomb?

Eurostar is still a high profile target for  a terrorist group.

In message , at 09:56:02 on Mon, 1 
Aug 2005, "Alan (in Brussels)"  remarked:

>But what would be the point of re-introducing routine examination of the
>passports (or ID cards) of passengers leaving the UK when it is evident that
>the duplicate British and French passport examination then in force at
>Waterloo * in the aftermath of the London bomb explosions and with
>photographs of the suspects on display nearby * was ineffective?


It's difficult to tell from the news reports, but I don't think it's 
been confirmed that there was a *British* passport check in operation at 
the time. The "stepping up" referred to could have been as little as 
briefing the French on who to look for. Yesterday's Sunday Times had a 
very caustic comment about the French having little incentive to 
actually do very much - although I'd have thought they didn't want an 
escaped bomber running round Paris.


>And why aren't the media concerned about the possibility that Osman Hussain,
>also named as Hamdi Isaac, might have taken one of the spare bombs with him
>on the Eurostar train?


There is an airline-type security check for all passengers.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:56:02 on Mon, 1 
Aug 2005, "Alan (in Brussels)"  remarked:

>But what would be the point of re-introducing routine examination of the
>passports (or ID cards) of passengers leaving the UK when it is evident that
>the duplicate British and French passport examination then in force at
>Waterloo * in the aftermath of the London bomb explosions and with
>photographs of the suspects on display nearby * was ineffective?


It's difficult to tell from the news reports, but I don't think it's 
been confirmed that there was a *British* passport check in operation at 
the time. The "stepping up" referred to could have been as little as 
briefing the French on who to look for. Yesterday's Sunday Times had a 
very caustic comment about the French having little incentive to 
actually do very much - although I'd have thought they didn't want an 
escaped bomber running round Paris.


>And why aren't the media concerned about the possibility that Osman Hussain,
>also named as Hamdi Isaac, might have taken one of the spare bombs with him
>on the Eurostar train?


There is an airline-type security check for all passengers.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:47:04 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>>And why aren't the media concerned about the possibility that Osman Hussain,
>>also named as Hamdi Isaac, might have taken one of the spare bombs with him
>>on the Eurostar train?
>
>There is an airline-type security check for all passengers.


However, there is not for all motor vehicles, or the humans inside
them, that pass through this particular tunnel.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:47:04 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
 wrote this:-


>>And why aren't the media concerned about the possibility that Osman Hussain,
>>also named as Hamdi Isaac, might have taken one of the spare bombs with him
>>on the Eurostar train?
>
>There is an airline-type security check for all passengers.


However, there is not for all motor vehicles, or the humans inside
them, that pass through this particular tunnel.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:44:34 +0100, David Hansen

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:47:04 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
> wrote this:-
>
>>>And why aren't the media concerned about the possibility that Osman Hussain,
>>>also named as Hamdi Isaac, might have taken one of the spare bombs with him
>>>on the Eurostar train?
>>
>>There is an airline-type security check for all passengers.
>
>However, there is not for all motor vehicles, or the humans inside
>them, that pass through this particular tunnel.


The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.

Are you saying this checking system has been dropped?

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:44:34 +0100, David Hansen

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:47:04 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
> wrote this:-
>
>>>And why aren't the media concerned about the possibility that Osman Hussain,
>>>also named as Hamdi Isaac, might have taken one of the spare bombs with him
>>>on the Eurostar train?
>>
>>There is an airline-type security check for all passengers.
>
>However, there is not for all motor vehicles, or the humans inside
>them, that pass through this particular tunnel.


The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.

Are you saying this checking system has been dropped?

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

Grumpy Old Man wrote:


> The move to axe checks by UK staff on outward Eurostar trips was
> probebly made on cost grounds, but you also have to ask yourself that
> given the apathy of customs & immingration staff, would the x-ray have
> spotted a bomb?


Ironically, after a train trip in Austria recently I flew back from Graz 
and the Austrian officials were certainly on the ball.

They had discovered my insulin kit in my rucksack and wondered what it 
was :-)

Surely they must see this kind of stuff on a regular basis? Still they 
only detained me for a couple of minutes so it was no big deal and at 
least they took the time to investigate.

Ta,
-- 
Rob
http://www.uicstock.org.uk/
To reply, remove zudo

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:02:37 +0100 someone who may be hummingbird
 wrote this:-


>The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
>passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
>driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.


What scanning was done of the passengers?


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

hummingbird wrote:


> The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
> passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
> driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.


I think it's a camera rather than an x-ray machine.

"hummingbird"  wrote in message
news:gl3se19qbptstpuf4a27t9fobt7dsvd4b0@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:44:34 +0100, David Hansen
> 
>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:47:04 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
> > wrote this:-
> >
> >>>And why aren't the media concerned about the possibility that

Osman Hussain,

> >>>also named as Hamdi Isaac, might have taken one of the spare

bombs with him

> >>>on the Eurostar train?
> >>
> >>There is an airline-type security check for all passengers.
> >
> >However, there is not for all motor vehicles, or the humans inside
> >them, that pass through this particular tunnel.
>
> The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all
vehicle
> passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
> driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.
>

x-ray machine?  With a driver (and passengers) inside?
Can that be right?
It doesn't sound likely.  If the x-rays were sufficiently powerful to
penetrate the metal underside of the car then it would be a hazard for
the occupants, let alone continued exposure to nearby operators.

I suspect the device was some kind of photographic scanner that gave
an operator a picture of the underside.

Roger

Grumpy Old Man wrote:


> The move to axe checks by UK staff on outward Eurostar trips was
> probebly made on cost grounds, but you also have to ask yourself that
> given the apathy of customs & immingration staff, would the x-ray have
> spotted a bomb?


Ironically, after a train trip in Austria recently I flew back from Graz 
and the Austrian officials were certainly on the ball.

They had discovered my insulin kit in my rucksack and wondered what it 
was :-)

Surely they must see this kind of stuff on a regular basis? Still they 
only detained me for a couple of minutes so it was no big deal and at 
least they took the time to investigate.

Ta,
-- 
Rob
http://www.uicstock.org.uk/
To reply, remove zudo

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:02:37 +0100 someone who may be hummingbird
 wrote this:-


>The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
>passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
>driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.


What scanning was done of the passengers?


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

hummingbird wrote:


> The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
> passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
> driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.


I think it's a camera rather than an x-ray machine.

"hummingbird"  wrote in message
news:gl3se19qbptstpuf4a27t9fobt7dsvd4b0@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:44:34 +0100, David Hansen
> 
>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:47:04 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
> > wrote this:-
> >
> >>>And why aren't the media concerned about the possibility that

Osman Hussain,

> >>>also named as Hamdi Isaac, might have taken one of the spare

bombs with him

> >>>on the Eurostar train?
> >>
> >>There is an airline-type security check for all passengers.
> >
> >However, there is not for all motor vehicles, or the humans inside
> >them, that pass through this particular tunnel.
>
> The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all
vehicle
> passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
> driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.
>

x-ray machine?  With a driver (and passengers) inside?
Can that be right?
It doesn't sound likely.  If the x-rays were sufficiently powerful to
penetrate the metal underside of the car then it would be a hazard for
the occupants, let alone continued exposure to nearby operators.

I suspect the device was some kind of photographic scanner that gave
an operator a picture of the underside.

Roger

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:30:18 +0100, David Hansen

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:02:37 +0100 someone who may be hummingbird
> wrote this:-
>
>>The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
>>passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
>>driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.
>
>What scanning was done of the passengers?


None but that never was the case afaik. Maybe they should start 
them yesterday! They'd have to consider the certainty that the tunnel
owners would go bankrupt within a week through collapse of business.
They're already struggling and this is v/likely why the tunnel risk is
being kept v/quiet by the government. Just the vehicle x-ray scan and
passport checks causes enough queues. Add body searches and you have 
a serious problem.

However, I take your earlier point that a suicide bomber in the tunnel
is a major risk.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:36:21 +0100, Adam Funk 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird wrote:
>
>> The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
>> passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
>> driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.
>
>I think it's a camera rather than an x-ray machine.


I'm no expert and I'd have thought a camera was more likely.

But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy said 
"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside the
boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in my
boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:37:38 +0100, "Roger R"
<telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>"hummingbird"  wrote in message
>news:gl3se19qbptstpuf4a27t9fobt7dsvd4b0@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:44:34 +0100, David Hansen
>> 
>>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>> >On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:47:04 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
>> > wrote this:-
>> >
>> >>>And why aren't the media concerned about the possibility that
>Osman Hussain,
>> >>>also named as Hamdi Isaac, might have taken one of the spare
>bombs with him
>> >>>on the Eurostar train?
>> >>
>> >>There is an airline-type security check for all passengers.
>> >
>> >However, there is not for all motor vehicles, or the humans inside
>> >them, that pass through this particular tunnel.
>>
>> The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all
>vehicle
>> passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
>> driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.
>>
>x-ray machine?  With a driver (and passengers) inside?
>Can that be right?
>It doesn't sound likely.  If the x-rays were sufficiently powerful to
>penetrate the metal underside of the car then it would be a hazard for
>the occupants, let alone continued exposure to nearby operators.
>
>I suspect the device was some kind of photographic scanner that gave
>an operator a picture of the underside.


See my reply to 'Adam Funk'.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:30:18 +0100, David Hansen

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:02:37 +0100 someone who may be hummingbird
> wrote this:-
>
>>The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
>>passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
>>driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.
>
>What scanning was done of the passengers?


None but that never was the case afaik. Maybe they should start 
them yesterday! They'd have to consider the certainty that the tunnel
owners would go bankrupt within a week through collapse of business.
They're already struggling and this is v/likely why the tunnel risk is
being kept v/quiet by the government. Just the vehicle x-ray scan and
passport checks causes enough queues. Add body searches and you have 
a serious problem.

However, I take your earlier point that a suicide bomber in the tunnel
is a major risk.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:36:21 +0100, Adam Funk 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird wrote:
>
>> The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
>> passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
>> driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.
>
>I think it's a camera rather than an x-ray machine.


I'm no expert and I'd have thought a camera was more likely.

But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy said 
"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside the
boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in my
boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:37:38 +0100, "Roger R"
<telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>"hummingbird"  wrote in message
>news:gl3se19qbptstpuf4a27t9fobt7dsvd4b0@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:44:34 +0100, David Hansen
>> 
>>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>> >On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:47:04 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
>> > wrote this:-
>> >
>> >>>And why aren't the media concerned about the possibility that
>Osman Hussain,
>> >>>also named as Hamdi Isaac, might have taken one of the spare
>bombs with him
>> >>>on the Eurostar train?
>> >>
>> >>There is an airline-type security check for all passengers.
>> >
>> >However, there is not for all motor vehicles, or the humans inside
>> >them, that pass through this particular tunnel.
>>
>> The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all
>vehicle
>> passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
>> driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.
>>
>x-ray machine?  With a driver (and passengers) inside?
>Can that be right?
>It doesn't sound likely.  If the x-rays were sufficiently powerful to
>penetrate the metal underside of the car then it would be a hazard for
>the occupants, let alone continued exposure to nearby operators.
>
>I suspect the device was some kind of photographic scanner that gave
>an operator a picture of the underside.


See my reply to 'Adam Funk'.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:07:08 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>None but that never was the case afaik. Maybe they should start 
>them yesterday! They'd have to consider the certainty that the tunnel
>owners would go bankrupt within a week through collapse of business.


They didn't when there was a serious fire in the tunnel.  Why should
they if there was a bombing?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:10:41 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy said 
>"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside the
>boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in my
>boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.


Quite possible that the "what's that" question had them suspicious and
that it was in fact that that made them ask.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:07:08 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>None but that never was the case afaik. Maybe they should start 
>them yesterday! They'd have to consider the certainty that the tunnel
>owners would go bankrupt within a week through collapse of business.


They didn't when there was a serious fire in the tunnel.  Why should
they if there was a bombing?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:10:41 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy said 
>"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside the
>boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in my
>boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.


Quite possible that the "what's that" question had them suspicious and
that it was in fact that that made them ask.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , at 17:38:33 on Mon, 1 Aug 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>>They'd have to consider the certainty that the tunnel
>>owners would go bankrupt within a week through collapse of business.
>
>They didn't when there was a serious fire in the tunnel.


They almost did.


>Why should they if there was a bombing?


Because they are even more financially insecure now.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:56:02 +0200, "Alan \(in Brussels\)"
 wrote:


>But what would be the point of re-introducing routine examination of the
>passports (or ID cards) of passengers leaving the UK when it is evident that
>the duplicate British and French passport examination then in force at
>Waterloo * in the aftermath of the London bomb explosions and with
>photographs of the suspects on display nearby * was ineffective?
>
>And why aren't the media concerned about the possibility that Osman Hussain,
>also named as Hamdi Isaac, might have taken one of the spare bombs with him
>on the Eurostar train?
>
>Regards,
>

I find it astonishingly sad that most posters in this thread think
that we will achieve anything by tighter security checks on outward
travelling people.
It is not too many years since there was a row about UK citizens
having to show a passport on entering the UK.  A bunch of journalists
flew to Spain (I think) without passports to test whether they could
get back into the UK.  Getting out was assumed to be no problem.  It
turned out that getting back in was no serious problem either.
Indeed, having left my UK passport inadvertently in a New Jersey hotel
room I have left the US without a UK passport.  the penalty being to
fill in a US immigration form, and I got back into the UK at LHR
without a passport - just a few answers satisified my questioner.
So times are different.  It should perhaps be tougher now.  But
contemplate where this check on movements takes you.  Do you want to
prove who you are every time you get on your train to XYZ in the UK?
Don't quote the airline example because their identity checks are
about protecting revenue.
Rant about defending our freedoms over - for the moment!


Guy Gorton

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:42ee5de5.1866363@news.tesco.net...

> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:10:41 +0100, hummingbird
>  wrote:
>
> >But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy
said
> >"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside
the
> >boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in
my
> >boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.
>

He could have been bluffing, and that might be just as effective.
Authors of books on wartime secret intelligence relate how it was a
useful trick to put about a rumour of some new detection device in the
hope it would be picked up by the enemy and believed - which it often
was - because it played on the enemies worst fears.    They would then
waste much research effort trying to establish how the mythical device
worked.

If the device is X-rays I think drivers ought to be told and not have
to be in the car at the same time.   I don't give much longevity to
the machine operator.

Roger

In message , at 17:38:33 on Mon, 1 Aug 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>>They'd have to consider the certainty that the tunnel
>>owners would go bankrupt within a week through collapse of business.
>
>They didn't when there was a serious fire in the tunnel.


They almost did.


>Why should they if there was a bombing?


Because they are even more financially insecure now.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:56:02 +0200, "Alan \(in Brussels\)"
 wrote:


>But what would be the point of re-introducing routine examination of the
>passports (or ID cards) of passengers leaving the UK when it is evident that
>the duplicate British and French passport examination then in force at
>Waterloo * in the aftermath of the London bomb explosions and with
>photographs of the suspects on display nearby * was ineffective?
>
>And why aren't the media concerned about the possibility that Osman Hussain,
>also named as Hamdi Isaac, might have taken one of the spare bombs with him
>on the Eurostar train?
>
>Regards,
>

I find it astonishingly sad that most posters in this thread think
that we will achieve anything by tighter security checks on outward
travelling people.
It is not too many years since there was a row about UK citizens
having to show a passport on entering the UK.  A bunch of journalists
flew to Spain (I think) without passports to test whether they could
get back into the UK.  Getting out was assumed to be no problem.  It
turned out that getting back in was no serious problem either.
Indeed, having left my UK passport inadvertently in a New Jersey hotel
room I have left the US without a UK passport.  the penalty being to
fill in a US immigration form, and I got back into the UK at LHR
without a passport - just a few answers satisified my questioner.
So times are different.  It should perhaps be tougher now.  But
contemplate where this check on movements takes you.  Do you want to
prove who you are every time you get on your train to XYZ in the UK?
Don't quote the airline example because their identity checks are
about protecting revenue.
Rant about defending our freedoms over - for the moment!


Guy Gorton

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:42ee5de5.1866363@news.tesco.net...

> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:10:41 +0100, hummingbird
>  wrote:
>
> >But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy
said
> >"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside
the
> >boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in
my
> >boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.
>

He could have been bluffing, and that might be just as effective.
Authors of books on wartime secret intelligence relate how it was a
useful trick to put about a rumour of some new detection device in the
hope it would be picked up by the enemy and believed - which it often
was - because it played on the enemies worst fears.    They would then
waste much research effort trying to establish how the mythical device
worked.

If the device is X-rays I think drivers ought to be told and not have
to be in the car at the same time.   I don't give much longevity to
the machine operator.

Roger

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:24:06 +0100, "Roger R"
<telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>He could have been bluffing, and that might be just as effective.
>Authors of books on wartime secret intelligence relate how it was a
>useful trick to put about a rumour of some new detection device in the
>hope it would be picked up by the enemy and believed - which it often
>was - because it played on the enemies worst fears.    They would then
>waste much research effort trying to establish how the mythical device
>worked.


The classic one was the story about night fighter pilots eating
carrots, whereas the actual reason for the enhanced success in
interceptions was the use of on-board radar.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

"Terry Harper"  wrote in message 
news:kc7te1pu1qms3c231fot453c469vnn6p5m@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:24:06 +0100, "Roger R"
> <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>He could have been bluffing, and that might be just as effective.
>>Authors of books on wartime secret intelligence relate how it was a
>>useful trick to put about a rumour of some new detection device in the
>>hope it would be picked up by the enemy and believed - which it often
>>was - because it played on the enemies worst fears.    They would then
>>waste much research effort trying to establish how the mythical device
>>worked.
>
> The classic one was the story about night fighter pilots eating
> carrots, whereas the actual reason for the enhanced success in
> interceptions was the use of on-board radar.
> -- 


Such a drive through machine exists, is built by Qinetiq and is used on 
trucks to spot illegal immigrants. It's called a millimetre wave scanner and 
is sort of like the security machine in the film Total Recall.

http://www.qinetiq.com/home/case_studies/information_communication_and_electronics/millimetre_wave_imager.html


Dave

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:24:06 +0100, "Roger R"
<telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote:


>He could have been bluffing, and that might be just as effective.
>Authors of books on wartime secret intelligence relate how it was a
>useful trick to put about a rumour of some new detection device in the
>hope it would be picked up by the enemy and believed - which it often
>was - because it played on the enemies worst fears.    They would then
>waste much research effort trying to establish how the mythical device
>worked.


The classic one was the story about night fighter pilots eating
carrots, whereas the actual reason for the enhanced success in
interceptions was the use of on-board radar.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

"Terry Harper"  wrote in message 
news:kc7te1pu1qms3c231fot453c469vnn6p5m@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:24:06 +0100, "Roger R"
> <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>He could have been bluffing, and that might be just as effective.
>>Authors of books on wartime secret intelligence relate how it was a
>>useful trick to put about a rumour of some new detection device in the
>>hope it would be picked up by the enemy and believed - which it often
>>was - because it played on the enemies worst fears.    They would then
>>waste much research effort trying to establish how the mythical device
>>worked.
>
> The classic one was the story about night fighter pilots eating
> carrots, whereas the actual reason for the enhanced success in
> interceptions was the use of on-board radar.
> -- 


Such a drive through machine exists, is built by Qinetiq and is used on 
trucks to spot illegal immigrants. It's called a millimetre wave scanner and 
is sort of like the security machine in the film Total Recall.

http://www.qinetiq.com/home/case_studies/information_communication_and_electronics/millimetre_wave_imager.html


Dave

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:10:41 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:36:21 +0100, Adam Funk 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird wrote:
>>
>>> The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
>>> passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
>>> driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.
>>
>>I think it's a camera rather than an x-ray machine.
>
>I'm no expert and I'd have thought a camera was more likely.
>
>But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy said 
>"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside the
>boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in my
>boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.


I've found more information about possible devices at:

http://sleepdealer.com/articles/xray-border.html

http://www.roke.co.uk/security/pandora.asp

Duncan.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:10:41 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:36:21 +0100, Adam Funk 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird wrote:
>>
>>> The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
>>> passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
>>> driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.
>>
>>I think it's a camera rather than an x-ray machine.
>
>I'm no expert and I'd have thought a camera was more likely.
>
>But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy said 
>"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside the
>boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in my
>boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.


I've found more information about possible devices at:

http://sleepdealer.com/articles/xray-border.html

http://www.roke.co.uk/security/pandora.asp

Duncan.

"Terry Harper"  wrote in message 
news:kc7te1pu1qms3c231fot453c469vnn6p5m@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:24:06 +0100, "Roger R"
> <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>He could have been bluffing, and that might be just as effective.
>>Authors of books on wartime secret intelligence relate how it was a
>>useful trick to put about a rumour of some new detection device in the
>>hope it would be picked up by the enemy and believed - which it often
>>was - because it played on the enemies worst fears.    They would then
>>waste much research effort trying to establish how the mythical device
>>worked.
>
> The classic one was the story about night fighter pilots eating
> carrots, whereas the actual reason for the enhanced success in
> interceptions was the use of on-board radar.
> -- 
> Terry Harper
> Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
> http://www.omnibussoc.org

My mother still cited 'Cats-Eyes Cunningham' as a reason to eat all my 
carrots ten years later....
Brian

"Terry Harper"  wrote in message 
news:kc7te1pu1qms3c231fot453c469vnn6p5m@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:24:06 +0100, "Roger R"
> <telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>He could have been bluffing, and that might be just as effective.
>>Authors of books on wartime secret intelligence relate how it was a
>>useful trick to put about a rumour of some new detection device in the
>>hope it would be picked up by the enemy and believed - which it often
>>was - because it played on the enemies worst fears.    They would then
>>waste much research effort trying to establish how the mythical device
>>worked.
>
> The classic one was the story about night fighter pilots eating
> carrots, whereas the actual reason for the enhanced success in
> interceptions was the use of on-board radar.
> -- 
> Terry Harper
> Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
> http://www.omnibussoc.org

My mother still cited 'Cats-Eyes Cunningham' as a reason to eat all my 
carrots ten years later....
Brian

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:23:48 +0100 someone who may be Guy Gorton
 wrote this:-


>I find it astonishingly sad that most posters in this thread think
>that we will achieve anything by tighter security checks on outward
>travelling people.


I'm not sure that they do. My impression is that most posters think
the reverse.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:23:48 +0100 someone who may be Guy Gorton
 wrote this:-


>I find it astonishingly sad that most posters in this thread think
>that we will achieve anything by tighter security checks on outward
>travelling people.


I'm not sure that they do. My impression is that most posters think
the reverse.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:39:22 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:10:41 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy said 
>>"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside the
>>boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in my
>>boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.
>
>Quite possible that the "what's that" question had them suspicious and
>that it was in fact that that made them ask.


Quite possibly. We're not allowed to know anything these days 
....just do as we're told.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:24:06 +0100, "Roger R"
<telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>
>"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
>news:42ee5de5.1866363@news.tesco.net...
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:10:41 +0100, hummingbird
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy
>said
>> >"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside
>the
>> >boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in
>my
>> >boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.
>>
>He could have been bluffing, and that might be just as effective.
>Authors of books on wartime secret intelligence relate how it was a
>useful trick to put about a rumour of some new detection device in the
>hope it would be picked up by the enemy and believed - which it often
>was - because it played on the enemies worst fears.    They would then
>waste much research effort trying to establish how the mythical device
>worked.
>
>If the device is X-rays I think drivers ought to be told and not have
>to be in the car at the same time.   I don't give much longevity to
>the machine operator.


There's no operator. The 'machine' is built flat into the road and
there's a hump immediately before it to slow you down.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:13:50 +0100, Duncan 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:10:41 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:36:21 +0100, Adam Funk 
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>hummingbird wrote:
>>>
>>>> The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
>>>> passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
>>>> driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.
>>>
>>>I think it's a camera rather than an x-ray machine.
>>
>>I'm no expert and I'd have thought a camera was more likely.
>>
>>But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy said 
>>"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside the
>>boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in my
>>boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.
>
>I've found more information about possible devices at:
>
>http://sleepdealer.com/articles/xray-border.html
>
>http://www.roke.co.uk/security/pandora.asp
>


The roke one is not unlike the scanner installed at Folkestone tunnel
departure except it doesn't have side pillars IIRC - just a thick
glass screen imbedded in the road.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

In message , at 16:05:11 on 
Tue, 2 Aug 2005, hummingbird  remarked:

> Passenger numbers have dropped a lot this/last year hence a recent 
>total revamp of their charging structure to attract more.


Is that Le Shuttle passengers? EuroStar passengers are up 15%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4148065.stm

-- 
Roland Perry

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:38:33 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:07:08 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>None but that never was the case afaik. Maybe they should start 
>>them yesterday! They'd have to consider the certainty that the tunnel
>>owners would go bankrupt within a week through collapse of business.
>
>They didn't when there was a serious fire in the tunnel.  Why should
>they if there was a bombing?


Fires are under our control to an extent...bombers aren't.
The tunnel operators are already making a loss, given their huge debts
to repay and the ferries are drumming up stiffer competition. Add to
that a bomb going off in the tunnel and I think you have a disastrous
cocktail with the tunnel being out of service for some time. Passenger
numbers have dropped a lot this/last year hence a recent total revamp
of their charging structure to attract more. Maybe people are braver..

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:39:22 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:10:41 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy said 
>>"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside the
>>boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in my
>>boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.
>
>Quite possible that the "what's that" question had them suspicious and
>that it was in fact that that made them ask.


Quite possibly. We're not allowed to know anything these days 
....just do as we're told.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:24:06 +0100, "Roger R"
<telstar461703@clara4co.uk.invalid>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>
>"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
>news:42ee5de5.1866363@news.tesco.net...
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:10:41 +0100, hummingbird
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy
>said
>> >"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside
>the
>> >boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in
>my
>> >boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.
>>
>He could have been bluffing, and that might be just as effective.
>Authors of books on wartime secret intelligence relate how it was a
>useful trick to put about a rumour of some new detection device in the
>hope it would be picked up by the enemy and believed - which it often
>was - because it played on the enemies worst fears.    They would then
>waste much research effort trying to establish how the mythical device
>worked.
>
>If the device is X-rays I think drivers ought to be told and not have
>to be in the car at the same time.   I don't give much longevity to
>the machine operator.


There's no operator. The 'machine' is built flat into the road and
there's a hump immediately before it to slow you down.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:13:50 +0100, Duncan 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:10:41 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:36:21 +0100, Adam Funk 
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>hummingbird wrote:
>>>
>>>> The times I've travelled in my car on the Channel Tunnel, all vehicle
>>>> passengers are subject to passport checks and the car itself has to
>>>> driven over an x-ray machine to be scanned from the underside.
>>>
>>>I think it's a camera rather than an x-ray machine.
>>
>>I'm no expert and I'd have thought a camera was more likely.
>>
>>But when I asked at the tunnel once what this machine is the guy said 
>>"it's an x-ray machine" and afaik it can identify objects inside the
>>boot/engine compartments etc. I had several large baggage items in my
>>boot and this caused them to ask me to open up for inspection.
>
>I've found more information about possible devices at:
>
>http://sleepdealer.com/articles/xray-border.html
>
>http://www.roke.co.uk/security/pandora.asp
>


The roke one is not unlike the scanner installed at Folkestone tunnel
departure except it doesn't have side pillars IIRC - just a thick
glass screen imbedded in the road.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

In message , at 16:05:11 on 
Tue, 2 Aug 2005, hummingbird  remarked:

> Passenger numbers have dropped a lot this/last year hence a recent 
>total revamp of their charging structure to attract more.


Is that Le Shuttle passengers? EuroStar passengers are up 15%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4148065.stm

-- 
Roland Perry

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:05:11 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


> Add to
>that a bomb going off in the tunnel and I think you have a disastrous
>cocktail with the tunnel being out of service for some time. 


Only one of the tunnels would need to be out of service, unless the
bombers were very careful to ensure the bomb was triggered in a
crossover cavern.

As it was after the fire, it is possible to operate a service using
only one of the tunnels.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:17:05 GMT someone who may be
wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote this:-


>> Add to
>>that a bomb going off in the tunnel and I think you have a disastrous
>>cocktail with the tunnel being out of service for some time. 
>
>Only one of the tunnels would need to be out of service, unless the
>bombers were very careful to ensure the bomb was triggered in a
>crossover cavern.


Even then I suspect that the sliding doors in the crossover cavern
would resist at least a small bomb.

Getting the bomb to explode in the cavern would be an interesting
challenge. Possible, but difficult. Far easier to stand beside the
line somewhere and fire a gun into the train as it passes.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:05:11 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


> Add to
>that a bomb going off in the tunnel and I think you have a disastrous
>cocktail with the tunnel being out of service for some time. 


Only one of the tunnels would need to be out of service, unless the
bombers were very careful to ensure the bomb was triggered in a
crossover cavern.

As it was after the fire, it is possible to operate a service using
only one of the tunnels.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:17:05 GMT someone who may be
wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote this:-


>> Add to
>>that a bomb going off in the tunnel and I think you have a disastrous
>>cocktail with the tunnel being out of service for some time. 
>
>Only one of the tunnels would need to be out of service, unless the
>bombers were very careful to ensure the bomb was triggered in a
>crossover cavern.


Even then I suspect that the sliding doors in the crossover cavern
would resist at least a small bomb.

Getting the bomb to explode in the cavern would be an interesting
challenge. Possible, but difficult. Far easier to stand beside the
line somewhere and fire a gun into the train as it passes.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 16:12:31 +0100, Roland Perry 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>In message , at 16:05:11 on 
>Tue, 2 Aug 2005, hummingbird  remarked:
>> Passenger numbers have dropped a lot this/last year hence a recent 
>>total revamp of their charging structure to attract more.
>
>Is that Le Shuttle passengers? EuroStar passengers are up 15%
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4148065.stm


I was referring to the car/transport side of the business which I
believe is down as reported by the BBC several months ago when 
the charging structure was revamped.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:17:05 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:05:11 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>> Add to
>>that a bomb going off in the tunnel and I think you have a disastrous
>>cocktail with the tunnel being out of service for some time. 
>
>Only one of the tunnels would need to be out of service, unless the
>bombers were very careful to ensure the bomb was triggered in a
>crossover cavern.
>
>As it was after the fire, it is possible to operate a service using
>only one of the tunnels.


I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb ...but would you use it
soon after?

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:16:31 +0100 someone who may be hummingbird
 wrote this:-


>>As it was after the fire, it is possible to operate a service using
>>only one of the tunnels.
>
>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb


As I recollect it the tunnels are so far under the seabed that any
conventional bomb would not cause structural damage to the tunnel,
let alone the other two tunnels in the vicinity.


> ...but would you use it soon after?


A different question.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Guy Gorton wrote:

> 
<snip>
>
> I find it astonishingly sad that most posters in this thread think
> that we will achieve anything by tighter security checks on outward
> travelling people.
> It is not too many years since there was a row about UK citizens
> having to show a passport on entering the UK.  A bunch of journalists
> flew to Spain (I think) without passports to test whether they could
> get back into the UK.  Getting out was assumed to be no problem.  It
> turned out that getting back in was no serious problem either.
> Indeed, having left my UK passport inadvertently in a New Jersey hotel
> room I have left the US without a UK passport.  the penalty being to
> fill in a US immigration form, and I got back into the UK at LHR
> without a passport - just a few answers satisified my questioner.
> So times are different.  It should perhaps be tougher now.  But
> contemplate where this check on movements takes you.  Do you want to
> prove who you are every time you get on your train to XYZ in the UK?
> Don't quote the airline example because their identity checks are
> about protecting revenue.
> Rant about defending our freedoms over - for the moment!
> 
> 
> Guy Gorton


Indeed, and if HMG was a signatory to the Schengen accord, we wouldn't 
have any border controls at Waterloo at all. In any event, the guy in 
question was picked up, and it may well have revealed connections of 
interest to the Italian authorities, which might otherwise have remained 
unknown. Typical Daily Mail type reaction, much of the coverage in 
certain papers.

JK

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:16:00 +0100, David Hansen

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:16:31 +0100 someone who may be hummingbird
> wrote this:-
>
>>>As it was after the fire, it is possible to operate a service using
>>>only one of the tunnels.
>>
>>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb
>
>As I recollect it the tunnels are so far under the seabed that any
>conventional bomb would not cause structural damage to the tunnel,
>let alone the other two tunnels in the vicinity.


But enough carnage for anybody.


>> ...but would you use it soon after?
>
>A different question.


We were debating whether the tunnel operators would go belly up 
if a bomb was let off in the tunnel...

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:42:24 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>Even then I suspect that the sliding doors in the crossover cavern
>would resist at least a small bomb.


What sliding doors are those?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:16:31 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb ...but would you use it
>soon after?


Yes, just as I used the Tube on Saturday, and just as I used the
Tunnel just after the fire.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:22:19 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:42:24 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote:
>
>>Even then I suspect that the sliding doors in the crossover cavern
>>would resist at least a small bomb.
>
>What sliding doors are those?
>

See-
<http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~sjs/ctr.html>
<http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/topics/pbr/pbrnews/pbrnews.htm>
and various other references found by looking for "Eurotunnel" with
"cavern" and "crossover".
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:22:19 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:16:31 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb ...but would you use it
>>soon after?
>
>Yes, just as I used the Tube on Saturday, and just as I used the
>Tunnel just after the fire.


Many wouldn't.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 02:34:35 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>>>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb ...but would you use it
>>>soon after?
>>
>>Yes, just as I used the Tube on Saturday, and just as I used the
>>Tunnel just after the fire.
>
>Many wouldn't.


A good point.  Some people are still shying away from the Tube.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:39:45 +0100 someone who may be hummingbird
 wrote this:-


>>>>As it was after the fire, it is possible to operate a service using
>>>>only one of the tunnels.
>>>
>>>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb
>>
>>As I recollect it the tunnels are so far under the seabed that any
>>conventional bomb would not cause structural damage to the tunnel,
>>let alone the other two tunnels in the vicinity.
>
>But enough carnage for anybody.


Rather less than exploding a bomb on a crowded train, but that's
beside the point.

The question was, would any size of bomb affect more than one
tunnel? The answer seems to be no, other than one exploded in the
crossover tunnel which would be difficult to arrange.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:16:31 +0100 someone who may be hummingbird
 wrote this:-


>>As it was after the fire, it is possible to operate a service using
>>only one of the tunnels.
>
>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb


As I recollect it the tunnels are so far under the seabed that any
conventional bomb would not cause structural damage to the tunnel,
let alone the other two tunnels in the vicinity.


> ...but would you use it soon after?


A different question.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:16:00 +0100, David Hansen

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:16:31 +0100 someone who may be hummingbird
> wrote this:-
>
>>>As it was after the fire, it is possible to operate a service using
>>>only one of the tunnels.
>>
>>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb
>
>As I recollect it the tunnels are so far under the seabed that any
>conventional bomb would not cause structural damage to the tunnel,
>let alone the other two tunnels in the vicinity.


But enough carnage for anybody.


>> ...but would you use it soon after?
>
>A different question.


We were debating whether the tunnel operators would go belly up 
if a bomb was let off in the tunnel...

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:42:24 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>Even then I suspect that the sliding doors in the crossover cavern
>would resist at least a small bomb.


What sliding doors are those?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:16:31 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb ...but would you use it
>soon after?


Yes, just as I used the Tube on Saturday, and just as I used the
Tunnel just after the fire.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:22:19 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:42:24 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote:
>
>>Even then I suspect that the sliding doors in the crossover cavern
>>would resist at least a small bomb.
>
>What sliding doors are those?
>

See-
<http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~sjs/ctr.html>
<http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/topics/pbr/pbrnews/pbrnews.htm>
and various other references found by looking for "Eurotunnel" with
"cavern" and "crossover".
-- 
                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:22:19 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:16:31 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb ...but would you use it
>>soon after?
>
>Yes, just as I used the Tube on Saturday, and just as I used the
>Tunnel just after the fire.


Many wouldn't.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 02:34:35 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>>>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb ...but would you use it
>>>soon after?
>>
>>Yes, just as I used the Tube on Saturday, and just as I used the
>>Tunnel just after the fire.
>
>Many wouldn't.


A good point.  Some people are still shying away from the Tube.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:41:13 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 02:34:35 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>>>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb ...but would you use it
>>>>soon after?
>>>
>>>Yes, just as I used the Tube on Saturday, and just as I used the
>>>Tunnel just after the fire.
>>
>>Many wouldn't.
>
>A good point.  Some people are still shying away from the Tube.


Indeed and for the Channel Tunnel company who are already in a
precarious financial situation.....

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:58:47 +0100, David Hansen

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:39:45 +0100 someone who may be hummingbird
> wrote this:-
>
>>>>>As it was after the fire, it is possible to operate a service using
>>>>>only one of the tunnels.
>>>>
>>>>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb
>>>
>>>As I recollect it the tunnels are so far under the seabed that any
>>>conventional bomb would not cause structural damage to the tunnel,
>>>let alone the other two tunnels in the vicinity.
>>
>>But enough carnage for anybody.
>
>Rather less than exploding a bomb on a crowded train, but that's
>beside the point.
>
>The question was, would any size of bomb affect more than one
>tunnel? The answer seems to be no, other than one exploded in the
>crossover tunnel which would be difficult to arrange.


Seems reasonable ...but the operators would still be in deep cacky 
due to a collapse in passenger numbers.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:39:45 +0100 someone who may be hummingbird
 wrote this:-


>>>>As it was after the fire, it is possible to operate a service using
>>>>only one of the tunnels.
>>>
>>>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb
>>
>>As I recollect it the tunnels are so far under the seabed that any
>>conventional bomb would not cause structural damage to the tunnel,
>>let alone the other two tunnels in the vicinity.
>
>But enough carnage for anybody.


Rather less than exploding a bomb on a crowded train, but that's
beside the point.

The question was, would any size of bomb affect more than one
tunnel? The answer seems to be no, other than one exploded in the
crossover tunnel which would be difficult to arrange.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:41:13 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 02:34:35 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>>>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb ...but would you use it
>>>>soon after?
>>>
>>>Yes, just as I used the Tube on Saturday, and just as I used the
>>>Tunnel just after the fire.
>>
>>Many wouldn't.
>
>A good point.  Some people are still shying away from the Tube.


Indeed and for the Channel Tunnel company who are already in a
precarious financial situation.....

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:58:47 +0100, David Hansen

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:39:45 +0100 someone who may be hummingbird
> wrote this:-
>
>>>>>As it was after the fire, it is possible to operate a service using
>>>>>only one of the tunnels.
>>>>
>>>>I suppose it depends on the size of the bomb
>>>
>>>As I recollect it the tunnels are so far under the seabed that any
>>>conventional bomb would not cause structural damage to the tunnel,
>>>let alone the other two tunnels in the vicinity.
>>
>>But enough carnage for anybody.
>
>Rather less than exploding a bomb on a crowded train, but that's
>beside the point.
>
>The question was, would any size of bomb affect more than one
>tunnel? The answer seems to be no, other than one exploded in the
>crossover tunnel which would be difficult to arrange.


Seems reasonable ...but the operators would still be in deep cacky 
due to a collapse in passenger numbers.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:22:19 GMT someone who may be
wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote this:-


>>Even then I suspect that the sliding doors in the crossover cavern
>>would resist at least a small bomb.
>
>What sliding doors are those?


To add to what others have said, a minute with a search engine
produced the following URL
http://www.tec-ingenierie.fr/Sitetec/ouvsout.htm

The first photograph shows a crossover cavern with the sliding doors
open. The doors are the yellowish coloured vertical panels and you
can see the top and bottom rails that they run on.

Exploding a bomb on a moving train as one passes through the cavern
is not impossible, but it is difficult.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:12:28 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>The first photograph shows a crossover cavern with the sliding doors
>open. The doors are the yellowish coloured vertical panels and you
>can see the top and bottom rails that they run on.


Thanks to those who posted these things - I never knew the doors
existed at all, but it would explain why, when I've been travelling
through the tunnel, I've never actually managed to see the crossover
cavern, except for when I went through just after the fire when one
was in use.

That they do exist, and look very substantial, is rather reassuring.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:22:19 GMT someone who may be
wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote this:-


>>Even then I suspect that the sliding doors in the crossover cavern
>>would resist at least a small bomb.
>
>What sliding doors are those?


To add to what others have said, a minute with a search engine
produced the following URL
http://www.tec-ingenierie.fr/Sitetec/ouvsout.htm

The first photograph shows a crossover cavern with the sliding doors
open. The doors are the yellowish coloured vertical panels and you
can see the top and bottom rails that they run on.

Exploding a bomb on a moving train as one passes through the cavern
is not impossible, but it is difficult.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:12:28 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>The first photograph shows a crossover cavern with the sliding doors
>open. The doors are the yellowish coloured vertical panels and you
>can see the top and bottom rails that they run on.


Thanks to those who posted these things - I never knew the doors
existed at all, but it would explain why, when I've been travelling
through the tunnel, I've never actually managed to see the crossover
cavern, except for when I went through just after the fire when one
was in use.

That they do exist, and look very substantial, is rather reassuring.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

hummingbird  wrote:


>Indeed and for the Channel Tunnel company who are already in a
>precarious financial situation.....



The Channel Tunnel makes a very healthy operating profit.  The problem
is that the profit is nowhere near remotely enough to pay back the
interest on the loans taken out to build it.

When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
(nearly) all of their money.

hummingbird  wrote:


>Indeed and for the Channel Tunnel company who are already in a
>precarious financial situation.....



The Channel Tunnel makes a very healthy operating profit.  The problem
is that the profit is nowhere near remotely enough to pay back the
interest on the loans taken out to build it.

When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
(nearly) all of their money.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:26:15 +0100, Tony Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>
>>Indeed and for the Channel Tunnel company who are already in a
>>precarious financial situation.....
>
>The Channel Tunnel makes a very healthy operating profit.  The problem
>is that the profit is nowhere near remotely enough to pay back the
>interest on the loans taken out to build it.


So I understand but at this moment their financial situation remains
precarious until...


>When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
>question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
>keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
>company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
>off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
>(nearly) all of their money.


Seems reasonable.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

hummingbird  wrote:

>Tony Polson  wrote:
>>When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
>>question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
>>keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
>>company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
>>off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
>>(nearly) all of their money.
>
>Seems reasonable.



Not to the shareholders, it doesn't!

;-)

Tony Polson  wrote

>
>The Channel Tunnel makes a very healthy operating profit.  The problem
>is that the profit is nowhere near remotely enough to pay back the
>interest on the loans taken out to build it.
>
>When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
>question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
>keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
>company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
>off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
>(nearly) all of their money.
>
>

 I think you mean the shareholders will loose out big time.
 The banks if not already offloaded the loans as junk bonds etc., will
be there and make more money, well they have already made a tidy sum in
setting up and taking from the organisation as it stumbles onwards.
Yes the small shareholders have no future with this stock.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 12:36:43 +0100, Tony Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>>Tony Polson  wrote:
>>>When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
>>>question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
>>>keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
>>>company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
>>>off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
>>>(nearly) all of their money.
>>
>>Seems reasonable.
>
>
>Not to the shareholders, it doesn't!
>
>;-)


Indeed ...and on a wider issue it shows the problems in financing huge
infrastructure projects like the tunnel. The business plan was always
dubious and if the bankers hadn't been pressurised by govt at the
time, it would never have been built despite its obvious usefulness
to the nation's economic prosperity.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

In message , at 11:48:32 on 
Thu, 4 Aug 2005, superted  remarked:

>>When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
>>question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
>>keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
>>company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
>>off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
>>(nearly) all of their money.
>>
> I think you mean the shareholders will loose out big time.
> The banks if not already offloaded the loans as junk bonds etc., will
>be there and make more money, well they have already made a tidy sum in
>setting up and taking from the organisation as it stumbles onwards.
>Yes the small shareholders have no future with this stock.


The current share price (approx, it's a while since I looked) is about 
10% of the flotation value. Any of the original shareholders have 
already made the majority of their loss. Some more recent shareholders 
may be speculating, but that's not really anyone's problem but their own 
if they lose money.
-- 
Roland Perry

hummingbird  wrote:

>
>Indeed ...and on a wider issue it shows the problems in financing huge
>infrastructure projects like the tunnel. The business plan was always
>dubious and if the bankers hadn't been pressurised by govt at the
>time, it would never have been built despite its obvious usefulness
>to the nation's economic prosperity.



What usefulness?

Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
economic prosperity has been approximately zero.  

If anything, that is an overestimate.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:26:15 +0100, Tony Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>
>>Indeed and for the Channel Tunnel company who are already in a
>>precarious financial situation.....
>
>The Channel Tunnel makes a very healthy operating profit.  The problem
>is that the profit is nowhere near remotely enough to pay back the
>interest on the loans taken out to build it.


So I understand but at this moment their financial situation remains
precarious until...


>When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
>question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
>keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
>company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
>off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
>(nearly) all of their money.


Seems reasonable.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

hummingbird  wrote:

>Tony Polson  wrote:
>>When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
>>question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
>>keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
>>company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
>>off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
>>(nearly) all of their money.
>
>Seems reasonable.



Not to the shareholders, it doesn't!

;-)

Tony Polson  wrote

>
>The Channel Tunnel makes a very healthy operating profit.  The problem
>is that the profit is nowhere near remotely enough to pay back the
>interest on the loans taken out to build it.
>
>When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
>question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
>keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
>company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
>off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
>(nearly) all of their money.
>
>

 I think you mean the shareholders will loose out big time.
 The banks if not already offloaded the loans as junk bonds etc., will
be there and make more money, well they have already made a tidy sum in
setting up and taking from the organisation as it stumbles onwards.
Yes the small shareholders have no future with this stock.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 12:36:43 +0100, Tony Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>>Tony Polson  wrote:
>>>When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
>>>question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
>>>keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
>>>company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
>>>off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
>>>(nearly) all of their money.
>>
>>Seems reasonable.
>
>
>Not to the shareholders, it doesn't!
>
>;-)


Indeed ...and on a wider issue it shows the problems in financing huge
infrastructure projects like the tunnel. The business plan was always
dubious and if the bankers hadn't been pressurised by govt at the
time, it would never have been built despite its obvious usefulness
to the nation's economic prosperity.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

In message , at 11:48:32 on 
Thu, 4 Aug 2005, superted  remarked:

>>When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
>>question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
>>keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
>>company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
>>off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
>>(nearly) all of their money.
>>
> I think you mean the shareholders will loose out big time.
> The banks if not already offloaded the loans as junk bonds etc., will
>be there and make more money, well they have already made a tidy sum in
>setting up and taking from the organisation as it stumbles onwards.
>Yes the small shareholders have no future with this stock.


The current share price (approx, it's a while since I looked) is about 
10% of the flotation value. Any of the original shareholders have 
already made the majority of their loss. Some more recent shareholders 
may be speculating, but that's not really anyone's problem but their own 
if they lose money.
-- 
Roland Perry

hummingbird  wrote:

>
>Indeed ...and on a wider issue it shows the problems in financing huge
>infrastructure projects like the tunnel. The business plan was always
>dubious and if the bankers hadn't been pressurised by govt at the
>time, it would never have been built despite its obvious usefulness
>to the nation's economic prosperity.



What usefulness?

Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
economic prosperity has been approximately zero.  

If anything, that is an overestimate.

In message , at 14:13:53 on 
Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Tony Polson  remarked:

>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.


It broke what looked very much like a cartel of ferry operators.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:13:53 on 
Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Tony Polson  remarked:

>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.


It broke what looked very much like a cartel of ferry operators.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:13:53 +0100, Tony Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>>
>>Indeed ...and on a wider issue it shows the problems in financing huge
>>infrastructure projects like the tunnel. The business plan was always
>>dubious and if the bankers hadn't been pressurised by govt at the
>>time, it would never have been built despite its obvious usefulness
>>to the nation's economic prosperity.
>
>
>What usefulness?
>
>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.  
>
>If anything, that is an overestimate.


It has provided a much faster means of transporting goods to/from
mainland Europe than the ferry system. You might wish to argue that
more comes in that goes out.....

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:22:26 +0100, Roland Perry 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>In message , at 14:13:53 on 
>Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Tony Polson  remarked:
>>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.
>
>It broke what looked very much like a cartel of ferry operators.


Sadly it also created a new cartel involving the Eurotunnel.

When I arrived at Calais one day and wanted to purchase a single
vehicle ticket back to the UK, the price options between the ferries
vs tunnel were hardly noticeable. 
They each keep an eye on each others prices ...at the very least.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:13:53 +0100, Tony Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>>
>>Indeed ...and on a wider issue it shows the problems in financing huge
>>infrastructure projects like the tunnel. The business plan was always
>>dubious and if the bankers hadn't been pressurised by govt at the
>>time, it would never have been built despite its obvious usefulness
>>to the nation's economic prosperity.
>
>
>What usefulness?
>
>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.  
>
>If anything, that is an overestimate.


It has provided a much faster means of transporting goods to/from
mainland Europe than the ferry system. You might wish to argue that
more comes in that goes out.....

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:22:26 +0100, Roland Perry 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>In message , at 14:13:53 on 
>Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Tony Polson  remarked:
>>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.
>
>It broke what looked very much like a cartel of ferry operators.


Sadly it also created a new cartel involving the Eurotunnel.

When I arrived at Calais one day and wanted to purchase a single
vehicle ticket back to the UK, the price options between the ferries
vs tunnel were hardly noticeable. 
They each keep an eye on each others prices ...at the very least.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

In message , at 16:18:39 on 
Thu, 4 Aug 2005, hummingbird  remarked:


>>>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>>>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.
>>
>>It broke what looked very much like a cartel of ferry operators.
>
>Sadly it also created a new cartel involving the Eurotunnel.
>
>When I arrived at Calais one day and wanted to purchase a single
>vehicle ticket back to the UK, the price options between the ferries
>vs tunnel were hardly noticeable.


But I bet they were much less than the ferries were, pre-tunnel.

And then there's the improvement to Paris/Brussels services by train 
(rather than by air).
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:18:39 on 
Thu, 4 Aug 2005, hummingbird  remarked:


>>>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>>>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.
>>
>>It broke what looked very much like a cartel of ferry operators.
>
>Sadly it also created a new cartel involving the Eurotunnel.
>
>When I arrived at Calais one day and wanted to purchase a single
>vehicle ticket back to the UK, the price options between the ferries
>vs tunnel were hardly noticeable.


But I bet they were much less than the ferries were, pre-tunnel.

And then there's the improvement to Paris/Brussels services by train 
(rather than by air).
-- 
Roland Perry

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:18:39 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>They each keep an eye on each others prices ...at the very least.


There is a very fine line between good business sense and a cartel.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:25:00 +0100, Roland Perry 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>In message , at 16:18:39 on 
>Thu, 4 Aug 2005, hummingbird  remarked:
>
>>>>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>>>>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.
>>>
>>>It broke what looked very much like a cartel of ferry operators.
>>
>>Sadly it also created a new cartel involving the Eurotunnel.
>>
>>When I arrived at Calais one day and wanted to purchase a single
>>vehicle ticket back to the UK, the price options between the ferries
>>vs tunnel were hardly noticeable.
>
>But I bet they were much less than the ferries were, pre-tunnel.


Absolutely not.
The cost of getting across the Channel since the tunnel opened up for
business increased dramatically. Sure, the tunnel catered for large
numbers of day-trippers at v/low round trip fares but try to book a
three week round trip and compare the cost. It seemed to me they
favoured day-trippers and ripped off holiday makers to make up the
shortfall*. A three week car round trip would easily cost ~300,
whereas a day-trip was as low as 20.

*due to many complaints and much criticism, Eurotunnel has recently
revamped its fare structure and IIUC holiday round-trip tickets have
come down in price.


>And then there's the improvement to Paris/Brussels services by train 
>(rather than by air).


-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:18:39 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>They each keep an eye on each others prices ...at the very least.


There is a very fine line between good business sense and a cartel.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:25:00 +0100, Roland Perry 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>In message , at 16:18:39 on 
>Thu, 4 Aug 2005, hummingbird  remarked:
>
>>>>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>>>>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.
>>>
>>>It broke what looked very much like a cartel of ferry operators.
>>
>>Sadly it also created a new cartel involving the Eurotunnel.
>>
>>When I arrived at Calais one day and wanted to purchase a single
>>vehicle ticket back to the UK, the price options between the ferries
>>vs tunnel were hardly noticeable.
>
>But I bet they were much less than the ferries were, pre-tunnel.


Absolutely not.
The cost of getting across the Channel since the tunnel opened up for
business increased dramatically. Sure, the tunnel catered for large
numbers of day-trippers at v/low round trip fares but try to book a
three week round trip and compare the cost. It seemed to me they
favoured day-trippers and ripped off holiday makers to make up the
shortfall*. A three week car round trip would easily cost ~300,
whereas a day-trip was as low as 20.

*due to many complaints and much criticism, Eurotunnel has recently
revamped its fare structure and IIUC holiday round-trip tickets have
come down in price.


>And then there's the improvement to Paris/Brussels services by train 
>(rather than by air).


-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

"hummingbird"  wrote in message 
news:stk4f11s5mhtecjaakqhidd09m73ql2g2d@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:25:00 +0100, Roland Perry 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>In message , at 16:18:39 on
>>Thu, 4 Aug 2005, hummingbird  remarked:
>>
>>>>>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>>>>>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.
>>>>
>>>>It broke what looked very much like a cartel of ferry operators.
>>>
>>>Sadly it also created a new cartel involving the Eurotunnel.
>>>
>>>When I arrived at Calais one day and wanted to purchase a single
>>>vehicle ticket back to the UK, the price options between the ferries
>>>vs tunnel were hardly noticeable.
>>
>>But I bet they were much less than the ferries were, pre-tunnel.
>
> Absolutely not.


I think that you have a poor memory of the pre tunnel prices.


> The cost of getting across the Channel since the tunnel opened up for
> business increased dramatically. Sure, the tunnel catered for large
> numbers of day-trippers at v/low round trip fares but try to book a
> three week round trip and compare the cost. It seemed to me they
> favoured day-trippers and ripped off holiday makers to make up the
> shortfall*. A three week car round trip would easily cost ~300,


As it did in real terms before 1995.

The ET business plan floundered because it expected to be able to
expand the market *and* charge this level of fare to all its punters.
(Un)fortunately, the expanded market wasn't that interested in
travelling at any price, they would only go if it was cheap.

ET then had the very difficult task of keeping the fares up for those
that needed to travel whilst at the same time increasing revenue by
enticing more travellers.  It (probably) did as well as it could.

tim

"hummingbird"  wrote


> The cost of getting across the Channel since the tunnel opened up for
> business increased dramatically. Sure, the tunnel catered for large
> numbers of day-trippers at v/low round trip fares but try to book a
> three week round trip and compare the cost. It seemed to me they
> favoured day-trippers and ripped off holiday makers to make up the
> shortfall*. A three week car round trip would easily cost ~300,
> whereas a day-trip was as low as 20.
>

There seems to be far too much capacity across the Channel on the 'short
sea' routes (including the Tunnel). The newest entrant to the market,
Speedferries, seems to be trying to undercut all the competition, but at
this time of the year Speedferries seems to be the only operator that is
fully booked.

Peter

"hummingbird"  wrote in message 
news:stk4f11s5mhtecjaakqhidd09m73ql2g2d@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:25:00 +0100, Roland Perry 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>In message , at 16:18:39 on
>>Thu, 4 Aug 2005, hummingbird  remarked:
>>
>>>>>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>>>>>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.
>>>>
>>>>It broke what looked very much like a cartel of ferry operators.
>>>
>>>Sadly it also created a new cartel involving the Eurotunnel.
>>>
>>>When I arrived at Calais one day and wanted to purchase a single
>>>vehicle ticket back to the UK, the price options between the ferries
>>>vs tunnel were hardly noticeable.
>>
>>But I bet they were much less than the ferries were, pre-tunnel.
>
> Absolutely not.


I think that you have a poor memory of the pre tunnel prices.


> The cost of getting across the Channel since the tunnel opened up for
> business increased dramatically. Sure, the tunnel catered for large
> numbers of day-trippers at v/low round trip fares but try to book a
> three week round trip and compare the cost. It seemed to me they
> favoured day-trippers and ripped off holiday makers to make up the
> shortfall*. A three week car round trip would easily cost ~300,


As it did in real terms before 1995.

The ET business plan floundered because it expected to be able to
expand the market *and* charge this level of fare to all its punters.
(Un)fortunately, the expanded market wasn't that interested in
travelling at any price, they would only go if it was cheap.

ET then had the very difficult task of keeping the fares up for those
that needed to travel whilst at the same time increasing revenue by
enticing more travellers.  It (probably) did as well as it could.

tim

"hummingbird"  wrote


> The cost of getting across the Channel since the tunnel opened up for
> business increased dramatically. Sure, the tunnel catered for large
> numbers of day-trippers at v/low round trip fares but try to book a
> three week round trip and compare the cost. It seemed to me they
> favoured day-trippers and ripped off holiday makers to make up the
> shortfall*. A three week car round trip would easily cost ~300,
> whereas a day-trip was as low as 20.
>

There seems to be far too much capacity across the Channel on the 'short
sea' routes (including the Tunnel). The newest entrant to the market,
Speedferries, seems to be trying to undercut all the competition, but at
this time of the year Speedferries seems to be the only operator that is
fully booked.

Peter

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:49:29 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:18:39 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>They each keep an eye on each others prices ...at the very least.
>
>There is a very fine line between good business sense and a cartel.


Quite ...and a cartel is difficult to prove.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 18:02:23 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>"hummingbird"  wrote
>
>> The cost of getting across the Channel since the tunnel opened up for
>> business increased dramatically. Sure, the tunnel catered for large
>> numbers of day-trippers at v/low round trip fares but try to book a
>> three week round trip and compare the cost. It seemed to me they
>> favoured day-trippers and ripped off holiday makers to make up the
>> shortfall*. A three week car round trip would easily cost ~300,
>> whereas a day-trip was as low as 20.
>>
>There seems to be far too much capacity across the Channel on the 'short
>sea' routes (including the Tunnel). The newest entrant to the market,
>Speedferries, seems to be trying to undercut all the competition, but at
>this time of the year Speedferries seems to be the only operator that is
>fully booked.


Doesn't excess capacity usually translate into lower prices?

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:49:29 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:18:39 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>They each keep an eye on each others prices ...at the very least.
>
>There is a very fine line between good business sense and a cartel.


Quite ...and a cartel is difficult to prove.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 18:02:23 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>"hummingbird"  wrote
>
>> The cost of getting across the Channel since the tunnel opened up for
>> business increased dramatically. Sure, the tunnel catered for large
>> numbers of day-trippers at v/low round trip fares but try to book a
>> three week round trip and compare the cost. It seemed to me they
>> favoured day-trippers and ripped off holiday makers to make up the
>> shortfall*. A three week car round trip would easily cost ~300,
>> whereas a day-trip was as low as 20.
>>
>There seems to be far too much capacity across the Channel on the 'short
>sea' routes (including the Tunnel). The newest entrant to the market,
>Speedferries, seems to be trying to undercut all the competition, but at
>this time of the year Speedferries seems to be the only operator that is
>fully booked.


Doesn't excess capacity usually translate into lower prices?

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:05:27 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>Quite ...and a cartel is difficult to prove.


And is often a matter of opinion.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

hummingbird  wrote:

>Tony Polson  wrote:
>>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.  
>>
>>If anything, that is an overestimate.
>
>It has provided a much faster means of transporting goods to/from
>mainland Europe than the ferry system. You might wish to argue that
>more comes in that goes out.....



The Channel Tunnel has not helped the cross-channel road vehicle
capacity to grow any faster than the ferries would have done alone.
It merely shares the traffic with the ferries.

The Eurostar trains carry much less than half the projected
passengers. The current figures are about 60% below the estimate.

Cross channel rail freight is negligible - it runs at just a tiny
fraction - about 10-15% - of what had been estimated.

Ten billion pounds of private capital has been wasted on a scheme that
can never hope to pay back more than a tiny fraction of the debt,
currently standing at 6.5 billion after one debt for equity swap.

Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been spent on facilities
related to the Channel Tunnel which have either not been used or are
severely under-used.

I sincerely hope that the public and private money invested in the
Channel Tunnel Rail Link will transform the economics of the whole
system and make it a useful (inter)national asset.  However, I do fear
that it will be merely a case of throwing good money after bad.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:05:27 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>Quite ...and a cartel is difficult to prove.


And is often a matter of opinion.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

hummingbird  wrote:

>Tony Polson  wrote:
>>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.  
>>
>>If anything, that is an overestimate.
>
>It has provided a much faster means of transporting goods to/from
>mainland Europe than the ferry system. You might wish to argue that
>more comes in that goes out.....



The Channel Tunnel has not helped the cross-channel road vehicle
capacity to grow any faster than the ferries would have done alone.
It merely shares the traffic with the ferries.

The Eurostar trains carry much less than half the projected
passengers. The current figures are about 60% below the estimate.

Cross channel rail freight is negligible - it runs at just a tiny
fraction - about 10-15% - of what had been estimated.

Ten billion pounds of private capital has been wasted on a scheme that
can never hope to pay back more than a tiny fraction of the debt,
currently standing at 6.5 billion after one debt for equity swap.

Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been spent on facilities
related to the Channel Tunnel which have either not been used or are
severely under-used.

I sincerely hope that the public and private money invested in the
Channel Tunnel Rail Link will transform the economics of the whole
system and make it a useful (inter)national asset.  However, I do fear
that it will be merely a case of throwing good money after bad.

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:40:20 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>In message , at 11:48:32 on 
>Thu, 4 Aug 2005, superted  remarked:

>>>When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
>>>question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
>>>keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
>>>company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
>>>off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
>>>(nearly) all of their money.
>>>
>> I think you mean the shareholders will loose out big time.
>> The banks if not already offloaded the loans as junk bonds etc., will
>>be there and make more money, well they have already made a tidy sum in
>>setting up and taking from the organisation as it stumbles onwards.
>>Yes the small shareholders have no future with this stock.
>
>The current share price (approx, it's a while since I looked) is about 
>10% of the flotation value. Any of the original shareholders have 
>already made the majority of their loss. Some more recent shareholders 
>may be speculating, but that's not really anyone's problem but their own 
>if they lose money.


When the debt-for-equity swap takes place, the current shareholders
will lose heavily. Look at Marconi and Jarvis if you want confirmation
of that.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:40:20 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>In message , at 11:48:32 on 
>Thu, 4 Aug 2005, superted  remarked:

>>>When Eurotunnel defaults on these loans (there is absolutely no
>>>question of "if"), the banks will take over.  The Channel Tunnel will
>>>keep going, and make a tidy operating profit, but the shares in the
>>>company will be worthless and most of the loans will have been written
>>>off, never to be repaid.  Shareholders and banks alike will have lost
>>>(nearly) all of their money.
>>>
>> I think you mean the shareholders will loose out big time.
>> The banks if not already offloaded the loans as junk bonds etc., will
>>be there and make more money, well they have already made a tidy sum in
>>setting up and taking from the organisation as it stumbles onwards.
>>Yes the small shareholders have no future with this stock.
>
>The current share price (approx, it's a while since I looked) is about 
>10% of the flotation value. Any of the original shareholders have 
>already made the majority of their loss. Some more recent shareholders 
>may be speculating, but that's not really anyone's problem but their own 
>if they lose money.


When the debt-for-equity swap takes place, the current shareholders
will lose heavily. Look at Marconi and Jarvis if you want confirmation
of that.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:01:40 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>The ET business plan floundered because it expected to be able to
>expand the market *and* charge this level of fare to all its punters.
>(Un)fortunately, the expanded market wasn't that interested in
>travelling at any price, they would only go if it was cheap.
>
>ET then had the very difficult task of keeping the fares up for those
>that needed to travel whilst at the same time increasing revenue by
>enticing more travellers.  It (probably) did as well as it could.


The big flaw in ET's business plan was trying to compete with the
ferries. A very large part of their capital expenditure was the cost
of the shuttle trains and their infrastructure. There isn't enough
traffic to share out, and they haven't got enough capacity to serve it
if there was.

One day there will be a bridge, or combined bridge and tunnel, to
carry road transport across the channel. When that comes, both the
ferries and ET will be history, except for the normal trains using the
tunnel.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:15:50 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:13:53 +0100, Tony Polson 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.  
>>
>>If anything, that is an overestimate.
>
>It has provided a much faster means of transporting goods to/from
>mainland Europe than the ferry system. You might wish to argue that
>more comes in that goes out.....


Only by direct train services, which haven't proved to be all that
popular, compared with sending lorries and trailers across by ferry.
There are a lot of advantages in using the ferry, not least the chance
to have a meal and the statutory rest period.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:01:40 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>The ET business plan floundered because it expected to be able to
>expand the market *and* charge this level of fare to all its punters.
>(Un)fortunately, the expanded market wasn't that interested in
>travelling at any price, they would only go if it was cheap.
>
>ET then had the very difficult task of keeping the fares up for those
>that needed to travel whilst at the same time increasing revenue by
>enticing more travellers.  It (probably) did as well as it could.


The big flaw in ET's business plan was trying to compete with the
ferries. A very large part of their capital expenditure was the cost
of the shuttle trains and their infrastructure. There isn't enough
traffic to share out, and they haven't got enough capacity to serve it
if there was.

One day there will be a bridge, or combined bridge and tunnel, to
carry road transport across the channel. When that comes, both the
ferries and ET will be history, except for the normal trains using the
tunnel.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:15:50 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:13:53 +0100, Tony Polson 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>>Seriously, I think the Channel Tunnel's contribution to the nation's
>>economic prosperity has been approximately zero.  
>>
>>If anything, that is an overestimate.
>
>It has provided a much faster means of transporting goods to/from
>mainland Europe than the ferry system. You might wish to argue that
>more comes in that goes out.....


Only by direct train services, which haven't proved to be all that
popular, compared with sending lorries and trailers across by ferry.
There are a lot of advantages in using the ferry, not least the chance
to have a meal and the statutory rest period.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:13:27 +0100, Terry Harper

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:01:40 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> wrote:
>
>>The ET business plan floundered because it expected to be able to
>>expand the market *and* charge this level of fare to all its punters.
>>(Un)fortunately, the expanded market wasn't that interested in
>>travelling at any price, they would only go if it was cheap.
>>
>>ET then had the very difficult task of keeping the fares up for those
>>that needed to travel whilst at the same time increasing revenue by
>>enticing more travellers.  It (probably) did as well as it could.
>
>The big flaw in ET's business plan was trying to compete with the
>ferries. A very large part of their capital expenditure was the cost
>of the shuttle trains and their infrastructure. There isn't enough
>traffic to share out, and they haven't got enough capacity to serve it
>if there was.
>
>One day there will be a bridge, or combined bridge and tunnel, to
>carry road transport across the channel. When that comes, both the
>ferries and ET will be history, except for the normal trains using the
>tunnel.


Now you're talking. I always wanted a bridge with throw-in buckets 
for the money as you drive through - no delays.
But in the current climate of fear, it will not be thought about let
alone built.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:16:54 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:05:27 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>Quite ...and a cartel is difficult to prove.
>
>And is often a matter of opinion.


AIUI a cartel prosecution in law requires evidence that prices or
other services have been rigged by agreement between providers.
This usually involves material evidence of meetings, documents etc.

What usually happens in Britain is that one company 'sets the price
level' and the others follow, without contact, so it's not technically
a cartel but in reality, works the same way.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:13:27 +0100, Terry Harper

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:01:40 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> wrote:
>
>>The ET business plan floundered because it expected to be able to
>>expand the market *and* charge this level of fare to all its punters.
>>(Un)fortunately, the expanded market wasn't that interested in
>>travelling at any price, they would only go if it was cheap.
>>
>>ET then had the very difficult task of keeping the fares up for those
>>that needed to travel whilst at the same time increasing revenue by
>>enticing more travellers.  It (probably) did as well as it could.
>
>The big flaw in ET's business plan was trying to compete with the
>ferries. A very large part of their capital expenditure was the cost
>of the shuttle trains and their infrastructure. There isn't enough
>traffic to share out, and they haven't got enough capacity to serve it
>if there was.
>
>One day there will be a bridge, or combined bridge and tunnel, to
>carry road transport across the channel. When that comes, both the
>ferries and ET will be history, except for the normal trains using the
>tunnel.


Now you're talking. I always wanted a bridge with throw-in buckets 
for the money as you drive through - no delays.
But in the current climate of fear, it will not be thought about let
alone built.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:16:54 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 22:05:27 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>Quite ...and a cartel is difficult to prove.
>
>And is often a matter of opinion.


AIUI a cartel prosecution in law requires evidence that prices or
other services have been rigged by agreement between providers.
This usually involves material evidence of meetings, documents etc.

What usually happens in Britain is that one company 'sets the price
level' and the others follow, without contact, so it's not technically
a cartel but in reality, works the same way.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

In message , at 23:08:35 on 
Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Terry Harper  remarked:


>When the debt-for-equity swap takes place, the current shareholders
>will lose heavily.


Yes, but they are either speculators (so their own lookout, the demise 
is hardly unpredictable) or the original shareholders who have already 
lost 90% of the money, so almost all of the "heaviness" is in the past.

-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 23:08:35 on 
Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Terry Harper  remarked:


>When the debt-for-equity swap takes place, the current shareholders
>will lose heavily.


Yes, but they are either speculators (so their own lookout, the demise 
is hardly unpredictable) or the original shareholders who have already 
lost 90% of the money, so almost all of the "heaviness" is in the past.

-- 
Roland Perry

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:42:59 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>What usually happens in Britain is that one company 'sets the price
>level' and the others follow, without contact, so it's not technically
>a cartel but in reality, works the same way.


And is good business sense, namely to charge as much as you can get
away with.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Roland Perry wrote:

> 
> Yes, but they are either speculators (so their own lookout, the demise
> is hardly unpredictable) or the original shareholders who have already
> lost 90% of the money, so almost all of the "heaviness" is in the past.


As a matter of interest, the price of Eurotunnel shares was around 20
at one point before going into steady decline; fortunately for them,
some original shareholders got out with a profit (the issue price was
3.50).

-- 
John Ray, London UK.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:12:28 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:22:19 GMT someone who may be
>wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote this:-
>
>>>Even then I suspect that the sliding doors in the crossover cavern
>>>would resist at least a small bomb.
>>
>>What sliding doors are those?
>
>To add to what others have said, a minute with a search engine
>produced the following URL
>http://www.tec-ingenierie.fr/Sitetec/ouvsout.htm
>
>The first photograph shows a crossover cavern with the sliding doors
>open. The doors are the yellowish coloured vertical panels and you
>can see the top and bottom rails that they run on.
>

Drifting more off-topic:

How does the system handle the pantograph at the point where it
crosses the track supporting the doors? Does the driver/system have to
lower the pantograph while changing tunnel?

Regards,

Clive

-- 
Clive R Robertson -- AS/400 Programmer.

Webmaster of http://www.osterleypark.org.uk/ -- this describes 
a beautiful National Trust property in West London.

In message , at 19:23:56 on 
Fri, 5 Aug 2005, John Ray  remarked:

>As a matter of interest, the price of Eurotunnel shares was around 20
>at one point before going into steady decline;


That would have been a good time to sell, for sure.


>fortunately for them, some original shareholders got out with a profit 
>(the issue price was 3.50).


-- 
Roland Perry

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:42:59 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>What usually happens in Britain is that one company 'sets the price
>level' and the others follow, without contact, so it's not technically
>a cartel but in reality, works the same way.


And is good business sense, namely to charge as much as you can get
away with.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Roland Perry wrote:

> 
> Yes, but they are either speculators (so their own lookout, the demise
> is hardly unpredictable) or the original shareholders who have already
> lost 90% of the money, so almost all of the "heaviness" is in the past.


As a matter of interest, the price of Eurotunnel shares was around 20
at one point before going into steady decline; fortunately for them,
some original shareholders got out with a profit (the issue price was
3.50).

-- 
John Ray, London UK.

In message , at 19:23:56 on 
Fri, 5 Aug 2005, John Ray  remarked:

>As a matter of interest, the price of Eurotunnel shares was around 20
>at one point before going into steady decline;


That would have been a good time to sell, for sure.


>fortunately for them, some original shareholders got out with a profit 
>(the issue price was 3.50).


-- 
Roland Perry

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:13:03 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:42:59 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>What usually happens in Britain is that one company 'sets the price
>>level' and the others follow, without contact, so it's not technically
>>a cartel but in reality, works the same way.
>
>And is good business sense, namely to charge as much as you can get
>away with.


Such practices work only for business interests, not the consumer.

I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.

The pricing racket on white goods and domestic appliances in the UK 
is one of the worst examples.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:13:03 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:42:59 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>What usually happens in Britain is that one company 'sets the price
>>level' and the others follow, without contact, so it's not technically
>>a cartel but in reality, works the same way.
>
>And is good business sense, namely to charge as much as you can get
>away with.


Such practices work only for business interests, not the consumer.

I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.

The pricing racket on white goods and domestic appliances in the UK 
is one of the worst examples.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>>And is good business sense, namely to charge as much as you can get
>>away with.
>
>Such practices work only for business interests, not the consumer.


Which is "good business sense" if that makes the most profit.

The consumer may not like it, but the only purpose of business is to
make the maximum feasible profit, and as such the only action that
makes sense is the one that will maximise said profit, whether to the
benefit of the customer or not.

Sad, but true.


>I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
>a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
>or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
>supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.
>
>The pricing racket on white goods and domestic appliances in the UK 
>is one of the worst examples.


In part thanks to organisations like Tesco, domestic appliances have
never been so cheap.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:39:28 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>>And is good business sense, namely to charge as much as you can get
>>>away with.
>>
>>Such practices work only for business interests, not the consumer.
>
>Which is "good business sense" if that makes the most profit.
>
>The consumer may not like it, but the only purpose of business is to
>make the maximum feasible profit, and as such the only action that
>makes sense is the one that will maximise said profit, whether to the
>benefit of the customer or not.


If there were no consumers, we wouldn't need businesses.
So I could say that the purpose of business is to provide people with
the goods/services they need/want and those who participate in the
risk should be well rewarded ...provided they play the game fairly.


>Sad, but true.
>
>>I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
>>a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
>>or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
>>supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.
>>
>>The pricing racket on white goods and domestic appliances in the UK 
>>is one of the worst examples.
>
>In part thanks to organisations like Tesco, domestic appliances have
>never been so cheap.


The products which the likes of Tesco sell are generally low-end
brands at low prices where the manufacturers are less fussy about
underselling. But try to buy a Bosch washing machine at Tesco ...or
any high-quality brand of domestic appliance and you are into the
unofficial cartel game. These companies will not supply the likes of
Tesco for fear of degrading their brand name and therefore their
prices. They only supply to retailers who agree not to undersell,
hence the closeness of prices between shops. It's a racket.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>>And is good business sense, namely to charge as much as you can get
>>away with.
>
>Such practices work only for business interests, not the consumer.


Which is "good business sense" if that makes the most profit.

The consumer may not like it, but the only purpose of business is to
make the maximum feasible profit, and as such the only action that
makes sense is the one that will maximise said profit, whether to the
benefit of the customer or not.

Sad, but true.


>I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
>a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
>or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
>supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.
>
>The pricing racket on white goods and domestic appliances in the UK 
>is one of the worst examples.


In part thanks to organisations like Tesco, domestic appliances have
never been so cheap.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 20:39:28 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>>And is good business sense, namely to charge as much as you can get
>>>away with.
>>
>>Such practices work only for business interests, not the consumer.
>
>Which is "good business sense" if that makes the most profit.
>
>The consumer may not like it, but the only purpose of business is to
>make the maximum feasible profit, and as such the only action that
>makes sense is the one that will maximise said profit, whether to the
>benefit of the customer or not.


If there were no consumers, we wouldn't need businesses.
So I could say that the purpose of business is to provide people with
the goods/services they need/want and those who participate in the
risk should be well rewarded ...provided they play the game fairly.


>Sad, but true.
>
>>I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
>>a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
>>or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
>>supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.
>>
>>The pricing racket on white goods and domestic appliances in the UK 
>>is one of the worst examples.
>
>In part thanks to organisations like Tesco, domestic appliances have
>never been so cheap.


The products which the likes of Tesco sell are generally low-end
brands at low prices where the manufacturers are less fussy about
underselling. But try to buy a Bosch washing machine at Tesco ...or
any high-quality brand of domestic appliance and you are into the
unofficial cartel game. These companies will not supply the likes of
Tesco for fear of degrading their brand name and therefore their
prices. They only supply to retailers who agree not to undersell,
hence the closeness of prices between shops. It's a racket.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

hummingbird  wrote:


>I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
>a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
>or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
>supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.



Capitalism is supposed to provide profit.  Full stop.

John Ray  wrote:


>Roland Perry wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, but they are either speculators (so their own lookout, the demise
>> is hardly unpredictable) or the original shareholders who have already
>> lost 90% of the money, so almost all of the "heaviness" is in the past.
>
>As a matter of interest, the price of Eurotunnel shares was around 20
>at one point before going into steady decline; fortunately for them,
>some original shareholders got out with a profit (the issue price was
>3.50).



Most of the UK-based shareholders escaped with a profit.  There are
very few UK shareholders now.  The shares that aren't already in the
hands of the banks are held mainly by French investors.

hummingbird  wrote:


>I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
>a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
>or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
>supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.



Capitalism is supposed to provide profit.  Full stop.

John Ray  wrote:


>Roland Perry wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, but they are either speculators (so their own lookout, the demise
>> is hardly unpredictable) or the original shareholders who have already
>> lost 90% of the money, so almost all of the "heaviness" is in the past.
>
>As a matter of interest, the price of Eurotunnel shares was around 20
>at one point before going into steady decline; fortunately for them,
>some original shareholders got out with a profit (the issue price was
>3.50).



Most of the UK-based shareholders escaped with a profit.  There are
very few UK shareholders now.  The shares that aren't already in the
hands of the banks are held mainly by French investors.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:17:12 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>If there were no consumers, we wouldn't need businesses.

True.

>So I could say that the purpose of business is to provide people with
>the goods/services they need/want and those who participate in the
>risk should be well rewarded 

And that.

>...provided they play the game fairly.


Not that, sadly.  Those who are rewarded are those whose strategies
make them the most money.  In some circumstances this may be through
good customer service, but if you are in a monopoly position it is
unlikely to be so.


>The products which the likes of Tesco sell are generally low-end
>brands at low prices where the manufacturers are less fussy about
>underselling. But try to buy a Bosch washing machine at Tesco ...or
>any high-quality brand of domestic appliance and you are into the
>unofficial cartel game. These companies will not supply the likes of
>Tesco for fear of degrading their brand name and therefore their
>prices. They only supply to retailers who agree not to undersell,
>hence the closeness of prices between shops. It's a racket.


I don't have the money to be buying that level of quality, so sadly
Tesco is more of my experience...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:42f3cdce.9672418@news.tesco.net...

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
>  wrote:
>
> >>And is good business sense, namely to charge as much as you can get
> >>away with.
> >
> >Such practices work only for business interests, not the consumer.
>
> Which is "good business sense" if that makes the most profit.
>
> The consumer may not like it, but the only purpose of business is to
> make the maximum feasible profit, and as such the only action that
> makes sense is the one that will maximise said profit, whether to the
> benefit of the customer or not.


The first rule of business is to survive. Profit (should that be desired) is
a secondary concern.


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:17:12 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>If there were no consumers, we wouldn't need businesses.

True.

>So I could say that the purpose of business is to provide people with
>the goods/services they need/want and those who participate in the
>risk should be well rewarded 

And that.

>...provided they play the game fairly.


Not that, sadly.  Those who are rewarded are those whose strategies
make them the most money.  In some circumstances this may be through
good customer service, but if you are in a monopoly position it is
unlikely to be so.


>The products which the likes of Tesco sell are generally low-end
>brands at low prices where the manufacturers are less fussy about
>underselling. But try to buy a Bosch washing machine at Tesco ...or
>any high-quality brand of domestic appliance and you are into the
>unofficial cartel game. These companies will not supply the likes of
>Tesco for fear of degrading their brand name and therefore their
>prices. They only supply to retailers who agree not to undersell,
>hence the closeness of prices between shops. It's a racket.


I don't have the money to be buying that level of quality, so sadly
Tesco is more of my experience...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:42f3cdce.9672418@news.tesco.net...

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
>  wrote:
>
> >>And is good business sense, namely to charge as much as you can get
> >>away with.
> >
> >Such practices work only for business interests, not the consumer.
>
> Which is "good business sense" if that makes the most profit.
>
> The consumer may not like it, but the only purpose of business is to
> make the maximum feasible profit, and as such the only action that
> makes sense is the one that will maximise said profit, whether to the
> benefit of the customer or not.


The first rule of business is to survive. Profit (should that be desired) is
a secondary concern.


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:51:48 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:17:12 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>If there were no consumers, we wouldn't need businesses.
>
>True.
>
>>So I could say that the purpose of business is to provide people with
>>the goods/services they need/want and those who participate in the
>>risk should be well rewarded 
>
>And that.
>
>>...provided they play the game fairly.
>
>Not that, sadly.  Those who are rewarded are those whose strategies
>make them the most money.  In some circumstances this may be through
>good customer service,


Very rarely nowadays. Customer service telnums increasingly 0870?
or mechanised bimbos repeating some long mantra or other -or- both?

Customer service is often the last thing on the mind of many
businesses. Why? Because it's a pure cost on the bottom line and 
they give little thought to it.


>but if you are in a monopoly position it is unlikely to be so.


Indeed ...you thus confirm my underlying point that business *should*
be there to meet customer needs, not to rip us off or manipulate the
market place or consolidate to the point of no competition.


>>The products which the likes of Tesco sell are generally low-end
>>brands at low prices where the manufacturers are less fussy about
>>underselling. But try to buy a Bosch washing machine at Tesco ...or
>>any high-quality brand of domestic appliance and you are into the
>>unofficial cartel game. These companies will not supply the likes of
>>Tesco for fear of degrading their brand name and therefore their
>>prices. They only supply to retailers who agree not to undersell,
>>hence the closeness of prices between shops. It's a racket.
>
>I don't have the money to be buying that level of quality, so sadly
>Tesco is more of my experience...


What can I say ;-)

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 23:05:28 +0100, "Ronnie Clark"

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
>news:42f3cdce.9672418@news.tesco.net...
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >>And is good business sense, namely to charge as much as you can get
>> >>away with.
>> >
>> >Such practices work only for business interests, not the consumer.
>>
>> Which is "good business sense" if that makes the most profit.
>>
>> The consumer may not like it, but the only purpose of business is to
>> make the maximum feasible profit, and as such the only action that
>> makes sense is the one that will maximise said profit, whether to the
>> benefit of the customer or not.
>
>The first rule of business is to survive. Profit (should that be desired) is
>a secondary concern.


The first rule of business should be:  "always be in competition 
with yourself, because otherwise somebody else soon will be".

Sadly, few businessmen understand this.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:32:14 +0100, Tony Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>
>>I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
>>a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
>>or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
>>supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.
>
>
>Capitalism is supposed to provide profit.  Full stop.


New sentence: amongst other things.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:51:48 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:17:12 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>If there were no consumers, we wouldn't need businesses.
>
>True.
>
>>So I could say that the purpose of business is to provide people with
>>the goods/services they need/want and those who participate in the
>>risk should be well rewarded 
>
>And that.
>
>>...provided they play the game fairly.
>
>Not that, sadly.  Those who are rewarded are those whose strategies
>make them the most money.  In some circumstances this may be through
>good customer service,


Very rarely nowadays. Customer service telnums increasingly 0870?
or mechanised bimbos repeating some long mantra or other -or- both?

Customer service is often the last thing on the mind of many
businesses. Why? Because it's a pure cost on the bottom line and 
they give little thought to it.


>but if you are in a monopoly position it is unlikely to be so.


Indeed ...you thus confirm my underlying point that business *should*
be there to meet customer needs, not to rip us off or manipulate the
market place or consolidate to the point of no competition.


>>The products which the likes of Tesco sell are generally low-end
>>brands at low prices where the manufacturers are less fussy about
>>underselling. But try to buy a Bosch washing machine at Tesco ...or
>>any high-quality brand of domestic appliance and you are into the
>>unofficial cartel game. These companies will not supply the likes of
>>Tesco for fear of degrading their brand name and therefore their
>>prices. They only supply to retailers who agree not to undersell,
>>hence the closeness of prices between shops. It's a racket.
>
>I don't have the money to be buying that level of quality, so sadly
>Tesco is more of my experience...


What can I say ;-)

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 23:05:28 +0100, "Ronnie Clark"

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
>news:42f3cdce.9672418@news.tesco.net...
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >>And is good business sense, namely to charge as much as you can get
>> >>away with.
>> >
>> >Such practices work only for business interests, not the consumer.
>>
>> Which is "good business sense" if that makes the most profit.
>>
>> The consumer may not like it, but the only purpose of business is to
>> make the maximum feasible profit, and as such the only action that
>> makes sense is the one that will maximise said profit, whether to the
>> benefit of the customer or not.
>
>The first rule of business is to survive. Profit (should that be desired) is
>a secondary concern.


The first rule of business should be:  "always be in competition 
with yourself, because otherwise somebody else soon will be".

Sadly, few businessmen understand this.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:32:14 +0100, Tony Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>
>>I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
>>a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
>>or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
>>supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.
>
>
>Capitalism is supposed to provide profit.  Full stop.


New sentence: amongst other things.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:42f3cdce.9672418@news.tesco.net...

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
>  wrote:
>

>>
>>The pricing racket on white goods and domestic appliances in the UK
>>is one of the worst examples.
>
> In part thanks to organisations like Tesco, domestic appliances have
> never been so cheap.


It's got nothing to do with Tesco.  The worldwide prices of
these items has halved in 10 years.  I don't see Tesco selling
white goods in the rest of Europe.

TBH I don't understand this claim of a retailer racket (and this
comment isn't aimed at the poster I accept that it is a common
view).

IME the prices charged by UK retailers for white goods has
been pretty much in line with most European countries over
the last 10 years (within the margin for exchange rates) and
yet at the same time it's been hard to make a profit selling white
goods, if there was a racket it was driven by the manufacturers,
not the retailers.

tim

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:42f3cdce.9672418@news.tesco.net...

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
>  wrote:
>

>>
>>The pricing racket on white goods and domestic appliances in the UK
>>is one of the worst examples.
>
> In part thanks to organisations like Tesco, domestic appliances have
> never been so cheap.


It's got nothing to do with Tesco.  The worldwide prices of
these items has halved in 10 years.  I don't see Tesco selling
white goods in the rest of Europe.

TBH I don't understand this claim of a retailer racket (and this
comment isn't aimed at the poster I accept that it is a common
view).

IME the prices charged by UK retailers for white goods has
been pretty much in line with most European countries over
the last 10 years (within the margin for exchange rates) and
yet at the same time it's been hard to make a profit selling white
goods, if there was a racket it was driven by the manufacturers,
not the retailers.

tim

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 01:13:35 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>Indeed ...you thus confirm my underlying point that business *should*
>be there to meet customer needs, not to rip us off or manipulate the
>market place or consolidate to the point of no competition.


It depends under what approach you operate.

In a centre-left, slightly socialist situation, you would perhaps be
correct.  In pure capitalism, I'd be correct.  Incidentally, my
opinions are not what I prefer, just a statement that that is the aim
of capitalism.


>>I don't have the money to be buying that level of quality, so sadly
>>Tesco is more of my experience...
>
>What can I say ;-)


High-quality appliances would be more expensive anyway, regardless of
*how* much more expensive.  In general, my experiences with cheap-end
household appliances has been fairly good.  Indeed, my first colour TV
(OK, that was a good few years ago now) was the cheapest I could find
and is still going strong.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 08:46:15 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>It's got nothing to do with Tesco.  The worldwide prices of
>these items has halved in 10 years.  I don't see Tesco selling
>white goods in the rest of Europe.


Indeed you don't, mainly because Tesco has not (yet) expanded
significantly outside the UK (give them chance).  But, what you do see
is Wal*Mart and the French hypermarkets selling them.  Those are
"organisations like Tesco", whose aim is to drive prices down and in
that way take business from their competitors.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 01:13:35 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>Indeed ...you thus confirm my underlying point that business *should*
>be there to meet customer needs, not to rip us off or manipulate the
>market place or consolidate to the point of no competition.


It depends under what approach you operate.

In a centre-left, slightly socialist situation, you would perhaps be
correct.  In pure capitalism, I'd be correct.  Incidentally, my
opinions are not what I prefer, just a statement that that is the aim
of capitalism.


>>I don't have the money to be buying that level of quality, so sadly
>>Tesco is more of my experience...
>
>What can I say ;-)


High-quality appliances would be more expensive anyway, regardless of
*how* much more expensive.  In general, my experiences with cheap-end
household appliances has been fairly good.  Indeed, my first colour TV
(OK, that was a good few years ago now) was the cheapest I could find
and is still going strong.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 08:46:15 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>It's got nothing to do with Tesco.  The worldwide prices of
>these items has halved in 10 years.  I don't see Tesco selling
>white goods in the rest of Europe.


Indeed you don't, mainly because Tesco has not (yet) expanded
significantly outside the UK (give them chance).  But, what you do see
is Wal*Mart and the French hypermarkets selling them.  Those are
"organisations like Tesco", whose aim is to drive prices down and in
that way take business from their competitors.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , at 07:26:04 on Sat, 6 Aug 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>>It's got nothing to do with Tesco.  The worldwide prices of
>>these items has halved in 10 years.  I don't see Tesco selling
>>white goods in the rest of Europe.
>
>Indeed you don't, mainly because Tesco has not (yet) expanded
>significantly outside the UK (give them chance).


They have many overseas stores (I used to live next door to the chap 
whose job it was to go round setting them up).

More recently, I was surprised to see Tesco Hypermarkets (including 
white goods!) spread all over Czech Republic and Slovakia. You travel 
all that way, and what do you see on the edge of town...

A quick websearch reveals [1]:

"Tesco's overseas operations now account for 41 per cent of its 
operating space and nearly 20 per cent of its revenue."

Ireland     77
Poland      66
Hungary     53
Czech R.    17
Slovakia    17

& further afield

Japan       78
Thailand    52
South Korea 21
Taiwan       3
Malaysia     3
Turkey       5
China      Unknown size, recent purchase.

To give an idea of the penetration, Slovakia has a population of 
5million, so it's equivalent to having 170 stores in the UK, which is 
roughly three per county (or one in every major town). Compare with 
something like PC World which has 126 stores in the UK, so it's not got 
the dominant position that it has in the UK, but everyone is within 
striking distance of a store.

[1] For some reason this list doesn't include the Tesco in Calais, or 
more understandably the fake Tesco in Tenerife.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 07:26:04 on Sat, 6 Aug 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>>It's got nothing to do with Tesco.  The worldwide prices of
>>these items has halved in 10 years.  I don't see Tesco selling
>>white goods in the rest of Europe.
>
>Indeed you don't, mainly because Tesco has not (yet) expanded
>significantly outside the UK (give them chance).


They have many overseas stores (I used to live next door to the chap 
whose job it was to go round setting them up).

More recently, I was surprised to see Tesco Hypermarkets (including 
white goods!) spread all over Czech Republic and Slovakia. You travel 
all that way, and what do you see on the edge of town...

A quick websearch reveals [1]:

"Tesco's overseas operations now account for 41 per cent of its 
operating space and nearly 20 per cent of its revenue."

Ireland     77
Poland      66
Hungary     53
Czech R.    17
Slovakia    17

& further afield

Japan       78
Thailand    52
South Korea 21
Taiwan       3
Malaysia     3
Turkey       5
China      Unknown size, recent purchase.

To give an idea of the penetration, Slovakia has a population of 
5million, so it's equivalent to having 170 stores in the UK, which is 
roughly three per county (or one in every major town). Compare with 
something like PC World which has 126 stores in the UK, so it's not got 
the dominant position that it has in the UK, but everyone is within 
striking distance of a store.

[1] For some reason this list doesn't include the Tesco in Calais, or 
more understandably the fake Tesco in Tenerife.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:26:04 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 08:46:15 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> wrote:
>
>>It's got nothing to do with Tesco.  The worldwide prices of
>>these items has halved in 10 years.  I don't see Tesco selling
>>white goods in the rest of Europe.
>
>Indeed you don't, mainly because Tesco has not (yet) expanded
>significantly outside the UK (give them chance).


I don't know how significant it is, but in an unscientific survey
Tescos seemed to be all over CZ and HU.

-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

"Clive R Robertson"  wrote

> Drifting more off-topic:
>
> How does the system handle the pantograph at the point where it
> crosses the track supporting the doors? Does the driver/system 
> have to
> lower the pantograph while changing tunnel?


No. From what I remember, the doors meet around where the contact 
wire is, and have a notch cut out of them to cater for the 
position of the wire.
Nev

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:23:44 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 01:13:35 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>Indeed ...you thus confirm my underlying point that business *should*
>>be there to meet customer needs, not to rip us off or manipulate the
>>market place or consolidate to the point of no competition.
>
>It depends under what approach you operate.
>
>In a centre-left, slightly socialist situation, you would perhaps be
>correct.  In pure capitalism, I'd be correct.


Exactly.Whilst I fully accept capitalism (seeing it as the best system
available), I also think that in recent years it has shown signs of
being out of control. I have never seen better controls as socialist,
just plain civilised. They would be anti-gambling not anti-capitalist.

One change I have considered is for tax on capital gains on share
investments to be scaled, so profits made within 12 months are taxed 
at varying rates, sloping off to standard rates after this period. 

Eg, tax on stock capital gains might look like this:
	shares bought/sold within 3 mths = 100%.
	shares bought/sold within 6 mths = 75%.
	shares bought/sold within 9 mths = 50%.
	shares bought/sold within 12 mths = 25%.
After 12 mths, tax as today.
This would deter a lot of short-term speculative and often damaging
investment. The people who would lose out are the speculators and
brokers, not to mention insider traders. Fine.

Stock markets were invented to channel investment into businesses
but have become giant casinos, gambling the savings of ordinary people
often with disastrous consequences. And businesses have become slaves
to the speculators forcing them to operate with short-term horizons
which deters investment.

Further, last time I looked, only about 10-15% of currency exchanges
each day are in support of trade, the rest are pure speculation. This
has been the cause of numerous currency crises over the years and
cannot be good for any nation's economy.


>Incidentally, my
>opinions are not what I prefer, just a statement that that is the aim
>of capitalism.


I had detected that.


>>>I don't have the money to be buying that level of quality, so sadly
>>>Tesco is more of my experience...
>>
>>What can I say ;-)
>
>High-quality appliances would be more expensive anyway, regardless of
>*how* much more expensive.


True but in a market not run by racketeers, the prices would vary
from shop to shop.


>In general, my experiences with cheap-end
>household appliances has been fairly good.  Indeed, my first colour TV
>(OK, that was a good few years ago now) was the cheapest I could find
>and is still going strong.


Sure, there are many low-end priced goods perfectly adequate. More 
expensive brands tend to have a lower failure rate and more features
but not always!  I have a Sony TV which failed within 12 months, so
brand name isn't always the best pointer.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:23:44 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 01:13:35 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>Indeed ...you thus confirm my underlying point that business *should*
>>be there to meet customer needs, not to rip us off or manipulate the
>>market place or consolidate to the point of no competition.
>
>It depends under what approach you operate.
>
>In a centre-left, slightly socialist situation, you would perhaps be
>correct.  In pure capitalism, I'd be correct.


Exactly.Whilst I fully accept capitalism (seeing it as the best system
available), I also think that in recent years it has shown signs of
being out of control. I have never seen better controls as socialist,
just plain civilised. They would be anti-gambling not anti-capitalist.

One change I have considered is for tax on capital gains on share
investments to be scaled, so profits made within 12 months are taxed 
at varying rates, sloping off to standard rates after this period. 

Eg, tax on stock capital gains might look like this:
	shares bought/sold within 3 mths = 100%.
	shares bought/sold within 6 mths = 75%.
	shares bought/sold within 9 mths = 50%.
	shares bought/sold within 12 mths = 25%.
After 12 mths, tax as today.
This would deter a lot of short-term speculative and often damaging
investment. The people who would lose out are the speculators and
brokers, not to mention insider traders. Fine.

Stock markets were invented to channel investment into businesses
but have become giant casinos, gambling the savings of ordinary people
often with disastrous consequences. And businesses have become slaves
to the speculators forcing them to operate with short-term horizons
which deters investment.

Further, last time I looked, only about 10-15% of currency exchanges
each day are in support of trade, the rest are pure speculation. This
has been the cause of numerous currency crises over the years and
cannot be good for any nation's economy.


>Incidentally, my
>opinions are not what I prefer, just a statement that that is the aim
>of capitalism.


I had detected that.


>>>I don't have the money to be buying that level of quality, so sadly
>>>Tesco is more of my experience...
>>
>>What can I say ;-)
>
>High-quality appliances would be more expensive anyway, regardless of
>*how* much more expensive.


True but in a market not run by racketeers, the prices would vary
from shop to shop.


>In general, my experiences with cheap-end
>household appliances has been fairly good.  Indeed, my first colour TV
>(OK, that was a good few years ago now) was the cheapest I could find
>and is still going strong.


Sure, there are many low-end priced goods perfectly adequate. More 
expensive brands tend to have a lower failure rate and more features
but not always!  I have a Sony TV which failed within 12 months, so
brand name isn't always the best pointer.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On 5/8/05 22:17, "hummingbird"  wrote:

> 
> The products which the likes of Tesco sell are generally low-end
> brands at low prices where the manufacturers are less fussy about
> underselling. But try to buy a Bosch washing machine at Tesco ...or
> any high-quality brand of domestic appliance and you are into the
> unofficial cartel game. These companies will not supply the likes of
> Tesco for fear of degrading their brand name and therefore their
> prices. They only supply to retailers who agree not to undersell,
> hence the closeness of prices between shops. It's a racket.


Some years ago, Tesco were injuncted by Levi Strauss to make them stop
selling Levi's at discount prices. The justification for this was that it
would devalue the brand or some such...

On 5/8/05 22:17, "hummingbird"  wrote:

> 
> The products which the likes of Tesco sell are generally low-end
> brands at low prices where the manufacturers are less fussy about
> underselling. But try to buy a Bosch washing machine at Tesco ...or
> any high-quality brand of domestic appliance and you are into the
> unofficial cartel game. These companies will not supply the likes of
> Tesco for fear of degrading their brand name and therefore their
> prices. They only supply to retailers who agree not to undersell,
> hence the closeness of prices between shops. It's a racket.


Some years ago, Tesco were injuncted by Levi Strauss to make them stop
selling Levi's at discount prices. The justification for this was that it
would devalue the brand or some such...

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:50:51 +0100, Stimpy 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On 5/8/05 22:17, "hummingbird"  wrote:
>> 
>> The products which the likes of Tesco sell are generally low-end
>> brands at low prices where the manufacturers are less fussy about
>> underselling. But try to buy a Bosch washing machine at Tesco ...or
>> any high-quality brand of domestic appliance and you are into the
>> unofficial cartel game. These companies will not supply the likes of
>> Tesco for fear of degrading their brand name and therefore their
>> prices. They only supply to retailers who agree not to undersell,
>> hence the closeness of prices between shops. It's a racket.
>
>Some years ago, Tesco were injuncted by Levi Strauss to make them stop
>selling Levi's at discount prices. The justification for this was that it
>would devalue the brand or some such...


Indeed. Levi is one company I had in mind who practice this sort 
of racketeering. There are many others in the clothes/domestic
appliance/electrical goods business. Many top brand names will only
supply their goods to retailers who agree to abide by the racketeering
RRP system. Even John Lewis cannot sell at much below these fixed
prices for fear of having their supply cut-off.

It gets worse; if a retailer buys a supply of product from a source,
other than the official channel and then sells below RRP, the brand
name company will track down who the grey supplier is and cut off 
his supply!

And it gets worse; many companies like Sony make a range of, say,
small portable radios but the Sony UK company will only import a
limited range of those radios, typically the most expensive models.
This means that the choice we have in the UK is limited. If you 
want a different model from the range you have to buy it abroad
and then you are punished by invalidating your guarantee.

Sometimes the UK supplier of a range of products is not even a wholly
owned subsidiary of the manufacture (like the Sony example) but is an
importer or franchise outfit. This makes the problem of limited choice
and high prices even worse since these people are often agents for
other products and don't have the funding to import the full range.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 08:46:15 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
>news:42f3cdce.9672418@news.tesco.net...

>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
>>  wrote:

>>>The pricing racket on white goods and domestic appliances in the UK
>>>is one of the worst examples.
>>
>> In part thanks to organisations like Tesco, domestic appliances have
>> never been so cheap.
>
>It's got nothing to do with Tesco.  The worldwide prices of
>these items has halved in 10 years.  I don't see Tesco selling
>white goods in the rest of Europe.
>
>TBH I don't understand this claim of a retailer racket (and this
>comment isn't aimed at the poster I accept that it is a common
>view).
>
>IME the prices charged by UK retailers for white goods has
>been pretty much in line with most European countries over
>the last 10 years (within the margin for exchange rates) and
>yet at the same time it's been hard to make a profit selling white
>goods, if there was a racket it was driven by the manufacturers,
>not the retailers.


The racket is driven by the manufacturers and the way their goods 
are marketed in the UK.

I bought a stainless steel bathroom cabinet and microwave oven in
Spain several years ago. Back in the UK neither of these models were
available until the following year. When I eventually saw them here
the price differences were: bathroom cabinet: Spain 68, UK 173,
microwave: Spain 55, UK 99. In both cases the products were
identical models/specification. Same thing applies to endless other
products.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:50:51 +0100, Stimpy 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On 5/8/05 22:17, "hummingbird"  wrote:
>> 
>> The products which the likes of Tesco sell are generally low-end
>> brands at low prices where the manufacturers are less fussy about
>> underselling. But try to buy a Bosch washing machine at Tesco ...or
>> any high-quality brand of domestic appliance and you are into the
>> unofficial cartel game. These companies will not supply the likes of
>> Tesco for fear of degrading their brand name and therefore their
>> prices. They only supply to retailers who agree not to undersell,
>> hence the closeness of prices between shops. It's a racket.
>
>Some years ago, Tesco were injuncted by Levi Strauss to make them stop
>selling Levi's at discount prices. The justification for this was that it
>would devalue the brand or some such...


Indeed. Levi is one company I had in mind who practice this sort 
of racketeering. There are many others in the clothes/domestic
appliance/electrical goods business. Many top brand names will only
supply their goods to retailers who agree to abide by the racketeering
RRP system. Even John Lewis cannot sell at much below these fixed
prices for fear of having their supply cut-off.

It gets worse; if a retailer buys a supply of product from a source,
other than the official channel and then sells below RRP, the brand
name company will track down who the grey supplier is and cut off 
his supply!

And it gets worse; many companies like Sony make a range of, say,
small portable radios but the Sony UK company will only import a
limited range of those radios, typically the most expensive models.
This means that the choice we have in the UK is limited. If you 
want a different model from the range you have to buy it abroad
and then you are punished by invalidating your guarantee.

Sometimes the UK supplier of a range of products is not even a wholly
owned subsidiary of the manufacture (like the Sony example) but is an
importer or franchise outfit. This makes the problem of limited choice
and high prices even worse since these people are often agents for
other products and don't have the funding to import the full range.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 08:46:15 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
>news:42f3cdce.9672418@news.tesco.net...

>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
>>  wrote:

>>>The pricing racket on white goods and domestic appliances in the UK
>>>is one of the worst examples.
>>
>> In part thanks to organisations like Tesco, domestic appliances have
>> never been so cheap.
>
>It's got nothing to do with Tesco.  The worldwide prices of
>these items has halved in 10 years.  I don't see Tesco selling
>white goods in the rest of Europe.
>
>TBH I don't understand this claim of a retailer racket (and this
>comment isn't aimed at the poster I accept that it is a common
>view).
>
>IME the prices charged by UK retailers for white goods has
>been pretty much in line with most European countries over
>the last 10 years (within the margin for exchange rates) and
>yet at the same time it's been hard to make a profit selling white
>goods, if there was a racket it was driven by the manufacturers,
>not the retailers.


The racket is driven by the manufacturers and the way their goods 
are marketed in the UK.

I bought a stainless steel bathroom cabinet and microwave oven in
Spain several years ago. Back in the UK neither of these models were
available until the following year. When I eventually saw them here
the price differences were: bathroom cabinet: Spain 68, UK 173,
microwave: Spain 55, UK 99. In both cases the products were
identical models/specification. Same thing applies to endless other
products.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:36:39 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>Many top brand names will only
>supply their goods to retailers who agree to abide by the racketeering
>RRP system.


That is illegal in the US. It has been that way for a long time.

When I was a kid prices were protected and there was not the variety
we enjoy today. So we either paid up or didn't get the item. But the
govt declared that to be illegal - one of the very few things the govt
ever did to help the consumer. I am sure whoever was responsible for
that was punished by the special interests.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:44:35 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>The racket is driven by the manufacturers and the way their goods 
>are marketed in the UK.

>I bought a stainless steel bathroom cabinet and microwave oven in
>Spain several years ago. Back in the UK neither of these models were
>available until the following year. When I eventually saw them here
>the price differences were: bathroom cabinet: Spain 68, UK 173,
>microwave: Spain 55, UK 99. In both cases the products were
>identical models/specification. Same thing applies to endless other
>products.


Not only do you have to live in a totalitarian dictatorship, it costs
you an arm and a leg compared to the capitalist world.

Now you know why the Eastern European countries chose capitalism after
breaking free from the Soviets. They knew that only the capitalist
system would provide them with the wealth of affordable consumer goods
and services they saw on TV and revolted for.

I can drive down the street - almost walk it if I wanted - to a
WalMart and get just about anything in the consumer area for a price
that is consistently lower than most other stores. If I don't want to
keep the item, I return it within 90 days (some restrictions apply to
electronics and other time-sensitive items) and get a complete refund,
no questions asked other than if the unit is defective. If I tell them
it is not defective but I still do not want it, that's the last I hear
about it.

It is widely known by Americans and Brits alike that goods cost Brits
the same in Pounds as it costs Americans in Dollars - even if the
exchange rate is 1,85. Talk about getting Fucked with a capital 'F'.

No wonder Britain can (barely) afford to pay 25% of its work force to
be idle and another 25% to be govt employees (almost idle). That's
half the workforce paying for the other half to fuck off.

Helluva deal, but you can have it.

-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:36:39 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>Many top brand names will only
>supply their goods to retailers who agree to abide by the racketeering
>RRP system.


That is illegal in the US. It has been that way for a long time.

When I was a kid prices were protected and there was not the variety
we enjoy today. So we either paid up or didn't get the item. But the
govt declared that to be illegal - one of the very few things the govt
ever did to help the consumer. I am sure whoever was responsible for
that was punished by the special interests.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:44:35 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>The racket is driven by the manufacturers and the way their goods 
>are marketed in the UK.

>I bought a stainless steel bathroom cabinet and microwave oven in
>Spain several years ago. Back in the UK neither of these models were
>available until the following year. When I eventually saw them here
>the price differences were: bathroom cabinet: Spain 68, UK 173,
>microwave: Spain 55, UK 99. In both cases the products were
>identical models/specification. Same thing applies to endless other
>products.


Not only do you have to live in a totalitarian dictatorship, it costs
you an arm and a leg compared to the capitalist world.

Now you know why the Eastern European countries chose capitalism after
breaking free from the Soviets. They knew that only the capitalist
system would provide them with the wealth of affordable consumer goods
and services they saw on TV and revolted for.

I can drive down the street - almost walk it if I wanted - to a
WalMart and get just about anything in the consumer area for a price
that is consistently lower than most other stores. If I don't want to
keep the item, I return it within 90 days (some restrictions apply to
electronics and other time-sensitive items) and get a complete refund,
no questions asked other than if the unit is defective. If I tell them
it is not defective but I still do not want it, that's the last I hear
about it.

It is widely known by Americans and Brits alike that goods cost Brits
the same in Pounds as it costs Americans in Dollars - even if the
exchange rate is 1,85. Talk about getting Fucked with a capital 'F'.

No wonder Britain can (barely) afford to pay 25% of its work force to
be idle and another 25% to be govt employees (almost idle). That's
half the workforce paying for the other half to fuck off.

Helluva deal, but you can have it.

-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 11:23:49 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:26:04 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
> Williams) wrote:
> >On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 08:46:15 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>It's got nothing to do with Tesco.  The worldwide prices of
> >>these items has halved in 10 years.  I don't see Tesco selling
> >>white goods in the rest of Europe.
> >
> >Indeed you don't, mainly because Tesco has not (yet) expanded
> >significantly outside the UK (give them chance).
> 
> I don't know how significant it is, but in an unscientific survey
> Tescos seemed to be all over CZ and HU.


They also have a significant presence in Poland, and by other names in
South Korea and Japan.

Their website is very quiet about their non-UK business, but you can
download their annual report (it's in there somewhere!) and that gives
quite a bit of detail.


Apropos of nothing much: Czech Tesco's stock cheese & onion crisps,
which are a rarity anywhere on the European mainland. Polish ones
don't. :( 

Ob.railway? Umm.... If you turn right out of Plzen hl.n, go under the
railway bridge and across the traffic island, there's a big Tesco's
store there. And for .uk, there's one right next to Ely station which
has a caf, which comes in useful if you're connecting there and the
buffet is closed.
-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:23:51 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:36:39 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>Many top brand names will only
>>supply their goods to retailers who agree to abide by the racketeering
>>RRP system.
>
>That is illegal in the US. It has been that way for a long time.


'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
ago. But it still goes on through the back door but it's now known 
as 'Recommended Retail Price' and is described as the 'suggested
selling price', but amounts to a price fixing racket.
Manufacturers argue that retailers need a guide price so that they
know what to charge but when a retailer tries to sell for lower 
....he gets no supply and is forced to bring his prices back into line.
In most cases he won't bother to lower his prices if he already 
knows other retailers are obliged to charge the same.

It's a very clever racket in full operation in Britain which gets
round the RPM laws.


>When I was a kid prices were protected and there was not the variety
>we enjoy today. So we either paid up or didn't get the item. But the
>govt declared that to be illegal - one of the very few things the govt
>ever did to help the consumer. I am sure whoever was responsible for
>that was punished by the special interests.


I'm sure that no British govt has any desire to create new laws for
the very same reason. They won't even acknowledge what's going on.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:31:02 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:44:35 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>The racket is driven by the manufacturers and the way their goods 
>>are marketed in the UK.
>
>>I bought a stainless steel bathroom cabinet and microwave oven in
>>Spain several years ago. Back in the UK neither of these models were
>>available until the following year. When I eventually saw them here
>>the price differences were: bathroom cabinet: Spain 68, UK 173,
>>microwave: Spain 55, UK 99. In both cases the products were
>>identical models/specification. Same thing applies to endless other
>>products.
>

>Not only do you have to live in a totalitarian dictatorship, it costs
>you an arm and a leg compared to the capitalist world.


Tell me about it. Most people in Britain deny facing reality that 
we live in a captive rigged market. It has always been thus. The
manufacturers and retailers know that if we don't like their prices,
we have to get on a plane or boat and go elsewhere and this makes 
it uneconomical because we then get ripped off by the Tunnel or 
Ferry operators!


>Now you know why the Eastern European countries chose capitalism after
>breaking free from the Soviets. They knew that only the capitalist
>system would provide them with the wealth of affordable consumer goods
>and services they saw on TV and revolted for.
>
>I can drive down the street - almost walk it if I wanted - to a
>WalMart and get just about anything in the consumer area for a price
>that is consistently lower than most other stores. If I don't want to
>keep the item, I return it within 90 days (some restrictions apply to
>electronics and other time-sensitive items) and get a complete refund,
>no questions asked other than if the unit is defective. If I tell them
>it is not defective but I still do not want it, that's the last I hear
>about it.


We can usually do that in several major dept stores ...John Lewis 
and Selfridges come to mind. Small outfits are less co-operative.


>It is widely known by Americans and Brits alike that goods cost Brits
>the same in Pounds as it costs Americans in Dollars - even if the
>exchange rate is 1,85. Talk about getting Fucked with a capital 'F'.


Indeed. The EU even tried to investigate the rigged price of CDs in
Europe but never really got to the bottom of it. Result: people d/l
music from the Internet and - lo - the price of CDs has come down!


>No wonder Britain can (barely) afford to pay 25% of its work force to
>be idle and another 25% to be govt employees (almost idle). That's
>half the workforce paying for the other half to fuck off.
>
>Helluva deal, but you can have it.


Ooh thanks a bunch! ;-)

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:23:51 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:36:39 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>Many top brand names will only
>>supply their goods to retailers who agree to abide by the racketeering
>>RRP system.
>
>That is illegal in the US. It has been that way for a long time.


'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
ago. But it still goes on through the back door but it's now known 
as 'Recommended Retail Price' and is described as the 'suggested
selling price', but amounts to a price fixing racket.
Manufacturers argue that retailers need a guide price so that they
know what to charge but when a retailer tries to sell for lower 
....he gets no supply and is forced to bring his prices back into line.
In most cases he won't bother to lower his prices if he already 
knows other retailers are obliged to charge the same.

It's a very clever racket in full operation in Britain which gets
round the RPM laws.


>When I was a kid prices were protected and there was not the variety
>we enjoy today. So we either paid up or didn't get the item. But the
>govt declared that to be illegal - one of the very few things the govt
>ever did to help the consumer. I am sure whoever was responsible for
>that was punished by the special interests.


I'm sure that no British govt has any desire to create new laws for
the very same reason. They won't even acknowledge what's going on.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:31:02 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:44:35 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>The racket is driven by the manufacturers and the way their goods 
>>are marketed in the UK.
>
>>I bought a stainless steel bathroom cabinet and microwave oven in
>>Spain several years ago. Back in the UK neither of these models were
>>available until the following year. When I eventually saw them here
>>the price differences were: bathroom cabinet: Spain 68, UK 173,
>>microwave: Spain 55, UK 99. In both cases the products were
>>identical models/specification. Same thing applies to endless other
>>products.
>

>Not only do you have to live in a totalitarian dictatorship, it costs
>you an arm and a leg compared to the capitalist world.


Tell me about it. Most people in Britain deny facing reality that 
we live in a captive rigged market. It has always been thus. The
manufacturers and retailers know that if we don't like their prices,
we have to get on a plane or boat and go elsewhere and this makes 
it uneconomical because we then get ripped off by the Tunnel or 
Ferry operators!


>Now you know why the Eastern European countries chose capitalism after
>breaking free from the Soviets. They knew that only the capitalist
>system would provide them with the wealth of affordable consumer goods
>and services they saw on TV and revolted for.
>
>I can drive down the street - almost walk it if I wanted - to a
>WalMart and get just about anything in the consumer area for a price
>that is consistently lower than most other stores. If I don't want to
>keep the item, I return it within 90 days (some restrictions apply to
>electronics and other time-sensitive items) and get a complete refund,
>no questions asked other than if the unit is defective. If I tell them
>it is not defective but I still do not want it, that's the last I hear
>about it.


We can usually do that in several major dept stores ...John Lewis 
and Selfridges come to mind. Small outfits are less co-operative.


>It is widely known by Americans and Brits alike that goods cost Brits
>the same in Pounds as it costs Americans in Dollars - even if the
>exchange rate is 1,85. Talk about getting Fucked with a capital 'F'.


Indeed. The EU even tried to investigate the rigged price of CDs in
Europe but never really got to the bottom of it. Result: people d/l
music from the Internet and - lo - the price of CDs has come down!


>No wonder Britain can (barely) afford to pay 25% of its work force to
>be idle and another 25% to be govt employees (almost idle). That's
>half the workforce paying for the other half to fuck off.
>
>Helluva deal, but you can have it.


Ooh thanks a bunch! ;-)

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

hummingbird  wrote:


>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:32:14 +0100, Tony Polson 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird  wrote:
>>
>>>I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
>>>a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
>>>or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
>>>supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.
>>
>>
>>Capitalism is supposed to provide profit.  Full stop.
>
>New sentence: amongst other things.



No, there are no other things.  You invest capital, you buy in, make
or provide goods and/or services and you sell them at a profit.

So the principle is (1) invest capital, (2) make profit.  There is no
more to it than that.  Full Stop.  (again!)

;-)

hummingbird  wrote:

>
>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>ago. 



I think you mean "Resale Price Maintenance".  

It is a highly dubious practice that is by no means limited to the
retail end of the chain, nor only to the sale of goods.

hummingbird  wrote:


>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:32:14 +0100, Tony Polson 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird  wrote:
>>
>>>I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
>>>a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
>>>or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
>>>supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.
>>
>>
>>Capitalism is supposed to provide profit.  Full stop.
>
>New sentence: amongst other things.



No, there are no other things.  You invest capital, you buy in, make
or provide goods and/or services and you sell them at a profit.

So the principle is (1) invest capital, (2) make profit.  There is no
more to it than that.  Full Stop.  (again!)

;-)

hummingbird  wrote:

>
>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>ago. 



I think you mean "Resale Price Maintenance".  

It is a highly dubious practice that is by no means limited to the
retail end of the chain, nor only to the sale of goods.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:37:28 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>>That is illegal in the US. It has been that way for a long time.

>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>ago. But it still goes on through the back door but it's now known 
>as 'Recommended Retail Price' and is described as the 'suggested
>selling price', but amounts to a price fixing racket.


I meant to say that all price fixing for consumer goods and services
is illegal in the US, by whatever name you call it.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:37:28 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>>That is illegal in the US. It has been that way for a long time.

>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>ago. But it still goes on through the back door but it's now known 
>as 'Recommended Retail Price' and is described as the 'suggested
>selling price', but amounts to a price fixing racket.


I meant to say that all price fixing for consumer goods and services
is illegal in the US, by whatever name you call it.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:43:42 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>>
>>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>>ago. 
>
>I think you mean "Resale Price Maintenance".  


No, I meant Retail Price Maintenance where manufacturers fixed the
price of goods and shops sold them for that price. I'm going back a
few years but it was made illegal with the idea of introducing more
price competition.


>It is a highly dubious practice that is by no means limited to the
>retail end of the chain, nor only to the sale of goods.


-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:43:42 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>>
>>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>>ago. 
>
>I think you mean "Resale Price Maintenance".  


No, I meant Retail Price Maintenance where manufacturers fixed the
price of goods and shops sold them for that price. I'm going back a
few years but it was made illegal with the idea of introducing more
price competition.


>It is a highly dubious practice that is by no means limited to the
>retail end of the chain, nor only to the sale of goods.


-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:03:41 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:37:28 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>>That is illegal in the US. It has been that way for a long time.
>
>>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>>ago. But it still goes on through the back door but it's now known 
>>as 'Recommended Retail Price' and is described as the 'suggested
>>selling price', but amounts to a price fixing racket.
>
>I meant to say that all price fixing for consumer goods and services
>is illegal in the US, by whatever name you call it.


I know what you meant and our law intended that too. It's just that
over here, manufacturers found ways to circumvent the law in the way 
I described. I guess that would still be illegal on your farm although
I bet it still happens in the quiet backrooms.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:22:06 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:

>>>>I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
>>>>a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
>>>>or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
>>>>supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Capitalism is supposed to provide profit.  Full stop.
>>
>>New sentence: amongst other things.
>
>No, there are no other things.  You invest capital, you buy in, make
>or provide goods and/or services and you sell them at a profit.
>
>So the principle is (1) invest capital, (2) make profit.  There is no
>more to it than that.  Full Stop.  (again!)
>
>;-)


I know how capitalism works but without certain other ingredients
it doesn't work very well. Providing customers with perceived value
for money and customer service are two examples.

There are three major players in the game: investors, workforce and
customers. Your narrow description is sadly rather typical of many
British people in business. Anybody in business who thinks thus isn't
usually in business for very long or is not very successful.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

"hummingbird"  wrote in message 
news:fsjaf1dqkqm5meeedp72blcgo8hqu7dvpd@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:43:42 +0100, Tony  Polson 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird  wrote:
>>>
>>>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>>>ago.
>>
>>I think you mean "Resale Price Maintenance".
>
> No, I meant Retail Price Maintenance where manufacturers fixed the
> price of goods and shops sold them for that price. I'm going back a
> few years but it was made illegal with the idea of introducing more
> price competition.
>
>>It is a highly dubious practice that is by no means limited to the
>>retail end of the chain, nor only to the sale of goods.
>


It was after that the RRP or Recommended Retail Price came about.

KW

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:03:41 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:37:28 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>>That is illegal in the US. It has been that way for a long time.
>
>>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>>ago. But it still goes on through the back door but it's now known 
>>as 'Recommended Retail Price' and is described as the 'suggested
>>selling price', but amounts to a price fixing racket.
>
>I meant to say that all price fixing for consumer goods and services
>is illegal in the US, by whatever name you call it.


I know what you meant and our law intended that too. It's just that
over here, manufacturers found ways to circumvent the law in the way 
I described. I guess that would still be illegal on your farm although
I bet it still happens in the quiet backrooms.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:22:06 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:

>>>>I know the line about the consumer has the choice but that gets 
>>>>a bit shaky when there is only one supplier/producer of a product
>>>>or when a product price is identical in every shop. Capitalism is
>>>>supposed to provide choice and competition but often doesn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Capitalism is supposed to provide profit.  Full stop.
>>
>>New sentence: amongst other things.
>
>No, there are no other things.  You invest capital, you buy in, make
>or provide goods and/or services and you sell them at a profit.
>
>So the principle is (1) invest capital, (2) make profit.  There is no
>more to it than that.  Full Stop.  (again!)
>
>;-)


I know how capitalism works but without certain other ingredients
it doesn't work very well. Providing customers with perceived value
for money and customer service are two examples.

There are three major players in the game: investors, workforce and
customers. Your narrow description is sadly rather typical of many
British people in business. Anybody in business who thinks thus isn't
usually in business for very long or is not very successful.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

"hummingbird"  wrote in message 
news:fsjaf1dqkqm5meeedp72blcgo8hqu7dvpd@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:43:42 +0100, Tony  Polson 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird  wrote:
>>>
>>>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>>>ago.
>>
>>I think you mean "Resale Price Maintenance".
>
> No, I meant Retail Price Maintenance where manufacturers fixed the
> price of goods and shops sold them for that price. I'm going back a
> few years but it was made illegal with the idea of introducing more
> price competition.
>
>>It is a highly dubious practice that is by no means limited to the
>>retail end of the chain, nor only to the sale of goods.
>


It was after that the RRP or Recommended Retail Price came about.

KW

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:15:37 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>I know how capitalism works but without certain other ingredients
>it doesn't work very well. Providing customers with perceived value
>for money and customer service are two examples.


If a seller does not provide that, then people buy from someone else.

Are you familiar with the famous Compaq vs. Dell case? Compaq is
Houston-based and Dell is PRA-based. (Actually Michael Dell went to
high school in the same district my kids went to. It's known as the
district of millionaires because so many kids went on to make their
fortune).

Rod Canion who started Compaq insisted on dealer support, which was a
colossal joke. Dell pioneered direct support by telephone and took
over Compaq's retail market. It cost Canion his job as president.


>There are three major players in the game: investors, workforce and
>customers. Your narrow description is sadly rather typical of many
>British people in business.


My description was not narrow. I was not engaged in a lecture.


> Anybody in business who thinks thus isn't
>usually in business for very long or is not very successful.


But it looks like you are lecturing.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:08:21 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>I know what you meant and our law intended that too. It's just that
>over here, manufacturers found ways to circumvent the law in the way 
>I described. I guess that would still be illegal on your farm although
>I bet it still happens in the quiet backrooms.


Our trial lawyers would break that crap up in a heartbeat. A few
7-figures class action lawsuits, and it would all be over for the fat
cats.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:15:37 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>I know how capitalism works but without certain other ingredients
>it doesn't work very well. Providing customers with perceived value
>for money and customer service are two examples.


If a seller does not provide that, then people buy from someone else.

Are you familiar with the famous Compaq vs. Dell case? Compaq is
Houston-based and Dell is PRA-based. (Actually Michael Dell went to
high school in the same district my kids went to. It's known as the
district of millionaires because so many kids went on to make their
fortune).

Rod Canion who started Compaq insisted on dealer support, which was a
colossal joke. Dell pioneered direct support by telephone and took
over Compaq's retail market. It cost Canion his job as president.


>There are three major players in the game: investors, workforce and
>customers. Your narrow description is sadly rather typical of many
>British people in business.


My description was not narrow. I was not engaged in a lecture.


> Anybody in business who thinks thus isn't
>usually in business for very long or is not very successful.


But it looks like you are lecturing.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:08:21 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>I know what you meant and our law intended that too. It's just that
>over here, manufacturers found ways to circumvent the law in the way 
>I described. I guess that would still be illegal on your farm although
>I bet it still happens in the quiet backrooms.


Our trial lawyers would break that crap up in a heartbeat. A few
7-figures class action lawsuits, and it would all be over for the fat
cats.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

"Anubis"  wrote in message 
news:42f589a7.139743281@news-server.houston.rr.com...

> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:08:21 +0100, hummingbird
>  wrote:
>
>>I know what you meant and our law intended that too. It's just that
>>over here, manufacturers found ways to circumvent the law in the way
>>I described. I guess that would still be illegal on your farm although
>>I bet it still happens in the quiet backrooms.
>
> Our trial lawyers would break that crap up in a heartbeat. A few
> 7-figures class action lawsuits, and it would all be over for the fat
> cats.


Class actions don't exist in most European countries.  You
mostly have to pay the legal fees for each claim separately
making a claim for being ripped off by 10 quid uneconomic
to trial.

tim

"Anubis"  wrote in message 
news:42f589a7.139743281@news-server.houston.rr.com...

> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:08:21 +0100, hummingbird
>  wrote:
>
>>I know what you meant and our law intended that too. It's just that
>>over here, manufacturers found ways to circumvent the law in the way
>>I described. I guess that would still be illegal on your farm although
>>I bet it still happens in the quiet backrooms.
>
> Our trial lawyers would break that crap up in a heartbeat. A few
> 7-figures class action lawsuits, and it would all be over for the fat
> cats.


Class actions don't exist in most European countries.  You
mostly have to pay the legal fees for each claim separately
making a claim for being ripped off by 10 quid uneconomic
to trial.

tim

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:48:38 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>Class actions don't exist in most European countries.


How convenient for the crooks who benefit from fleecing consumers.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:48:38 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>Class actions don't exist in most European countries.


How convenient for the crooks who benefit from fleecing consumers.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin

In message , at 08:40:38 
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:

>>Class actions don't exist in most European countries.
>
>How convenient for the crooks who benefit from fleecing consumers.


Consumers are protected by government agencies, which avoids everyone 
getting fleeced by ambulance-chasing lawyers.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 08:40:38 
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:

>>Class actions don't exist in most European countries.
>
>How convenient for the crooks who benefit from fleecing consumers.


Consumers are protected by government agencies, which avoids everyone 
getting fleeced by ambulance-chasing lawyers.
-- 
Roland Perry

hummingbird  writes:


> 'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
> ago. But it still goes on through the back door but it's now known 
> as 'Recommended Retail Price' and is described as the 'suggested
> selling price', but amounts to a price fixing racket.


Sometimes it is even more blatant than that. Yesterday I purchased a
pack of biscuits which has "Trial Price 79p" printed on the packet.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:17:27 GMT, "Ken Ward" 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>
>"hummingbird"  wrote in message 
>news:fsjaf1dqkqm5meeedp72blcgo8hqu7dvpd@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:43:42 +0100, Tony  Polson 
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>hummingbird  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>>>>ago.
>>>
>>>I think you mean "Resale Price Maintenance".
>>
>> No, I meant Retail Price Maintenance where manufacturers fixed the
>> price of goods and shops sold them for that price. I'm going back a
>> few years but it was made illegal with the idea of introducing more
>> price competition.
>>
>>>It is a highly dubious practice that is by no means limited to the
>>>retail end of the chain, nor only to the sale of goods.
>>

>It was after that the RRP or Recommended Retail Price came about.


Indeed ...that's what I pointed out in another post.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

hummingbird  writes:


> 'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
> ago. But it still goes on through the back door but it's now known 
> as 'Recommended Retail Price' and is described as the 'suggested
> selling price', but amounts to a price fixing racket.


Sometimes it is even more blatant than that. Yesterday I purchased a
pack of biscuits which has "Trial Price 79p" printed on the packet.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:17:27 GMT, "Ken Ward" 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>
>"hummingbird"  wrote in message 
>news:fsjaf1dqkqm5meeedp72blcgo8hqu7dvpd@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:43:42 +0100, Tony  Polson 
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>hummingbird  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>>>>ago.
>>>
>>>I think you mean "Resale Price Maintenance".
>>
>> No, I meant Retail Price Maintenance where manufacturers fixed the
>> price of goods and shops sold them for that price. I'm going back a
>> few years but it was made illegal with the idea of introducing more
>> price competition.
>>
>>>It is a highly dubious practice that is by no means limited to the
>>>retail end of the chain, nor only to the sale of goods.
>>

>It was after that the RRP or Recommended Retail Price came about.


Indeed ...that's what I pointed out in another post.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:11:09 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:08:21 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>I know what you meant and our law intended that too. It's just that
>>over here, manufacturers found ways to circumvent the law in the way 
>>I described. I guess that would still be illegal on your farm although
>>I bet it still happens in the quiet backrooms.
>
>Our trial lawyers would break that crap up in a heartbeat. A few
>7-figures class action lawsuits, and it would all be over for the fat
>cats.


And yet M$ have been screwed for price ramping by way of bundling
piles of crappy old s/w (eg IE, OE, WMP etc) with their OpSys and 
for unfair business practices. Recently fined lotsa euros by Brussels.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 08:40:38 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:48:38 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> wrote:
>
>>Class actions don't exist in most European countries.
>
>How convenient for the crooks who benefit from fleecing consumers.


In Britain the laws have been carefully crafted to protect capitalism
from everything but the most blatant rip-offs. To get redress, it
costs large sums of dosh and is unworthwhile. This is no coincidence.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:11:09 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:08:21 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>I know what you meant and our law intended that too. It's just that
>>over here, manufacturers found ways to circumvent the law in the way 
>>I described. I guess that would still be illegal on your farm although
>>I bet it still happens in the quiet backrooms.
>
>Our trial lawyers would break that crap up in a heartbeat. A few
>7-figures class action lawsuits, and it would all be over for the fat
>cats.


And yet M$ have been screwed for price ramping by way of bundling
piles of crappy old s/w (eg IE, OE, WMP etc) with their OpSys and 
for unfair business practices. Recently fined lotsa euros by Brussels.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 08:40:38 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:48:38 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> wrote:
>
>>Class actions don't exist in most European countries.
>
>How convenient for the crooks who benefit from fleecing consumers.


In Britain the laws have been carefully crafted to protect capitalism
from everything but the most blatant rip-offs. To get redress, it
costs large sums of dosh and is unworthwhile. This is no coincidence.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:10:13 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:15:37 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>I know how capitalism works but without certain other ingredients
>>it doesn't work very well. Providing customers with perceived value
>>for money and customer service are two examples.
>
>If a seller does not provide that, then people buy from someone else.


Sometimes. But there are many situations where there is no real
alternative or the others are just as bad. There is a culture of 
"take it or leave it" in British retailing and over many years Brits
have become accustomed to it. Only a few large forward-thinking
retailers understand the importance of customer service, hence the
number of corps now who only have 0870* telnums to contact them.

*these are high-cost call charges where the call revenue is shared 
by the telco and the company. 8p per minute is typical. You find 
yourself connected to a mechanised bimbo voice rattling off press
button options as the call cost mounts... Internet travel agents and
PC dealers are classic examples of this rip-off practice.


>Are you familiar with the famous Compaq vs. Dell case? Compaq is
>Houston-based and Dell is PRA-based. (Actually Michael Dell went to
>high school in the same district my kids went to. It's known as the
>district of millionaires because so many kids went on to make their
>fortune).
>
>Rod Canion who started Compaq insisted on dealer support, which was a
>colossal joke. Dell pioneered direct support by telephone and took
>over Compaq's retail market. It cost Canion his job as president.


Such examples are rare in Britain.


>>There are three major players in the game: investors, workforce and
>>customers. Your narrow description is sadly rather typical of many
>>British people in business.
>
>My description was not narrow. I was not engaged in a lecture.


Except that it wasn't you!


>> Anybody in business who thinks thus isn't
>>usually in business for very long or is not very successful.
>
>But it looks like you are lecturing.


No, just trying to explain to the OP that being in business is about
more than "just making profit". Ignore customers and pay the price.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 04:10:13 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:15:37 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>I know how capitalism works but without certain other ingredients
>>it doesn't work very well. Providing customers with perceived value
>>for money and customer service are two examples.
>
>If a seller does not provide that, then people buy from someone else.


Sometimes. But there are many situations where there is no real
alternative or the others are just as bad. There is a culture of 
"take it or leave it" in British retailing and over many years Brits
have become accustomed to it. Only a few large forward-thinking
retailers understand the importance of customer service, hence the
number of corps now who only have 0870* telnums to contact them.

*these are high-cost call charges where the call revenue is shared 
by the telco and the company. 8p per minute is typical. You find 
yourself connected to a mechanised bimbo voice rattling off press
button options as the call cost mounts... Internet travel agents and
PC dealers are classic examples of this rip-off practice.


>Are you familiar with the famous Compaq vs. Dell case? Compaq is
>Houston-based and Dell is PRA-based. (Actually Michael Dell went to
>high school in the same district my kids went to. It's known as the
>district of millionaires because so many kids went on to make their
>fortune).
>
>Rod Canion who started Compaq insisted on dealer support, which was a
>colossal joke. Dell pioneered direct support by telephone and took
>over Compaq's retail market. It cost Canion his job as president.


Such examples are rare in Britain.


>>There are three major players in the game: investors, workforce and
>>customers. Your narrow description is sadly rather typical of many
>>British people in business.
>
>My description was not narrow. I was not engaged in a lecture.


Except that it wasn't you!


>> Anybody in business who thinks thus isn't
>>usually in business for very long or is not very successful.
>
>But it looks like you are lecturing.


No, just trying to explain to the OP that being in business is about
more than "just making profit". Ignore customers and pay the price.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

hummingbird wrote:

> And yet M$ have been screwed for price ramping by way of bundling
> piles of crappy old s/w (eg IE, OE, WMP etc) with their OpSys and 
> for unfair business practices. Recently fined lotsa euros by Brussels.


No doubt they will emulate the French and just ignore the fine
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:08:03 +0100, Graham Murray

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  writes:
>
>> 'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>> ago. But it still goes on through the back door but it's now known 
>> as 'Recommended Retail Price' and is described as the 'suggested
>> selling price', but amounts to a price fixing racket.

>Sometimes it is even more blatant than that. Yesterday I purchased a
>pack of biscuits which has "Trial Price 79p" printed on the packet. 


Indeed, I suppose 'trial price' allows them to get round the law.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

hummingbird  wrote:

>
>I know how capitalism works but without certain other ingredients
>it doesn't work very well. Providing customers with perceived value
>for money and customer service are two examples.
>
>There are three major players in the game: investors, workforce and
>customers. 


You are talking about business in general, not about capitalism.
Capitalism is the fundamental principle of investing money (capital)
to make a return (profit).  That's all there is to it.

The other things you suggest are some of the means to that end, but
they are certainly not restricted to capitalism.  Stakeholders,
workforce and customers are features of all economic systems, not just
capitalism.


>Your narrow description is sadly rather typical of many
>British people in business. Anybody in business who thinks thus isn't
>usually in business for very long or is not very successful.


You are trying to make a giant leap from a fundamental principle of
basic economics to the complex ethos of a business.  You cannot
logically make such a leap, and your conclusions are therefore as
worthless as they are irrelevant.

hummingbird  wrote:


>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:43:42 +0100, Tony  Polson 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird  wrote:
>>>
>>>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>>>ago. 
>>
>>I think you mean "Resale Price Maintenance".  
>
>No, I meant Retail Price Maintenance where manufacturers fixed the
>price of goods and shops sold them for that price. I'm going back a
>few years but it was made illegal with the idea of introducing more
>price competition.



I repeat, for the avoidance of doubt, that the change in the law
affected "Resale Price Maintenance".  The word "Resale" can be applied
anywhere in the supply chain, not merely at the retail end, and it
applies equally to services as it does to goods.

I hope I do not need to repeat this again before it finally sinks in.

hummingbird wrote:

> And yet M$ have been screwed for price ramping by way of bundling
> piles of crappy old s/w (eg IE, OE, WMP etc) with their OpSys and 
> for unfair business practices. Recently fined lotsa euros by Brussels.


No doubt they will emulate the French and just ignore the fine
-- 
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:08:03 +0100, Graham Murray

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  writes:
>
>> 'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>> ago. But it still goes on through the back door but it's now known 
>> as 'Recommended Retail Price' and is described as the 'suggested
>> selling price', but amounts to a price fixing racket.

>Sometimes it is even more blatant than that. Yesterday I purchased a
>pack of biscuits which has "Trial Price 79p" printed on the packet. 


Indeed, I suppose 'trial price' allows them to get round the law.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

hummingbird  wrote:

>
>I know how capitalism works but without certain other ingredients
>it doesn't work very well. Providing customers with perceived value
>for money and customer service are two examples.
>
>There are three major players in the game: investors, workforce and
>customers. 


You are talking about business in general, not about capitalism.
Capitalism is the fundamental principle of investing money (capital)
to make a return (profit).  That's all there is to it.

The other things you suggest are some of the means to that end, but
they are certainly not restricted to capitalism.  Stakeholders,
workforce and customers are features of all economic systems, not just
capitalism.


>Your narrow description is sadly rather typical of many
>British people in business. Anybody in business who thinks thus isn't
>usually in business for very long or is not very successful.


You are trying to make a giant leap from a fundamental principle of
basic economics to the complex ethos of a business.  You cannot
logically make such a leap, and your conclusions are therefore as
worthless as they are irrelevant.

hummingbird  wrote:


>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:43:42 +0100, Tony  Polson 
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird  wrote:
>>>
>>>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>>>ago. 
>>
>>I think you mean "Resale Price Maintenance".  
>
>No, I meant Retail Price Maintenance where manufacturers fixed the
>price of goods and shops sold them for that price. I'm going back a
>few years but it was made illegal with the idea of introducing more
>price competition.



I repeat, for the avoidance of doubt, that the change in the law
affected "Resale Price Maintenance".  The word "Resale" can be applied
anywhere in the supply chain, not merely at the retail end, and it
applies equally to services as it does to goods.

I hope I do not need to repeat this again before it finally sinks in.

hummingbird wrote:


> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 08:46:15 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> 
>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
> 
> 
>>"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
>>news:42f3cdce.9672418@news.tesco.net...
> 
> 
>>>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
>>> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>The pricing racket on white goods and domestic appliances in the UK
>>>>is one of the worst examples.
>>>
>>>In part thanks to organisations like Tesco, domestic appliances have
>>>never been so cheap.
>>
>>It's got nothing to do with Tesco.  The worldwide prices of
>>these items has halved in 10 years.  I don't see Tesco selling
>>white goods in the rest of Europe.
>>
>>TBH I don't understand this claim of a retailer racket (and this
>>comment isn't aimed at the poster I accept that it is a common
>>view).
>>
>>IME the prices charged by UK retailers for white goods has
>>been pretty much in line with most European countries over
>>the last 10 years (within the margin for exchange rates) and
>>yet at the same time it's been hard to make a profit selling white
>>goods, if there was a racket it was driven by the manufacturers,
>>not the retailers.
> 
> 
> The racket is driven by the manufacturers and the way their goods 
> are marketed in the UK.
> 
> I bought a stainless steel bathroom cabinet and microwave oven in
> Spain several years ago. Back in the UK neither of these models were
> available until the following year. When I eventually saw them here
> the price differences were: bathroom cabinet: Spain 68, UK 173,
> microwave: Spain 55, UK 99. In both cases the products were
> identical models/specification. Same thing applies to endless other
> products.
> 

Doesn't this problem cut right across the board for consumer products. 
We didn't earn the tag, 'rip-off Britain' for nothing.

hummingbird wrote:


> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 08:46:15 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> 
>  mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
> 
> 
>>"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
>>news:42f3cdce.9672418@news.tesco.net...
> 
> 
>>>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:23:18 +0100, hummingbird
>>> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>The pricing racket on white goods and domestic appliances in the UK
>>>>is one of the worst examples.
>>>
>>>In part thanks to organisations like Tesco, domestic appliances have
>>>never been so cheap.
>>
>>It's got nothing to do with Tesco.  The worldwide prices of
>>these items has halved in 10 years.  I don't see Tesco selling
>>white goods in the rest of Europe.
>>
>>TBH I don't understand this claim of a retailer racket (and this
>>comment isn't aimed at the poster I accept that it is a common
>>view).
>>
>>IME the prices charged by UK retailers for white goods has
>>been pretty much in line with most European countries over
>>the last 10 years (within the margin for exchange rates) and
>>yet at the same time it's been hard to make a profit selling white
>>goods, if there was a racket it was driven by the manufacturers,
>>not the retailers.
> 
> 
> The racket is driven by the manufacturers and the way their goods 
> are marketed in the UK.
> 
> I bought a stainless steel bathroom cabinet and microwave oven in
> Spain several years ago. Back in the UK neither of these models were
> available until the following year. When I eventually saw them here
> the price differences were: bathroom cabinet: Spain 68, UK 173,
> microwave: Spain 55, UK 99. In both cases the products were
> identical models/specification. Same thing applies to endless other
> products.
> 

Doesn't this problem cut right across the board for consumer products. 
We didn't earn the tag, 'rip-off Britain' for nothing.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:33:06 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>>If a seller does not provide that, then people buy from someone else.

>Sometimes. But there are many situations where there is no real
>alternative or the others are just as bad. There is a culture of 
>"take it or leave it" in British retailing and over many years Brits
>have become accustomed to it. Only a few large forward-thinking
>retailers understand the importance of customer service, hence the
>number of corps now who only have 0870* telnums to contact them.


How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
undersell it.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:02:27 +0100, Tony  Polson 
wrote:


>I hope I do not need to repeat this again

So do we.

> before it finally sinks in.


into the sunset.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:33:06 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>>If a seller does not provide that, then people buy from someone else.

>Sometimes. But there are many situations where there is no real
>alternative or the others are just as bad. There is a culture of 
>"take it or leave it" in British retailing and over many years Brits
>have become accustomed to it. Only a few large forward-thinking
>retailers understand the importance of customer service, hence the
>number of corps now who only have 0870* telnums to contact them.


How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
undersell it.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:02:27 +0100, Tony  Polson 
wrote:


>I hope I do not need to repeat this again

So do we.

> before it finally sinks in.


into the sunset.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:33:43 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis) wrote:


>How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
>undersell it.


It exists in the form of Asda Supermarkets, who as far as I can see
have a similar policy, and have had long before Wal-Mart took them
over.

They differ from Wal-Mart in the US in that they have (from what I can
see - never worked for them) a good reputation for staff care if not
for high wages.  For one example, a new store (in the Asda Wal-Mart
Supercentre format) is opening in Milton Keynes, and the job offers
were oversubscribed something like 8-1.  This is in an area of very
low (below 2%, I think) unemployment and relative economic prosperity.
This suggests that people actively want to work for them.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Anubis wrote:


> 
> How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
> undersell it.
> 


Some larger manufacturers conveniently make slightly different products 
for different stores, and hence can always say "if you can buy this 
product cheaper elsewhere we will refund the difference..." etc.

So when you subsequently find the same product cheaper, look at the part 
number - it'll be an ABC-123 in one store, and a ABC-124 in the other.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:33:43 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis) wrote:


>How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
>undersell it.


It exists in the form of Asda Supermarkets, who as far as I can see
have a similar policy, and have had long before Wal-Mart took them
over.

They differ from Wal-Mart in the US in that they have (from what I can
see - never worked for them) a good reputation for staff care if not
for high wages.  For one example, a new store (in the Asda Wal-Mart
Supercentre format) is opening in Milton Keynes, and the job offers
were oversubscribed something like 8-1.  This is in an area of very
low (below 2%, I think) unemployment and relative economic prosperity.
This suggests that people actively want to work for them.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Anubis wrote:


> 
> How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
> undersell it.
> 


Some larger manufacturers conveniently make slightly different products 
for different stores, and hence can always say "if you can buy this 
product cheaper elsewhere we will refund the difference..." etc.

So when you subsequently find the same product cheaper, look at the part 
number - it'll be an ABC-123 in one store, and a ABC-124 in the other.

In message , at 14:20:41 on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, 
Frank Booth Snr  remarked:

>Doesn't this problem cut right across the board for consumer products. 
>We didn't earn the tag, 'rip-off Britain' for nothing.


Having lived in the UK and USA, and travelled around Europe, I think a 
lot of this problem is caused by the places where people shop. If an 
Americans bought everything at Neiman Marcus, then they'd be paying 
more, too.

But many have access to Walmart and Target, and specialist stores such 
as Best Buy. Not only are there fewer of the discount stores in the UK, 
but there's a certain degree of snobbery.

People then compare the lowest discount price they can see in the USA 
with the upmarket store in the UK.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:33:43 on 
Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:

>How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
>undersell it.


It seems to manage with branded food - although it sells a lot (perhaps 
75%) of its own brand. It's very obvious that they sell almost entirely 
their own brand of clothes and electrical appliances. While these are 
genuinely low cost, a price-promise is meaningless.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:20:41 on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, 
Frank Booth Snr  remarked:

>Doesn't this problem cut right across the board for consumer products. 
>We didn't earn the tag, 'rip-off Britain' for nothing.


Having lived in the UK and USA, and travelled around Europe, I think a 
lot of this problem is caused by the places where people shop. If an 
Americans bought everything at Neiman Marcus, then they'd be paying 
more, too.

But many have access to Walmart and Target, and specialist stores such 
as Best Buy. Not only are there fewer of the discount stores in the UK, 
but there's a certain degree of snobbery.

People then compare the lowest discount price they can see in the USA 
with the upmarket store in the UK.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:33:43 on 
Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:

>How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
>undersell it.


It seems to manage with branded food - although it sells a lot (perhaps 
75%) of its own brand. It's very obvious that they sell almost entirely 
their own brand of clothes and electrical appliances. While these are 
genuinely low cost, a price-promise is meaningless.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 15:04:29 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>It seems to manage with branded food - although it sells a lot (perhaps 
>75%) of its own brand. It's very obvious that they sell almost entirely 
>their own brand of clothes and electrical appliances. While these are 
>genuinely low cost, a price-promise is meaningless.


I believe Asda Wal-Mart's clothing brand (George) is now the largest
in terms of sales figures in the country...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:02:27 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:43:42 +0100, Tony  Polson 
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>hummingbird  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>>>>ago. 
>>>
>>>I think you mean "Resale Price Maintenance".  
>>
>>No, I meant Retail Price Maintenance where manufacturers fixed the
>>price of goods and shops sold them for that price. I'm going back a
>>few years but it was made illegal with the idea of introducing more
>>price competition.
>
>
>I repeat, for the avoidance of doubt, that the change in the law
>affected "Resale Price Maintenance".  The word "Resale" can be applied
>anywhere in the supply chain, not merely at the retail end, and it
>applies equally to services as it does to goods.


Please don't lecture me.
My earlier comments related to Retail Price Maintenance and that's
what I meant. IE - the practice of retailers selling goods/services 
at prices determined by their suppliers. As we know this was outlawed 
in Britain some years ago but continues through other devious methods
as I pointed out to the OP.

That price fixing can also be applied anywhere in the supply chain is
not relevant to my point and is obvious to anybody paying attention.


>I hope I do not need to repeat this again before it finally sinks in.


Repeat your irrelevant distraction as many times as you like...

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 09:17:52 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>"Tesco's overseas operations now account for 41 per cent of its 
>operating space and nearly 20 per cent of its revenue."


I stand corrected.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:56:51 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Fletcher
<r1card1an@bt1nternet.c0m>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird wrote:
>> And yet M$ have been screwed for price ramping by way of bundling
>> piles of crappy old s/w (eg IE, OE, WMP etc) with their OpSys and 
>> for unfair business practices. Recently fined lotsa euros by Brussels.
>
>No doubt they will emulate the French and just ignore the fine


LOL.
Afaik MS are bringing out a cut down version of Windows to comply.
Will it be cheaper.....?

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:44:56 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>Afaik MS are bringing out a cut down version of Windows to comply.
>Will it be cheaper.....?


Doubt it.  The whole thing is a nonsense, anyway.  Why *would* someone
want to purchase a version of Windows without a built-in Web browser,
when a Web browser is now a sensible OS component?

You don't have to *use* it if you don't want to.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 14:59:57 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>Having lived in the UK and USA, and travelled around Europe, I think a 
>lot of this problem is caused by the places where people shop. If an 
>Americans bought everything at Neiman Marcus, then they'd be paying 
>more, too.

>But many have access to Walmart and Target, and specialist stores such 
>as Best Buy. Not only are there fewer of the discount stores in the UK, 
>but there's a certain degree of snobbery.

>People then compare the lowest discount price they can see in the USA 
>with the upmarket store in the UK.


I thought Britain had WalMart stores.

Britain does have amazon.co.uk, the counterpart of American
amazon.com. I haven't looked lately but back a while ago, items on
British amazon.co.uk such as electronics (eg. a Linksys BEFSR41 NAT
router) were priced in Pounds the same level as Dollars on amazon.com.
That unit cost about $50 in America and 50 in Britain. Yet the
exchange rate was somewhere around 1.5 at the time I made the
comparison.

So it is not just the difference in stores.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:44:04 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>They differ from Wal-Mart in the US in that they have (from what I can
>see - never worked for them) a good reputation for staff care if not
>for high wages.  For one example, a new store (in the Asda Wal-Mart
>Supercentre format) is opening in Milton Keynes, and the job offers
>were oversubscribed something like 8-1.  This is in an area of very
>low (below 2%, I think) unemployment and relative economic prosperity.
>This suggests that people actively want to work for them.


WalMart is being sued a lot in America for mistreatment of its
employees. It makes them do things that are not considered part of the
job, like work during scheduled breaks, work overtime without pay,
etc. Someone in Arkansas got greedy and assumed employees loved W-M so
much they would not fuss. But it backfired and now W-M is in trouble.

Also, W-M is not keeping their pledge of low prices. Some items are
more expensive at W-M than other places.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:53:45 +0000 (UTC), matt
 wrote:


>Some larger manufacturers conveniently make slightly different products 
>for different stores, and hence can always say "if you can buy this 
>product cheaper elsewhere we will refund the difference..." etc.

>So when you subsequently find the same product cheaper, look at the part 
>number - it'll be an ABC-123 in one store, and a ABC-124 in the other.


Not only that but stores sell defect products as though they were
perfectly good. Every production run has its share of defects, and so
the lot is priced based on that percentage. The upshot is that you may
get lucky and not get a defective item at the lower price, but your
odds are higher. You must therefore make certain that you can take the
item back with no hassle. Some stores do not allow that.



-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 15:04:29 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>In message , at 13:33:43 on 
>Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:
>>How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
>>undersell it.
>
>It seems to manage with branded food - although it sells a lot (perhaps 
>75%) of its own brand. It's very obvious that they sell almost entirely 
>their own brand of clothes and electrical appliances. While these are 
>genuinely low cost, a price-promise is meaningless.


I was talking about branded items, like General Electric appliances or
Granger chewing tobacco.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 14:20:41 +0100, Frank Booth Snr 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird wrote:


>> The racket is driven by the manufacturers and the way their goods 
>> are marketed in the UK.
>> 
>> I bought a stainless steel bathroom cabinet and microwave oven in
>> Spain several years ago. Back in the UK neither of these models were
>> available until the following year. When I eventually saw them here
>> the price differences were: bathroom cabinet: Spain 68, UK 173,
>> microwave: Spain 55, UK 99. In both cases the products were
>> identical models/specification. Same thing applies to endless other
>> products.
>> 
>Doesn't this problem cut right across the board for consumer products. 
>We didn't earn the tag, 'rip-off Britain' for nothing.


Absolutely it does. And it goes right to the heart of how many goods
are supplied in Britain at rip-off prices. The bathroom cabinet I
bought is made by Metalmex (a German company) who supply their
products into Britain through an import agent, who then sell them to
retailers. So import company X imports a wagon load of the cabinets
which it pays ~40 each for and offers them to retailers for ~125 
and provides a RRP of ~175.  Result: huge price ramping.

When I saw my cabinet in Lewis's and explained that I had bought it
for 68, they looked it up in their control book and said "that's much
less than we pay from our suppliers".

A secondary problem is that the manufacturers full range is not
usually available as import agents often choose only to import what
they think will be the best sellers. This problem also applies to
directly owned subsidiaries of global brand names who also only
import a limited range of their parent company's products to avoid
making mistakes with leftover stock.

A third problem is continuity of supply; the import agent possibly
isn't planning to import anymore after his load has been sold on.
He's off elsewhere looking for other Far Eastern cheapies to make 
huge profits on! When they're gone, that's it!

It's true that these problems are difficult to resolve but they
usually only apply to imported goods.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 15:04:29 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>It seems to manage with branded food - although it sells a lot (perhaps 
>75%) of its own brand. It's very obvious that they sell almost entirely 
>their own brand of clothes and electrical appliances. While these are 
>genuinely low cost, a price-promise is meaningless.


I believe Asda Wal-Mart's clothing brand (George) is now the largest
in terms of sales figures in the country...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:02:27 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:43:42 +0100, Tony  Polson 
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>hummingbird  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>'Retail Price Maintenance' was also declared illegal in Britain years
>>>>ago. 
>>>
>>>I think you mean "Resale Price Maintenance".  
>>
>>No, I meant Retail Price Maintenance where manufacturers fixed the
>>price of goods and shops sold them for that price. I'm going back a
>>few years but it was made illegal with the idea of introducing more
>>price competition.
>
>
>I repeat, for the avoidance of doubt, that the change in the law
>affected "Resale Price Maintenance".  The word "Resale" can be applied
>anywhere in the supply chain, not merely at the retail end, and it
>applies equally to services as it does to goods.


Please don't lecture me.
My earlier comments related to Retail Price Maintenance and that's
what I meant. IE - the practice of retailers selling goods/services 
at prices determined by their suppliers. As we know this was outlawed 
in Britain some years ago but continues through other devious methods
as I pointed out to the OP.

That price fixing can also be applied anywhere in the supply chain is
not relevant to my point and is obvious to anybody paying attention.


>I hope I do not need to repeat this again before it finally sinks in.


Repeat your irrelevant distraction as many times as you like...

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 09:17:52 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>"Tesco's overseas operations now account for 41 per cent of its 
>operating space and nearly 20 per cent of its revenue."


I stand corrected.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:56:51 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Fletcher
<r1card1an@bt1nternet.c0m>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird wrote:
>> And yet M$ have been screwed for price ramping by way of bundling
>> piles of crappy old s/w (eg IE, OE, WMP etc) with their OpSys and 
>> for unfair business practices. Recently fined lotsa euros by Brussels.
>
>No doubt they will emulate the French and just ignore the fine


LOL.
Afaik MS are bringing out a cut down version of Windows to comply.
Will it be cheaper.....?

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:44:56 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>Afaik MS are bringing out a cut down version of Windows to comply.
>Will it be cheaper.....?


Doubt it.  The whole thing is a nonsense, anyway.  Why *would* someone
want to purchase a version of Windows without a built-in Web browser,
when a Web browser is now a sensible OS component?

You don't have to *use* it if you don't want to.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 14:59:57 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>Having lived in the UK and USA, and travelled around Europe, I think a 
>lot of this problem is caused by the places where people shop. If an 
>Americans bought everything at Neiman Marcus, then they'd be paying 
>more, too.

>But many have access to Walmart and Target, and specialist stores such 
>as Best Buy. Not only are there fewer of the discount stores in the UK, 
>but there's a certain degree of snobbery.

>People then compare the lowest discount price they can see in the USA 
>with the upmarket store in the UK.


I thought Britain had WalMart stores.

Britain does have amazon.co.uk, the counterpart of American
amazon.com. I haven't looked lately but back a while ago, items on
British amazon.co.uk such as electronics (eg. a Linksys BEFSR41 NAT
router) were priced in Pounds the same level as Dollars on amazon.com.
That unit cost about $50 in America and 50 in Britain. Yet the
exchange rate was somewhere around 1.5 at the time I made the
comparison.

So it is not just the difference in stores.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:44:04 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>They differ from Wal-Mart in the US in that they have (from what I can
>see - never worked for them) a good reputation for staff care if not
>for high wages.  For one example, a new store (in the Asda Wal-Mart
>Supercentre format) is opening in Milton Keynes, and the job offers
>were oversubscribed something like 8-1.  This is in an area of very
>low (below 2%, I think) unemployment and relative economic prosperity.
>This suggests that people actively want to work for them.


WalMart is being sued a lot in America for mistreatment of its
employees. It makes them do things that are not considered part of the
job, like work during scheduled breaks, work overtime without pay,
etc. Someone in Arkansas got greedy and assumed employees loved W-M so
much they would not fuss. But it backfired and now W-M is in trouble.

Also, W-M is not keeping their pledge of low prices. Some items are
more expensive at W-M than other places.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:53:45 +0000 (UTC), matt
 wrote:


>Some larger manufacturers conveniently make slightly different products 
>for different stores, and hence can always say "if you can buy this 
>product cheaper elsewhere we will refund the difference..." etc.

>So when you subsequently find the same product cheaper, look at the part 
>number - it'll be an ABC-123 in one store, and a ABC-124 in the other.


Not only that but stores sell defect products as though they were
perfectly good. Every production run has its share of defects, and so
the lot is priced based on that percentage. The upshot is that you may
get lucky and not get a defective item at the lower price, but your
odds are higher. You must therefore make certain that you can take the
item back with no hassle. Some stores do not allow that.



-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 15:04:29 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>In message , at 13:33:43 on 
>Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:
>>How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
>>undersell it.
>
>It seems to manage with branded food - although it sells a lot (perhaps 
>75%) of its own brand. It's very obvious that they sell almost entirely 
>their own brand of clothes and electrical appliances. While these are 
>genuinely low cost, a price-promise is meaningless.


I was talking about branded items, like General Electric appliances or
Granger chewing tobacco.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 14:20:41 +0100, Frank Booth Snr 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird wrote:


>> The racket is driven by the manufacturers and the way their goods 
>> are marketed in the UK.
>> 
>> I bought a stainless steel bathroom cabinet and microwave oven in
>> Spain several years ago. Back in the UK neither of these models were
>> available until the following year. When I eventually saw them here
>> the price differences were: bathroom cabinet: Spain 68, UK 173,
>> microwave: Spain 55, UK 99. In both cases the products were
>> identical models/specification. Same thing applies to endless other
>> products.
>> 
>Doesn't this problem cut right across the board for consumer products. 
>We didn't earn the tag, 'rip-off Britain' for nothing.


Absolutely it does. And it goes right to the heart of how many goods
are supplied in Britain at rip-off prices. The bathroom cabinet I
bought is made by Metalmex (a German company) who supply their
products into Britain through an import agent, who then sell them to
retailers. So import company X imports a wagon load of the cabinets
which it pays ~40 each for and offers them to retailers for ~125 
and provides a RRP of ~175.  Result: huge price ramping.

When I saw my cabinet in Lewis's and explained that I had bought it
for 68, they looked it up in their control book and said "that's much
less than we pay from our suppliers".

A secondary problem is that the manufacturers full range is not
usually available as import agents often choose only to import what
they think will be the best sellers. This problem also applies to
directly owned subsidiaries of global brand names who also only
import a limited range of their parent company's products to avoid
making mistakes with leftover stock.

A third problem is continuity of supply; the import agent possibly
isn't planning to import anymore after his load has been sold on.
He's off elsewhere looking for other Far Eastern cheapies to make 
huge profits on! When they're gone, that's it!

It's true that these problems are difficult to resolve but they
usually only apply to imported goods.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

Anubis wrote:


> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:53:45 +0000 (UTC), matt
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>Some larger manufacturers conveniently make slightly different products 
>>for different stores, and hence can always say "if you can buy this 
>>product cheaper elsewhere we will refund the difference..." etc.
> 
> 
>>So when you subsequently find the same product cheaper, look at the part 
>>number - it'll be an ABC-123 in one store, and a ABC-124 in the other.
> 
> 
> Not only that but stores sell defect products as though they were
> perfectly good. Every production run has its share of defects, and so
> the lot is priced based on that percentage. The upshot is that you may
> get lucky and not get a defective item at the lower price, but your
> odds are higher. You must therefore make certain that you can take the
> item back with no hassle. Some stores do not allow that.
> 


True, but the Sale of Goods Act is your friend as goods must be "fit for 
purpose" or you can get your _money_ back. Also if you paid by Credit 
Card for goods over £100, you can hold the CC company and the retailer 
"jointly and severally liable".

I have used this successfully with white goods out of the one year 
warranty. They try the "but you didn't buy the extended warranty" ploy 
first, but when you point out that "a reasonable person" would expect 
say a washing machine to last longer than 2 years, they usually cave in 
once they realise they are dealing with someone who knows their rights !

(IANAL BTW, but the CAB web site says:

When you buy goods the law gives you rights as a consumer. Goods must:
√ be of satisfactory quality;
√ be fit for the purpose they are sold; and
√ match the description given.
If the goods don't meet any of these conditions, take them back 
straightaway and tell the supplier you are rejecting the goods. You do 
not have to accept offers of free repairs, replacement goods or a credit 
note – you can insist on getting your money back

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:59:19 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>>
>>I know how capitalism works but without certain other ingredients
>>it doesn't work very well. Providing customers with perceived value
>>for money and customer service are two examples.
>>
>>There are three major players in the game: investors, workforce and
>>customers. 
>
>You are talking about business in general, not about capitalism.


Indeed I am but to be successful, the two are inseparable.
No business will succeed by simply applying the crude rules of
capitalism.

Sadly, there are many people in business who fail to see this.

Narrow-view and short-sighted management is a great threat to
successful business. I repeat my earlier mantra:
	"[in business] if you aren't in competition with yourself, pretty
	soon somebody else will be"

It is the only way to survive and succeed. There is no alternative.


>Capitalism is the fundamental principle of investing money (capital)
>to make a return (profit).  That's all there is to it.


I'm aware of that.


>The other things you suggest are some of the means to that end, but
>they are certainly not restricted to capitalism.  Stakeholders,
>workforce and customers are features of all economic systems, not just
>capitalism.


Not in the same way. State controlled enterprises under socialism
don't have the pressure to practice 'good employee' relationships:
	"think yourself lucky you've got a job".
And customers often don't have the option to buy elsewhere.
And the State doesn't have to make a profit. It's stakeholders 
are usually the taxpayers who've got bottomless pockets!


>>Your narrow description is sadly rather typical of many
>>British people in business. Anybody in business who thinks thus isn't
>>usually in business for very long or is not very successful.
>
>You are trying to make a giant leap from a fundamental principle of
>basic economics to the complex ethos of a business.  You cannot
>logically make such a leap, and your conclusions are therefore as
>worthless as they are irrelevant.


That's because they are inseparable.
Crude capitalism doesn't succeed on its own.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

Anubis wrote:


> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:53:45 +0000 (UTC), matt
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>Some larger manufacturers conveniently make slightly different products 
>>for different stores, and hence can always say "if you can buy this 
>>product cheaper elsewhere we will refund the difference..." etc.
> 
> 
>>So when you subsequently find the same product cheaper, look at the part 
>>number - it'll be an ABC-123 in one store, and a ABC-124 in the other.
> 
> 
> Not only that but stores sell defect products as though they were
> perfectly good. Every production run has its share of defects, and so
> the lot is priced based on that percentage. The upshot is that you may
> get lucky and not get a defective item at the lower price, but your
> odds are higher. You must therefore make certain that you can take the
> item back with no hassle. Some stores do not allow that.
> 


True, but the Sale of Goods Act is your friend as goods must be "fit for 
purpose" or you can get your _money_ back. Also if you paid by Credit 
Card for goods over £100, you can hold the CC company and the retailer 
"jointly and severally liable".

I have used this successfully with white goods out of the one year 
warranty. They try the "but you didn't buy the extended warranty" ploy 
first, but when you point out that "a reasonable person" would expect 
say a washing machine to last longer than 2 years, they usually cave in 
once they realise they are dealing with someone who knows their rights !

(IANAL BTW, but the CAB web site says:

When you buy goods the law gives you rights as a consumer. Goods must:
√ be of satisfactory quality;
√ be fit for the purpose they are sold; and
√ match the description given.
If the goods don't meet any of these conditions, take them back 
straightaway and tell the supplier you are rejecting the goods. You do 
not have to accept offers of free repairs, replacement goods or a credit 
note – you can insist on getting your money back

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:59:19 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>>
>>I know how capitalism works but without certain other ingredients
>>it doesn't work very well. Providing customers with perceived value
>>for money and customer service are two examples.
>>
>>There are three major players in the game: investors, workforce and
>>customers. 
>
>You are talking about business in general, not about capitalism.


Indeed I am but to be successful, the two are inseparable.
No business will succeed by simply applying the crude rules of
capitalism.

Sadly, there are many people in business who fail to see this.

Narrow-view and short-sighted management is a great threat to
successful business. I repeat my earlier mantra:
	"[in business] if you aren't in competition with yourself, pretty
	soon somebody else will be"

It is the only way to survive and succeed. There is no alternative.


>Capitalism is the fundamental principle of investing money (capital)
>to make a return (profit).  That's all there is to it.


I'm aware of that.


>The other things you suggest are some of the means to that end, but
>they are certainly not restricted to capitalism.  Stakeholders,
>workforce and customers are features of all economic systems, not just
>capitalism.


Not in the same way. State controlled enterprises under socialism
don't have the pressure to practice 'good employee' relationships:
	"think yourself lucky you've got a job".
And customers often don't have the option to buy elsewhere.
And the State doesn't have to make a profit. It's stakeholders 
are usually the taxpayers who've got bottomless pockets!


>>Your narrow description is sadly rather typical of many
>>British people in business. Anybody in business who thinks thus isn't
>>usually in business for very long or is not very successful.
>
>You are trying to make a giant leap from a fundamental principle of
>basic economics to the complex ethos of a business.  You cannot
>logically make such a leap, and your conclusions are therefore as
>worthless as they are irrelevant.


That's because they are inseparable.
Crude capitalism doesn't succeed on its own.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

hummingbird  wrote:

>
>Please don't lecture me.



The law to which you referred specifically refers to "Resale Price
Maintenance".  If you could only get that into your thick head, there
would be no need to lecture you.

Of course, as with so many other words and terms in the English
language, if enough stupid people get it wrong, it will eventually
become accepted usage.  Presumably, by deliberately repeating your
error, this is what you are attempting to do.

Frank Booth Snr  wrote:


>Doesn't this problem cut right across the board for consumer products. 
>We didn't earn the tag, 'rip-off Britain' for nothing.



Exactly.  

What makes Britain different from most other Western countries is that
commercial rents are generally extremely high here.  

On the one hand, the high prices of goods and services help to pay the
rent.  On the other hand, they help to keep rents (and property
prices) very high indeed.

hummingbird  wrote:

>
>Please don't lecture me.



The law to which you referred specifically refers to "Resale Price
Maintenance".  If you could only get that into your thick head, there
would be no need to lecture you.

Of course, as with so many other words and terms in the English
language, if enough stupid people get it wrong, it will eventually
become accepted usage.  Presumably, by deliberately repeating your
error, this is what you are attempting to do.

Frank Booth Snr  wrote:


>Doesn't this problem cut right across the board for consumer products. 
>We didn't earn the tag, 'rip-off Britain' for nothing.



Exactly.  

What makes Britain different from most other Western countries is that
commercial rents are generally extremely high here.  

On the one hand, the high prices of goods and services help to pay the
rent.  On the other hand, they help to keep rents (and property
prices) very high indeed.

hummingbird wrote:

>My earlier comments related to Retail Price Maintenance and that's
>what I meant. IE - the practice of retailers selling goods/services 
>at prices determined by their suppliers.


For the hard of thinking:
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmtrdind/064/06422.htm>

"The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is investigating anti-competitive
behaviour in the United Kingdom market for cars under the Resale
Prices Act 1976 (RPA), Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (RTPA),
the Competition Act 1980 (CA) and the Fair Trading Act 1973 (FTA).
Broadly speaking, for competition purposes the RPA is used against
_resale price maintenance_ by a supplier, the RTPA against price
fixing cartels, the CA against anti-competitive behaviour by
individual companies and the FTA for industry-wide problems."

-- 
Neil Sunderland
Braunton, Devon

Please observe the Reply-To address

hummingbird wrote:

>My earlier comments related to Retail Price Maintenance and that's
>what I meant. IE - the practice of retailers selling goods/services 
>at prices determined by their suppliers.


For the hard of thinking:
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmtrdind/064/06422.htm>

"The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is investigating anti-competitive
behaviour in the United Kingdom market for cars under the Resale
Prices Act 1976 (RPA), Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (RTPA),
the Competition Act 1980 (CA) and the Fair Trading Act 1973 (FTA).
Broadly speaking, for competition purposes the RPA is used against
_resale price maintenance_ by a supplier, the RTPA against price
fixing cartels, the CA against anti-competitive behaviour by
individual companies and the FTA for industry-wide problems."

-- 
Neil Sunderland
Braunton, Devon

Please observe the Reply-To address

"Anubis"  wrote in message 
news:42f61f0c.10055359@news-server.houston.rr.com...

> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 14:59:57 +0100, Roland Perry 
> wrote:
>
>>Having lived in the UK and USA, and travelled around Europe, I think a
>>lot of this problem is caused by the places where people shop. If an
>>Americans bought everything at Neiman Marcus, then they'd be paying
>>more, too.
>
>>But many have access to Walmart and Target, and specialist stores such
>>as Best Buy. Not only are there fewer of the discount stores in the UK,
>>but there's a certain degree of snobbery.
>
>>People then compare the lowest discount price they can see in the USA
>>with the upmarket store in the UK.
>
> I thought Britain had WalMart stores.
>
> Britain does have amazon.co.uk, the counterpart of American
> amazon.com. I haven't looked lately but back a while ago, items on
> British amazon.co.uk such as electronics (eg. a Linksys BEFSR41 NAT
> router) were priced in Pounds the same level as Dollars on amazon.com.
> That unit cost about $50 in America and 50 in Britain. Yet the
> exchange rate was somewhere around 1.5 at the time I made the
> comparison.
>
> So it is not just the difference in stores.


A big part of the difference in price for electrical items is
the significantly better warrenties that European sellers are
obliged to give.  AIUI, in the US you get a 3 or a 6 month
warrenty and if it breaks after that you get zilch, in Europe
the requirements are much stronger than this (even if the
shops do try to tell you otherwise)

tim

"Anubis"  wrote in message 
news:42f61f0c.10055359@news-server.houston.rr.com...

> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 14:59:57 +0100, Roland Perry 
> wrote:
>
>>Having lived in the UK and USA, and travelled around Europe, I think a
>>lot of this problem is caused by the places where people shop. If an
>>Americans bought everything at Neiman Marcus, then they'd be paying
>>more, too.
>
>>But many have access to Walmart and Target, and specialist stores such
>>as Best Buy. Not only are there fewer of the discount stores in the UK,
>>but there's a certain degree of snobbery.
>
>>People then compare the lowest discount price they can see in the USA
>>with the upmarket store in the UK.
>
> I thought Britain had WalMart stores.
>
> Britain does have amazon.co.uk, the counterpart of American
> amazon.com. I haven't looked lately but back a while ago, items on
> British amazon.co.uk such as electronics (eg. a Linksys BEFSR41 NAT
> router) were priced in Pounds the same level as Dollars on amazon.com.
> That unit cost about $50 in America and 50 in Britain. Yet the
> exchange rate was somewhere around 1.5 at the time I made the
> comparison.
>
> So it is not just the difference in stores.


A big part of the difference in price for electrical items is
the significantly better warrenties that European sellers are
obliged to give.  AIUI, in the US you get a 3 or a 6 month
warrenty and if it breaks after that you get zilch, in Europe
the requirements are much stronger than this (even if the
shops do try to tell you otherwise)

tim

In message , at 14:50:52 
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:

>On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 14:59:57 +0100, Roland Perry 
>wrote:
>
>>Having lived in the UK and USA, and travelled around Europe, I think a
>>lot of this problem is caused by the places where people shop. If an
>>Americans bought everything at Neiman Marcus, then they'd be paying
>>more, too.
>
>>But many have access to Walmart and Target, and specialist stores such
>>as Best Buy. Not only are there fewer of the discount stores in the UK,
>>but there's a certain degree of snobbery.
>
>>People then compare the lowest discount price they can see in the USA
>>with the upmarket store in the UK.
>
>I thought Britain had WalMart stores.


A few years ago it bought a set of stores that account for perhaps 20% 
of the market. Started by Associated Diaries, they are branded "ASDA".


>Britain does have amazon.co.uk, the counterpart of American
>amazon.com. I haven't looked lately but back a while ago, items on
>British amazon.co.uk such as electronics (eg. a Linksys BEFSR41 NAT
>router) were priced in Pounds the same level as Dollars on amazon.com.
>That unit cost about $50 in America and 50 in Britain. Yet the
>exchange rate was somewhere around 1.5 at the time I made the
>comparison.
>
>So it is not just the difference in stores.


Prices for computer and other hi-tech equipment lags that in the USA. So 
they are indeed often cheaper in the USA. But it's not true for all 
(even computer) items.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:09:34 on 
Sun, 7 Aug 2005, hummingbird  remarked:

>>Doesn't this problem cut right across the board for consumer products.
>>We didn't earn the tag, 'rip-off Britain' for nothing.
>
>Absolutely it does. And it goes right to the heart of how many goods
>are supplied in Britain at rip-off prices. The bathroom cabinet I
>bought is made by Metalmex (a German company) who supply their
>products into Britain through an import agent, who then sell them to
>retailers. So import company X imports a wagon load of the cabinets
>which it pays ~40 each for and offers them to retailers for ~125
>and provides a RRP of ~175.  Result: huge price ramping.
>
>When I saw my cabinet in Lewis's and explained that I had bought it
>for 68, they looked it up in their control book and said "that's much
>less than we pay from our suppliers".
>
>A secondary problem is that the manufacturers full range is not
>usually available as import agents often choose only to import what
>they think will be the best sellers. This problem also applies to
>directly owned subsidiaries of global brand names who also only
>import a limited range of their parent company's products to avoid
>making mistakes with leftover stock.
>
>A third problem is continuity of supply; the import agent possibly
>isn't planning to import anymore after his load has been sold on.
>He's off elsewhere looking for other Far Eastern cheapies to make
>huge profits on! When they're gone, that's it!
>
>It's true that these problems are difficult to resolve but they
>usually only apply to imported goods.


What would be interesting would be a price comparison between a UK made 
bathroom cabinet in the UK and Germany.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:50:52 
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:

>On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 14:59:57 +0100, Roland Perry 
>wrote:
>
>>Having lived in the UK and USA, and travelled around Europe, I think a
>>lot of this problem is caused by the places where people shop. If an
>>Americans bought everything at Neiman Marcus, then they'd be paying
>>more, too.
>
>>But many have access to Walmart and Target, and specialist stores such
>>as Best Buy. Not only are there fewer of the discount stores in the UK,
>>but there's a certain degree of snobbery.
>
>>People then compare the lowest discount price they can see in the USA
>>with the upmarket store in the UK.
>
>I thought Britain had WalMart stores.


A few years ago it bought a set of stores that account for perhaps 20% 
of the market. Started by Associated Diaries, they are branded "ASDA".


>Britain does have amazon.co.uk, the counterpart of American
>amazon.com. I haven't looked lately but back a while ago, items on
>British amazon.co.uk such as electronics (eg. a Linksys BEFSR41 NAT
>router) were priced in Pounds the same level as Dollars on amazon.com.
>That unit cost about $50 in America and 50 in Britain. Yet the
>exchange rate was somewhere around 1.5 at the time I made the
>comparison.
>
>So it is not just the difference in stores.


Prices for computer and other hi-tech equipment lags that in the USA. So 
they are indeed often cheaper in the USA. But it's not true for all 
(even computer) items.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:09:34 on 
Sun, 7 Aug 2005, hummingbird  remarked:

>>Doesn't this problem cut right across the board for consumer products.
>>We didn't earn the tag, 'rip-off Britain' for nothing.
>
>Absolutely it does. And it goes right to the heart of how many goods
>are supplied in Britain at rip-off prices. The bathroom cabinet I
>bought is made by Metalmex (a German company) who supply their
>products into Britain through an import agent, who then sell them to
>retailers. So import company X imports a wagon load of the cabinets
>which it pays ~40 each for and offers them to retailers for ~125
>and provides a RRP of ~175.  Result: huge price ramping.
>
>When I saw my cabinet in Lewis's and explained that I had bought it
>for 68, they looked it up in their control book and said "that's much
>less than we pay from our suppliers".
>
>A secondary problem is that the manufacturers full range is not
>usually available as import agents often choose only to import what
>they think will be the best sellers. This problem also applies to
>directly owned subsidiaries of global brand names who also only
>import a limited range of their parent company's products to avoid
>making mistakes with leftover stock.
>
>A third problem is continuity of supply; the import agent possibly
>isn't planning to import anymore after his load has been sold on.
>He's off elsewhere looking for other Far Eastern cheapies to make
>huge profits on! When they're gone, that's it!
>
>It's true that these problems are difficult to resolve but they
>usually only apply to imported goods.


What would be interesting would be a price comparison between a UK made 
bathroom cabinet in the UK and Germany.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:30:48 on Sun, 7 Aug 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>>It seems to manage with branded food - although it sells a lot (perhaps
>>75%) of its own brand. It's very obvious that they sell almost entirely
>>their own brand of clothes and electrical appliances. While these are
>>genuinely low cost, a price-promise is meaningless.
>
>I believe Asda Wal-Mart's clothing brand (George) is now the largest
>in terms of sales figures in the country...


The George brand is very successful. It is value for money. But it's not 
a very good example if you are trying to prove who sells branded goods 
the cheapest.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:57:12 
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:

>>>How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
>>>undersell it.
>>
>>It seems to manage with branded food - although it sells a lot (perhaps
>>75%) of its own brand. It's very obvious that they sell almost entirely
>>their own brand of clothes and electrical appliances. While these are
>>genuinely low cost, a price-promise is meaningless.
>
>I was talking about branded items, like General Electric appliances or


They don't sell major-brand items - that's the whole point!


>Granger chewing tobacco.


I don't think that disgusting substance is sold in the UK.

You should also be aware that ASDA stores are built to a much higher 
standard than Walmart, which must have some effect on prices. The only 
stores I've found that are as cheaply fitted out as the average Walmart 
is a chain called Wilkinsons, which are scarily like Walmarts inside (if 
a little smaller).
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:30:48 on Sun, 7 Aug 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>>It seems to manage with branded food - although it sells a lot (perhaps
>>75%) of its own brand. It's very obvious that they sell almost entirely
>>their own brand of clothes and electrical appliances. While these are
>>genuinely low cost, a price-promise is meaningless.
>
>I believe Asda Wal-Mart's clothing brand (George) is now the largest
>in terms of sales figures in the country...


The George brand is very successful. It is value for money. But it's not 
a very good example if you are trying to prove who sells branded goods 
the cheapest.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:57:12 
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:

>>>How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
>>>undersell it.
>>
>>It seems to manage with branded food - although it sells a lot (perhaps
>>75%) of its own brand. It's very obvious that they sell almost entirely
>>their own brand of clothes and electrical appliances. While these are
>>genuinely low cost, a price-promise is meaningless.
>
>I was talking about branded items, like General Electric appliances or


They don't sell major-brand items - that's the whole point!


>Granger chewing tobacco.


I don't think that disgusting substance is sold in the UK.

You should also be aware that ASDA stores are built to a much higher 
standard than Walmart, which must have some effect on prices. The only 
stores I've found that are as cheaply fitted out as the average Walmart 
is a chain called Wilkinsons, which are scarily like Walmarts inside (if 
a little smaller).
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:42:23 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>
>A few years ago it bought a set of stores that account for perhaps 20% 
>of the market. Started by Associated Diaries, they are branded "ASDA".
>


Started out as "Craven Dairies" ITYF, In the days before we had
refrigerators when you could choose from 2 competing milkmen
delivering milk to your doorstep on a daily basis, even if it was only
half a pint. (I'm going back a bit !)

OK everybody, To the tune of "Entry of the Gladiators" 1-2-3...

"Here we are on the Open Prairies

Milking cows for the Craven Dairies" ...


>>Britain does have amazon.co.uk, the counterpart of American
>>amazon.com. I haven't looked lately but back a while ago, items on
>>British amazon.co.uk such as electronics (eg. a Linksys BEFSR41 NAT
>>router) were priced in Pounds the same level as Dollars on amazon.com.
>>That unit cost about $50 in America and £50 in Britain. Yet the
>>exchange rate was somewhere around 1.5 at the time I made the
>>comparison.


The comparison is even worse than that once you add in taxes. 


>>
>>So it is not just the difference in stores.
>
>Prices for computer and other hi-tech equipment lags that in the USA. So 
>they are indeed often cheaper in the USA. But it's not true for all 
>(even computer) items.


DG

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:44:33 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:



>
>What would be interesting would be a price comparison between a UK made 
>bathroom cabinet in the UK and Germany.


Securicor parcels delivery service (& DHL) has recently been bought by
Deutsche Post.  There is a manyfold difference in the cost of shipping
a parcel .de >.uk compared with .uk >.de

DG

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:42:23 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>
>A few years ago it bought a set of stores that account for perhaps 20% 
>of the market. Started by Associated Diaries, they are branded "ASDA".
>


Started out as "Craven Dairies" ITYF, In the days before we had
refrigerators when you could choose from 2 competing milkmen
delivering milk to your doorstep on a daily basis, even if it was only
half a pint. (I'm going back a bit !)

OK everybody, To the tune of "Entry of the Gladiators" 1-2-3...

"Here we are on the Open Prairies

Milking cows for the Craven Dairies" ...


>>Britain does have amazon.co.uk, the counterpart of American
>>amazon.com. I haven't looked lately but back a while ago, items on
>>British amazon.co.uk such as electronics (eg. a Linksys BEFSR41 NAT
>>router) were priced in Pounds the same level as Dollars on amazon.com.
>>That unit cost about $50 in America and £50 in Britain. Yet the
>>exchange rate was somewhere around 1.5 at the time I made the
>>comparison.


The comparison is even worse than that once you add in taxes. 


>>
>>So it is not just the difference in stores.
>
>Prices for computer and other hi-tech equipment lags that in the USA. So 
>they are indeed often cheaper in the USA. But it's not true for all 
>(even computer) items.


DG

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:44:33 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:



>
>What would be interesting would be a price comparison between a UK made 
>bathroom cabinet in the UK and Germany.


Securicor parcels delivery service (& DHL) has recently been bought by
Deutsche Post.  There is a manyfold difference in the cost of shipping
a parcel .de >.uk compared with .uk >.de

DG

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:42:23 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>>So it is not just the difference in stores.

>Prices for computer and other hi-tech equipment lags that in the USA. So 
>they are indeed often cheaper in the USA. But it's not true for all 
>(even computer) items.


As I said, I compared identical items and the one in Britain cost the
same numerical amount in Pounds as the American one in Dollars.

I also did a comparison with Dell Computers and the same thing
happened. The one in Britain cost the same in Pounds as the one in
Britain.

The Linksys does not have a shipping differential because it is made
in Taiwan. Dell may have a shipping differential because they are
assembled in Texas.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 19:18:06 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>A big part of the difference in price for electrical items is
>the significantly better warrenties that European sellers are
>obliged to give.


I do not know about electrical items - I was talking about electronic
items.


>AIUI, in the US you get a 3 or a 6 month
>warrenty and if it breaks after that you get zilch, in Europe
>the requirements are much stronger than this (even if the
>shops do try to tell you otherwise)


Manufacturers provide at least 1 year warranty for electronics goods.
Vendors provide 30 days typically.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:52:26 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>>I was talking about branded items, like General Electric appliances or

>They don't sell major-brand items - that's the whole point!


Wal<art sells major brands here.


>>Granger chewing tobacco.

>I don't think that disgusting substance is sold in the UK.


There is nothing disgusting about chewing tobacco. Thomas Jefferson
chewed tobacco.


>You should also be aware that ASDA stores are built to a much higher 
>standard than Walmart, 


What "much higher standards" are you talking about. A building is a
building no matter where you go. Our buildings must be able to
withstand hurricane force weather.


>which must have some effect on prices. The only 
>stores I've found that are as cheaply fitted out


What do you mean by "cheaply fitted out"? No, our WalMarts do not have
crystal chandelliers.


>as the average Walmart 
>is a chain called Wilkinsons, which are scarily like Walmarts inside


What is so "scary" about the inside of a WalMart store?

Everybody knows WalMart is not Neiman Marcus.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:42:23 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>>So it is not just the difference in stores.

>Prices for computer and other hi-tech equipment lags that in the USA. So 
>they are indeed often cheaper in the USA. But it's not true for all 
>(even computer) items.


As I said, I compared identical items and the one in Britain cost the
same numerical amount in Pounds as the American one in Dollars.

I also did a comparison with Dell Computers and the same thing
happened. The one in Britain cost the same in Pounds as the one in
Britain.

The Linksys does not have a shipping differential because it is made
in Taiwan. Dell may have a shipping differential because they are
assembled in Texas.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 19:18:06 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>A big part of the difference in price for electrical items is
>the significantly better warrenties that European sellers are
>obliged to give.


I do not know about electrical items - I was talking about electronic
items.


>AIUI, in the US you get a 3 or a 6 month
>warrenty and if it breaks after that you get zilch, in Europe
>the requirements are much stronger than this (even if the
>shops do try to tell you otherwise)


Manufacturers provide at least 1 year warranty for electronics goods.
Vendors provide 30 days typically.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:52:26 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>>I was talking about branded items, like General Electric appliances or

>They don't sell major-brand items - that's the whole point!


Wal<art sells major brands here.


>>Granger chewing tobacco.

>I don't think that disgusting substance is sold in the UK.


There is nothing disgusting about chewing tobacco. Thomas Jefferson
chewed tobacco.


>You should also be aware that ASDA stores are built to a much higher 
>standard than Walmart, 


What "much higher standards" are you talking about. A building is a
building no matter where you go. Our buildings must be able to
withstand hurricane force weather.


>which must have some effect on prices. The only 
>stores I've found that are as cheaply fitted out


What do you mean by "cheaply fitted out"? No, our WalMarts do not have
crystal chandelliers.


>as the average Walmart 
>is a chain called Wilkinsons, which are scarily like Walmarts inside


What is so "scary" about the inside of a WalMart store?

Everybody knows WalMart is not Neiman Marcus.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

In message , at 18:59:23 
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:

>>Prices for computer and other hi-tech equipment lags that in the USA. So
>>they are indeed often cheaper in the USA. But it's not true for all
>>(even computer) items.
>
>As I said, I compared identical items and the one in Britain cost the
>same numerical amount in Pounds as the American one in Dollars.
>
>I also did a comparison with Dell Computers and the same thing
>happened. The one in Britain cost the same in Pounds as the one in
>Britain.
>
>The Linksys does not have a shipping differential because it is made
>in Taiwan. Dell may have a shipping differential because they are
>assembled in Texas.


Yes, it's easy to find such examples in hi-tech goods whose price is 
plummeting as we speak. It's not as widespread for other items. (And 
it's not a shipping thing, it's to do with the maturity of the market).
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:49:59 on 
Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Derek ^  remarked:

>>What would be interesting would be a price comparison between a UK made
>>bathroom cabinet in the UK and Germany.
>
>Securicor parcels delivery service (& DHL) has recently been bought by
>Deutsche Post.  There is a manyfold difference in the cost of shipping
>a parcel .de >.uk compared with .uk >.de


And that's relevant to the German price for UK manufactured goods?
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:59:23 
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:

>>Prices for computer and other hi-tech equipment lags that in the USA. So
>>they are indeed often cheaper in the USA. But it's not true for all
>>(even computer) items.
>
>As I said, I compared identical items and the one in Britain cost the
>same numerical amount in Pounds as the American one in Dollars.
>
>I also did a comparison with Dell Computers and the same thing
>happened. The one in Britain cost the same in Pounds as the one in
>Britain.
>
>The Linksys does not have a shipping differential because it is made
>in Taiwan. Dell may have a shipping differential because they are
>assembled in Texas.


Yes, it's easy to find such examples in hi-tech goods whose price is 
plummeting as we speak. It's not as widespread for other items. (And 
it's not a shipping thing, it's to do with the maturity of the market).
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:49:59 on 
Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Derek ^  remarked:

>>What would be interesting would be a price comparison between a UK made
>>bathroom cabinet in the UK and Germany.
>
>Securicor parcels delivery service (& DHL) has recently been bought by
>Deutsche Post.  There is a manyfold difference in the cost of shipping
>a parcel .de >.uk compared with .uk >.de


And that's relevant to the German price for UK manufactured goods?
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:05:10 
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:

>On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:52:26 +0100, Roland Perry 
>wrote:
>
>>>I was talking about branded items, like General Electric appliances or
>
>>They don't sell major-brand items - that's the whole point!
>
>Wal<art sells major brands here.


I'm sure they do. In case you aren't yet realising it, the market is 
different in the UK and USA.


>>>Granger chewing tobacco.
>
>>I don't think that disgusting substance is sold in the UK.
>
>There is nothing disgusting about chewing tobacco. Thomas Jefferson
>chewed tobacco.
>
>>You should also be aware that ASDA stores are built to a much higher
>>standard than Walmart,
>
>What "much higher standards" are you talking about. A building is a
>building no matter where you go. Our buildings must be able to
>withstand hurricane force weather.


The quality of the shelves, fridges, checkouts, rest rooms. In fact 
anything that makes one shop "better built" than another.


>>which must have some effect on prices. The only
>>stores I've found that are as cheaply fitted out
>
>What do you mean by "cheaply fitted out"? No, our WalMarts do not have
>crystal chandelliers.


Old and battered shelving, poor quality fittings. Sloppy point of sale 
material.

I'm not saying this is "wrong", but it means that direct comparisons are 
misleading.


>>as the average Walmart
>>is a chain called Wilkinsons, which are scarily like Walmarts inside
>
>What is so "scary" about the inside of a WalMart store?


The scary one is Wilkinsons. That it can be so like a WalMart.


>Everybody knows WalMart is not Neiman Marcus.


Indeed, but as you are now beginning to realise, the British seem much 
more inclined to shop at places at the Neiman Marcus end of the 
spectrum. Despite it being much better than Walmart, a lot of Brits 
would consider it "slumming it" to shop in ASDA. Tesco used to have the 
same reputation, but has successfully gone upmarket over the years.

All this means in terms of price, is that Brits seem happy to pay the 
higher prices, because they wouldn't be seen dead in the shops with 
lower prices. The lower prices do exist!
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:05:10 
on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:

>On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:52:26 +0100, Roland Perry 
>wrote:
>
>>>I was talking about branded items, like General Electric appliances or
>
>>They don't sell major-brand items - that's the whole point!
>
>Wal<art sells major brands here.


I'm sure they do. In case you aren't yet realising it, the market is 
different in the UK and USA.


>>>Granger chewing tobacco.
>
>>I don't think that disgusting substance is sold in the UK.
>
>There is nothing disgusting about chewing tobacco. Thomas Jefferson
>chewed tobacco.
>
>>You should also be aware that ASDA stores are built to a much higher
>>standard than Walmart,
>
>What "much higher standards" are you talking about. A building is a
>building no matter where you go. Our buildings must be able to
>withstand hurricane force weather.


The quality of the shelves, fridges, checkouts, rest rooms. In fact 
anything that makes one shop "better built" than another.


>>which must have some effect on prices. The only
>>stores I've found that are as cheaply fitted out
>
>What do you mean by "cheaply fitted out"? No, our WalMarts do not have
>crystal chandelliers.


Old and battered shelving, poor quality fittings. Sloppy point of sale 
material.

I'm not saying this is "wrong", but it means that direct comparisons are 
misleading.


>>as the average Walmart
>>is a chain called Wilkinsons, which are scarily like Walmarts inside
>
>What is so "scary" about the inside of a WalMart store?


The scary one is Wilkinsons. That it can be so like a WalMart.


>Everybody knows WalMart is not Neiman Marcus.


Indeed, but as you are now beginning to realise, the British seem much 
more inclined to shop at places at the Neiman Marcus end of the 
spectrum. Despite it being much better than Walmart, a lot of Brits 
would consider it "slumming it" to shop in ASDA. Tesco used to have the 
same reputation, but has successfully gone upmarket over the years.

All this means in terms of price, is that Brits seem happy to pay the 
higher prices, because they wouldn't be seen dead in the shops with 
lower prices. The lower prices do exist!
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:33:06 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>
>Sometimes. But there are many situations where there is no real
>alternative or the others are just as bad. There is a culture of 
>"take it or leave it" in British retailing and over many years Brits
>have become accustomed to it. Only a few large forward-thinking
>retailers understand the importance of customer service, hence the
>number of corps now who only have 0870* telnums to contact them.
>
>*these are high-cost call charges where the call revenue is shared 
>by the telco and the company. 8p per minute is typical. You find 
>yourself connected to a mechanised bimbo voice rattling off press
>button options as the call cost mounts... Internet travel agents and
>PC dealers are classic examples of this rip-off practice.


The chief offenders are the cheap multiple chain "Lodge" type hotels,
who will recite all their terms and conditions of service to you and
invite you to join their loyalty program etc etc before they give you
the menu options. If like me you do this 2-3 times per week this is
not something you want to be paying for, or FTM sitting in the car at
19-45 pm to be delayed for, for the " N" th time this week. If you are
unlucky of course you may have to try 2 or 3 providers.  :-((  


>
>>Are you familiar with the famous Compaq vs. Dell case? Compaq is
>>Houston-based and Dell is PRA-based. (Actually Michael Dell went to
>>high school in the same district my kids went to. It's known as the
>>district of millionaires because so many kids went on to make their
>>fortune).
>>
>>Rod Canion who started Compaq insisted on dealer support, which was a
>>colossal joke. Dell pioneered direct support by telephone and took
>>over Compaq's retail market. It cost Canion his job as president.
>
>Such examples are rare in Britain.
>


OTOH I have little sympathy with some of my own customers. On having
to arrange service visits to do in Dundee, Aberdeen, and Inverness, my
secretary booked me to be overnight in Dundee, then onto the north.
Dundee was fine, but on arriving at both Aberdeen and Inverness both
complained bitterly they had been given appointments at 08-30 am and
in the case of inverness I had arrived at 3-30pm. 

Clearly our service secretary, who has been doing the job every
working day for 18 years, and does nothing else, would not within a 5
minute period on the telephone make 3 appointments  for me to be at
places 120 miles apart all at one and the same time. But the customers
had no hesitation in freely calling her a liar. Clearly the individual
customers had accepted the booking and then afterwards decided what
would be the most advantageous arrangement for them and just assumed
that is what would happen, and then when it did not transpire they
brazenly lied about it to their boss. Not *everyone* can have an 08-30
appointment for a 1 hour service visit. Particularly if they are 380
miles away.

Hound dogs the lot of them. 

DG

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:31:57 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>In message , at 18:59:23 
>on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:
>>>Prices for computer and other hi-tech equipment lags that in the USA. So
>>>they are indeed often cheaper in the USA. But it's not true for all
>>>(even computer) items.
>>
>>As I said, I compared identical items and the one in Britain cost the
>>same numerical amount in Pounds as the American one in Dollars.
>>
>>I also did a comparison with Dell Computers and the same thing
>>happened. The one in Britain cost the same in Pounds as the one in
>>Britain.
>>
>>The Linksys does not have a shipping differential because it is made
>>in Taiwan. Dell may have a shipping differential because they are
>>assembled in Texas.
>
>Yes, it's easy to find such examples in hi-tech goods whose price is 
>plummeting as we speak. It's not as widespread for other items. (And 
>it's not a shipping thing, it's to do with the maturity of the market).


You have sales taxes and customs too.
Just been looking to buy one of these before winter comes back
http://www.countryloversstore.com/index.html?lang=en-uk&target=d1.html&lmd=38496.620069

In NZ roughly half the price.
http://www.hartings.co.nz/drizabone_riding_coat.htm

Adding the import duty and vat it is not going to cost me much more to
drive over to the UK retailer and buy one here

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:33:06 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>
>Sometimes. But there are many situations where there is no real
>alternative or the others are just as bad. There is a culture of 
>"take it or leave it" in British retailing and over many years Brits
>have become accustomed to it. Only a few large forward-thinking
>retailers understand the importance of customer service, hence the
>number of corps now who only have 0870* telnums to contact them.
>
>*these are high-cost call charges where the call revenue is shared 
>by the telco and the company. 8p per minute is typical. You find 
>yourself connected to a mechanised bimbo voice rattling off press
>button options as the call cost mounts... Internet travel agents and
>PC dealers are classic examples of this rip-off practice.


The chief offenders are the cheap multiple chain "Lodge" type hotels,
who will recite all their terms and conditions of service to you and
invite you to join their loyalty program etc etc before they give you
the menu options. If like me you do this 2-3 times per week this is
not something you want to be paying for, or FTM sitting in the car at
19-45 pm to be delayed for, for the " N" th time this week. If you are
unlucky of course you may have to try 2 or 3 providers.  :-((  


>
>>Are you familiar with the famous Compaq vs. Dell case? Compaq is
>>Houston-based and Dell is PRA-based. (Actually Michael Dell went to
>>high school in the same district my kids went to. It's known as the
>>district of millionaires because so many kids went on to make their
>>fortune).
>>
>>Rod Canion who started Compaq insisted on dealer support, which was a
>>colossal joke. Dell pioneered direct support by telephone and took
>>over Compaq's retail market. It cost Canion his job as president.
>
>Such examples are rare in Britain.
>


OTOH I have little sympathy with some of my own customers. On having
to arrange service visits to do in Dundee, Aberdeen, and Inverness, my
secretary booked me to be overnight in Dundee, then onto the north.
Dundee was fine, but on arriving at both Aberdeen and Inverness both
complained bitterly they had been given appointments at 08-30 am and
in the case of inverness I had arrived at 3-30pm. 

Clearly our service secretary, who has been doing the job every
working day for 18 years, and does nothing else, would not within a 5
minute period on the telephone make 3 appointments  for me to be at
places 120 miles apart all at one and the same time. But the customers
had no hesitation in freely calling her a liar. Clearly the individual
customers had accepted the booking and then afterwards decided what
would be the most advantageous arrangement for them and just assumed
that is what would happen, and then when it did not transpire they
brazenly lied about it to their boss. Not *everyone* can have an 08-30
appointment for a 1 hour service visit. Particularly if they are 380
miles away.

Hound dogs the lot of them. 

DG

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:31:57 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>In message , at 18:59:23 
>on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Anubis  remarked:
>>>Prices for computer and other hi-tech equipment lags that in the USA. So
>>>they are indeed often cheaper in the USA. But it's not true for all
>>>(even computer) items.
>>
>>As I said, I compared identical items and the one in Britain cost the
>>same numerical amount in Pounds as the American one in Dollars.
>>
>>I also did a comparison with Dell Computers and the same thing
>>happened. The one in Britain cost the same in Pounds as the one in
>>Britain.
>>
>>The Linksys does not have a shipping differential because it is made
>>in Taiwan. Dell may have a shipping differential because they are
>>assembled in Texas.
>
>Yes, it's easy to find such examples in hi-tech goods whose price is 
>plummeting as we speak. It's not as widespread for other items. (And 
>it's not a shipping thing, it's to do with the maturity of the market).


You have sales taxes and customs too.
Just been looking to buy one of these before winter comes back
http://www.countryloversstore.com/index.html?lang=en-uk&target=d1.html&lmd=38496.620069

In NZ roughly half the price.
http://www.hartings.co.nz/drizabone_riding_coat.htm

Adding the import duty and vat it is not going to cost me much more to
drive over to the UK retailer and buy one here

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:32:44 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>In message , at 19:49:59 on 
>Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Derek ^  remarked:
>>>What would be interesting would be a price comparison between a UK made
>>>bathroom cabinet in the UK and Germany.
>>
>>Securicor parcels delivery service (& DHL) has recently been bought by
>>Deutsche Post.  There is a manyfold difference in the cost of shipping
>>a parcel .de >.uk compared with .uk >.de
>
>And that's relevant to the German price for UK manufactured goods?


Abso-fucking-lootly it is. Obviously.

The prices that get charged are those that customers will pay. If
British customers will pay 2.5 to 4.00 times what German customers
will pay to send a parcel 800 Km between the same 2 points then that
is a valid illustration of the difference in the price sensitivity of
the market "There" and "Here".

DG

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:41:38 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>Indeed, but as you are now beginning to realise, the British seem much 
>more inclined to shop at places at the Neiman Marcus end of the 
>spectrum. Despite it being much better than Walmart, a lot of Brits 
>would consider it "slumming it" to shop in ASDA. Tesco used to have the 
>same reputation, but has successfully gone upmarket over the years.


Really?  My impression was always that Tesco were expensive but fairly
average-mediocre, perhaps a bit lower in the market than Sainsbury's
(an awful supermarket - expensive and poorly-stocked) but not far off.

What they have become now, in terms of fitment, is probably an
upmarket Wal-Mart - their stores certainly are not "luxury", or not
the new superstores.  A lot of the difference between Tesco and Asda
is probably the advertising campaigns and such - Asda sells purely on
price, while Tesco goes for service as well.

Safeway, OTOH, used to genuinely feel quite upmarket, with the prices
to match.  Morrisons have sadly turned it into a third-rate Asda
wannabee that I tend to avoid like the plague.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 19:00:52 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis) wrote:


>Manufacturers provide at least 1 year warranty for electronics goods.
>Vendors provide 30 days typically.


Ah.  While manufacturers do provide the same in the UK, your contract
is with the vendor, and (despite what some of them like to think) that
is where items should generally be returned.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:32:44 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>In message , at 19:49:59 on 
>Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Derek ^  remarked:
>>>What would be interesting would be a price comparison between a UK made
>>>bathroom cabinet in the UK and Germany.
>>
>>Securicor parcels delivery service (& DHL) has recently been bought by
>>Deutsche Post.  There is a manyfold difference in the cost of shipping
>>a parcel .de >.uk compared with .uk >.de
>
>And that's relevant to the German price for UK manufactured goods?


Abso-fucking-lootly it is. Obviously.

The prices that get charged are those that customers will pay. If
British customers will pay 2.5 to 4.00 times what German customers
will pay to send a parcel 800 Km between the same 2 points then that
is a valid illustration of the difference in the price sensitivity of
the market "There" and "Here".

DG

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:41:38 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>Indeed, but as you are now beginning to realise, the British seem much 
>more inclined to shop at places at the Neiman Marcus end of the 
>spectrum. Despite it being much better than Walmart, a lot of Brits 
>would consider it "slumming it" to shop in ASDA. Tesco used to have the 
>same reputation, but has successfully gone upmarket over the years.


Really?  My impression was always that Tesco were expensive but fairly
average-mediocre, perhaps a bit lower in the market than Sainsbury's
(an awful supermarket - expensive and poorly-stocked) but not far off.

What they have become now, in terms of fitment, is probably an
upmarket Wal-Mart - their stores certainly are not "luxury", or not
the new superstores.  A lot of the difference between Tesco and Asda
is probably the advertising campaigns and such - Asda sells purely on
price, while Tesco goes for service as well.

Safeway, OTOH, used to genuinely feel quite upmarket, with the prices
to match.  Morrisons have sadly turned it into a third-rate Asda
wannabee that I tend to avoid like the plague.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 19:00:52 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis) wrote:


>Manufacturers provide at least 1 year warranty for electronics goods.
>Vendors provide 30 days typically.


Ah.  While manufacturers do provide the same in the UK, your contract
is with the vendor, and (despite what some of them like to think) that
is where items should generally be returned.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:38:14 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>>
>>Please don't lecture me.
>
>The law to which you referred specifically refers to "Resale Price
>Maintenance".  If you could only get that into your thick head, there
>would be no need to lecture you.
>
>Of course, as with so many other words and terms in the English
>language, if enough stupid people get it wrong, it will eventually
>become accepted usage.  Presumably, by deliberately repeating your
>error, this is what you are attempting to do.


Perhaps you would like to get into your own thick head that I never
mentioned any specific law by name ...I simply referred to the fact
that retail price maintenance was outlawed, as it was. You correctly
mentioned that the relevant law applies to *resale* price maintenenace
which is a broader issue, but wasn't relevant to my point.

How many times do I have to point this out?

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:08:22 GMT, Neil Sunderland

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird wrote:
>>My earlier comments related to Retail Price Maintenance and that's
>>what I meant. IE - the practice of retailers selling goods/services 
>>at prices determined by their suppliers.
>
>For the hard of thinking:
><http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmtrdind/064/06422.htm>
>
>"The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is investigating anti-competitive
>behaviour in the United Kingdom market for cars under the Resale
>Prices Act 1976 (RPA), Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (RTPA),
>the Competition Act 1980 (CA) and the Fair Trading Act 1973 (FTA).
>Broadly speaking, for competition purposes the RPA is used against
>_resale price maintenance_ by a supplier, the RTPA against price
>fixing cartels, the CA against anti-competitive behaviour by
>individual companies and the FTA for industry-wide problems."


Indeed but see my comments to the OP.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 14:49:33 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:44:56 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>Afaik MS are bringing out a cut down version of Windows to comply.
>>Will it be cheaper.....?
>
>Doubt it.  The whole thing is a nonsense, anyway.  Why *would* someone
>want to purchase a version of Windows without a built-in Web browser,
>when a Web browser is now a sensible OS component?
>
>You don't have to *use* it if you don't want to.


But there are better free browsers around. I use Avant.
So not having the system overhead of IE is a boon for some.

Even more so with Outlook Express which hogs system resources so 
I don't use it, preferring Agent. I also use Media Player Classic
instead of Windows Media Player - smaller and better.

Many people prefer to choose which apps they use as MS apps tend 
to be bloatware and mediocre in performance.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:58:43 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>But there are better free browsers around. I use Avant.
>So not having the system overhead of IE is a boon for some.


And I use Firefox for the Web, Free Agent for news, Gmail for mail and
Musicmatch Jukebox for audio.


>Many people prefer to choose which apps they use as MS apps tend 
>to be bloatware and mediocre in performance.


Agreed.  However, on today's level of hardware, they don't get in the
way as such, and when coding it can be useful to assume the APIs to be
present.

There is one greater benefit, however.  Having this kind of basic
software included with the OS is a benefit for the non-techie end user
who just wants to use the PC without having to faff around obtaining
lots of different pieces of different software to get basic
functionality.  Remember that just about every Linux distribution
includes this kind of functionality as well.

I don't *like* M$, but I fail to see why shipping a web browser etc
with their OS is in any way inappropriate.  Their early distribution
of a free IE on the Web to purposefully try and kill Netscape could be
seen in that way, but I don't see bundling that way at all, certainly
not in the way IT has developed.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:38:14 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>>
>>Please don't lecture me.
>
>The law to which you referred specifically refers to "Resale Price
>Maintenance".  If you could only get that into your thick head, there
>would be no need to lecture you.
>
>Of course, as with so many other words and terms in the English
>language, if enough stupid people get it wrong, it will eventually
>become accepted usage.  Presumably, by deliberately repeating your
>error, this is what you are attempting to do.


Perhaps you would like to get into your own thick head that I never
mentioned any specific law by name ...I simply referred to the fact
that retail price maintenance was outlawed, as it was. You correctly
mentioned that the relevant law applies to *resale* price maintenenace
which is a broader issue, but wasn't relevant to my point.

How many times do I have to point this out?

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:08:22 GMT, Neil Sunderland

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird wrote:
>>My earlier comments related to Retail Price Maintenance and that's
>>what I meant. IE - the practice of retailers selling goods/services 
>>at prices determined by their suppliers.
>
>For the hard of thinking:
><http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmtrdind/064/06422.htm>
>
>"The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is investigating anti-competitive
>behaviour in the United Kingdom market for cars under the Resale
>Prices Act 1976 (RPA), Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (RTPA),
>the Competition Act 1980 (CA) and the Fair Trading Act 1973 (FTA).
>Broadly speaking, for competition purposes the RPA is used against
>_resale price maintenance_ by a supplier, the RTPA against price
>fixing cartels, the CA against anti-competitive behaviour by
>individual companies and the FTA for industry-wide problems."


Indeed but see my comments to the OP.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 14:49:33 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:44:56 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>Afaik MS are bringing out a cut down version of Windows to comply.
>>Will it be cheaper.....?
>
>Doubt it.  The whole thing is a nonsense, anyway.  Why *would* someone
>want to purchase a version of Windows without a built-in Web browser,
>when a Web browser is now a sensible OS component?
>
>You don't have to *use* it if you don't want to.


But there are better free browsers around. I use Avant.
So not having the system overhead of IE is a boon for some.

Even more so with Outlook Express which hogs system resources so 
I don't use it, preferring Agent. I also use Media Player Classic
instead of Windows Media Player - smaller and better.

Many people prefer to choose which apps they use as MS apps tend 
to be bloatware and mediocre in performance.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:58:43 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>But there are better free browsers around. I use Avant.
>So not having the system overhead of IE is a boon for some.


And I use Firefox for the Web, Free Agent for news, Gmail for mail and
Musicmatch Jukebox for audio.


>Many people prefer to choose which apps they use as MS apps tend 
>to be bloatware and mediocre in performance.


Agreed.  However, on today's level of hardware, they don't get in the
way as such, and when coding it can be useful to assume the APIs to be
present.

There is one greater benefit, however.  Having this kind of basic
software included with the OS is a benefit for the non-techie end user
who just wants to use the PC without having to faff around obtaining
lots of different pieces of different software to get basic
functionality.  Remember that just about every Linux distribution
includes this kind of functionality as well.

I don't *like* M$, but I fail to see why shipping a web browser etc
with their OS is in any way inappropriate.  Their early distribution
of a free IE on the Web to purposefully try and kill Netscape could be
seen in that way, but I don't see bundling that way at all, certainly
not in the way IT has developed.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:58:43 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 14:49:33 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
>Williams)
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:44:56 +0100, hummingbird
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Afaik MS are bringing out a cut down version of Windows to comply.
>>>Will it be cheaper.....?
>>
>>Doubt it.  The whole thing is a nonsense, anyway.  Why *would* someone
>>want to purchase a version of Windows without a built-in Web browser,
>>when a Web browser is now a sensible OS component?
>>
>>You don't have to *use* it if you don't want to.
>
>But there are better free browsers around. I use Avant.

Does it handle MS non W3C compliant sites?


>So not having the system overhead of IE is a boon for some.
>
>Even more so with Outlook Express which hogs system resources so 
>I don't use it, preferring Agent. I also use Media Player Classic
>instead of Windows Media Player - smaller and better.
>
>Many people prefer to choose which apps they use as MS apps tend 
>to be bloatware and mediocre in performance.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 19:05:10 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis) wrote:


>On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:52:26 +0100, Roland Perry 
>wrote:
>
>>>I was talking about branded items, like General Electric appliances or
>
>>They don't sell major-brand items - that's the whole point!
>
>Wal<art sells major brands here.
>
>>>Granger chewing tobacco.
>
>>I don't think that disgusting substance is sold in the UK.
>
>There is nothing disgusting about chewing tobacco. Thomas Jefferson
>chewed tobacco.


And pissed in a pot.

Seemingly died of "Heart Dropsy" wonder what caused that?


>
>>You should also be aware that ASDA stores are built to a much higher 
>>standard than Walmart, 
>
>What "much higher standards" are you talking about. A building is a
>building no matter where you go. Our buildings must be able to
>withstand hurricane force weather.


What, plywood and felt roofs with the fake "tiles" graphic printed on 

DMML.

The one I inherited in Florida which my uncle had lived in for 40
years had to be demolished and added a *negative* value to his estate.


>
>>which must have some effect on prices. The only 
>>stores I've found that are as cheaply fitted out
>
>What do you mean by "cheaply fitted out"? No, our WalMarts do not have
>crystal chandelliers.


BTW Woolworths in the UK almost did.

ISTR fake gas lamps with opal glass diffusers held in chicken wire
baskets in most places in UK in the early '60s.

Closer to earth, if you compare our supermarkets to the ones in
France, generally our prices are (often much)  higher but more money
has been spent on fixtures and fittings and decoration.

In France we see items stacked in the packaging it has been shipped
in. I think of such as Wal*greens* (about which I have more
experience) as a sort of half way house (Between .uk & .fr <LOL>).

I have incidentally seen a checkout assistant in Walgreens taking 3
telephone calls at once, including an  incoming <  personal  :-)  >
call from her boyfriend, whilst supposedly  serving a customer. You
wouldn't see that at Asda or Tesco. 

>
>>as the average Walmart 
>>is a chain called Wilkinsons, which are scarily like Walmarts inside
>
>What is so "scary" about the inside of a WalMart store?


I don't know what's scary about it. Wilko's is characterised by having
a  limited range of premier brand lines  but being good in certain
departments, such as particular gardening requisites or mouthwashes.


>
>Everybody knows WalMart is not Neiman Marcus.


It bears no resemblance. N.M's not a supermarket. FWIR,
(I don't go in !)  it's basically a mid market ladies clothing +
cosmetics store, but Including some Menswear and Housewares but mostly
as gift lines. More like our Debenhams.

Compare http://www.neimanmarcus.com/ and http://www.debenhams.com/

HTH

DG

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:58:43 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 14:49:33 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
>Williams)
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:44:56 +0100, hummingbird
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Afaik MS are bringing out a cut down version of Windows to comply.
>>>Will it be cheaper.....?
>>
>>Doubt it.  The whole thing is a nonsense, anyway.  Why *would* someone
>>want to purchase a version of Windows without a built-in Web browser,
>>when a Web browser is now a sensible OS component?
>>
>>You don't have to *use* it if you don't want to.
>
>But there are better free browsers around. I use Avant.

Does it handle MS non W3C compliant sites?


>So not having the system overhead of IE is a boon for some.
>
>Even more so with Outlook Express which hogs system resources so 
>I don't use it, preferring Agent. I also use Media Player Classic
>instead of Windows Media Player - smaller and better.
>
>Many people prefer to choose which apps they use as MS apps tend 
>to be bloatware and mediocre in performance.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 19:05:10 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis) wrote:


>On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:52:26 +0100, Roland Perry 
>wrote:
>
>>>I was talking about branded items, like General Electric appliances or
>
>>They don't sell major-brand items - that's the whole point!
>
>Wal<art sells major brands here.
>
>>>Granger chewing tobacco.
>
>>I don't think that disgusting substance is sold in the UK.
>
>There is nothing disgusting about chewing tobacco. Thomas Jefferson
>chewed tobacco.


And pissed in a pot.

Seemingly died of "Heart Dropsy" wonder what caused that?


>
>>You should also be aware that ASDA stores are built to a much higher 
>>standard than Walmart, 
>
>What "much higher standards" are you talking about. A building is a
>building no matter where you go. Our buildings must be able to
>withstand hurricane force weather.


What, plywood and felt roofs with the fake "tiles" graphic printed on 

DMML.

The one I inherited in Florida which my uncle had lived in for 40
years had to be demolished and added a *negative* value to his estate.


>
>>which must have some effect on prices. The only 
>>stores I've found that are as cheaply fitted out
>
>What do you mean by "cheaply fitted out"? No, our WalMarts do not have
>crystal chandelliers.


BTW Woolworths in the UK almost did.

ISTR fake gas lamps with opal glass diffusers held in chicken wire
baskets in most places in UK in the early '60s.

Closer to earth, if you compare our supermarkets to the ones in
France, generally our prices are (often much)  higher but more money
has been spent on fixtures and fittings and decoration.

In France we see items stacked in the packaging it has been shipped
in. I think of such as Wal*greens* (about which I have more
experience) as a sort of half way house (Between .uk & .fr <LOL>).

I have incidentally seen a checkout assistant in Walgreens taking 3
telephone calls at once, including an  incoming <  personal  :-)  >
call from her boyfriend, whilst supposedly  serving a customer. You
wouldn't see that at Asda or Tesco. 

>
>>as the average Walmart 
>>is a chain called Wilkinsons, which are scarily like Walmarts inside
>
>What is so "scary" about the inside of a WalMart store?


I don't know what's scary about it. Wilko's is characterised by having
a  limited range of premier brand lines  but being good in certain
departments, such as particular gardening requisites or mouthwashes.


>
>Everybody knows WalMart is not Neiman Marcus.


It bears no resemblance. N.M's not a supermarket. FWIR,
(I don't go in !)  it's basically a mid market ladies clothing +
cosmetics store, but Including some Menswear and Housewares but mostly
as gift lines. More like our Debenhams.

Compare http://www.neimanmarcus.com/ and http://www.debenhams.com/

HTH

DG

hummingbird  wrote:

>
>Crude capitalism doesn't succeed on its own.



No-one said it did, and certainly not me.  All I did was provide the
definition.  Any inference you made is your own, and it is very funny
watching you argue against an inference that only you have made.

Thank you for making me laugh!

;-)

hummingbird  wrote:


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:08:22 GMT, Neil Sunderland
>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird wrote:
>>>My earlier comments related to Retail Price Maintenance and that's
>>>what I meant. IE - the practice of retailers selling goods/services 
>>>at prices determined by their suppliers.
>>
>>For the hard of thinking:
>><http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmtrdind/064/06422.htm>
>>
>>"The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is investigating anti-competitive
>>behaviour in the United Kingdom market for cars under the Resale
>>Prices Act 1976 (RPA), Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (RTPA),
>>the Competition Act 1980 (CA) and the Fair Trading Act 1973 (FTA).
>>Broadly speaking, for competition purposes the RPA is used against
>>_resale price maintenance_ by a supplier, the RTPA against price
>>fixing cartels, the CA against anti-competitive behaviour by
>>individual companies and the FTA for industry-wide problems."
>
>Indeed but see my comments to the OP.



It appears that the whole world could tell you it was "Resale", but
you would continue to believe it was "retail".

Were you a mule in a former life?  Or just this one?

;-)

hummingbird  wrote:


>Perhaps you would like to get into your own thick head that I never
>mentioned any specific law by name ...I simply referred to the fact
>that retail price maintenance was outlawed, as it was.



*Resale* Price Maintenance was what was "outlawed".

hummingbird  wrote:

>
>Crude capitalism doesn't succeed on its own.



No-one said it did, and certainly not me.  All I did was provide the
definition.  Any inference you made is your own, and it is very funny
watching you argue against an inference that only you have made.

Thank you for making me laugh!

;-)

hummingbird  wrote:


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:08:22 GMT, Neil Sunderland
>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>hummingbird wrote:
>>>My earlier comments related to Retail Price Maintenance and that's
>>>what I meant. IE - the practice of retailers selling goods/services 
>>>at prices determined by their suppliers.
>>
>>For the hard of thinking:
>><http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmtrdind/064/06422.htm>
>>
>>"The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is investigating anti-competitive
>>behaviour in the United Kingdom market for cars under the Resale
>>Prices Act 1976 (RPA), Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (RTPA),
>>the Competition Act 1980 (CA) and the Fair Trading Act 1973 (FTA).
>>Broadly speaking, for competition purposes the RPA is used against
>>_resale price maintenance_ by a supplier, the RTPA against price
>>fixing cartels, the CA against anti-competitive behaviour by
>>individual companies and the FTA for industry-wide problems."
>
>Indeed but see my comments to the OP.



It appears that the whole world could tell you it was "Resale", but
you would continue to believe it was "retail".

Were you a mule in a former life?  Or just this one?

;-)

hummingbird  wrote:


>Perhaps you would like to get into your own thick head that I never
>mentioned any specific law by name ...I simply referred to the fact
>that retail price maintenance was outlawed, as it was.



*Resale* Price Maintenance was what was "outlawed".

Tony Polson wrote:

>Were you a mule in a former life?


Wrong genus, I believe.

hummingbird (noun) creature that makes an annoying sound with its
constant flapping.

-- 
Neil Sunderland
Braunton, Devon

Please observe the Reply-To address

Neil Sunderland  wrote:


>Tony Polson wrote:
>>Were you a mule in a former life?
>
>Wrong genus, I believe.
>
>hummingbird (noun) creature that makes an annoying sound with its
>constant flapping.



Ah, that explains it!  

Thanks.

;-)

Tony Polson wrote:

>Were you a mule in a former life?


Wrong genus, I believe.

hummingbird (noun) creature that makes an annoying sound with its
constant flapping.

-- 
Neil Sunderland
Braunton, Devon

Please observe the Reply-To address

Neil Sunderland  wrote:


>Tony Polson wrote:
>>Were you a mule in a former life?
>
>Wrong genus, I believe.
>
>hummingbird (noun) creature that makes an annoying sound with its
>constant flapping.



Ah, that explains it!  

Thanks.

;-)

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:02:10 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you would like to get into your own thick head that I never
>>mentioned any specific law by name ...I simply referred to the fact
>>that retail price maintenance was outlawed, as it was.
>
>
>*Resale* Price Maintenance was what was "outlawed".


And it included retail price maintenance. Try fixing prices in any
retail shop in the way of the past and see what happens...

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:02:10 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you would like to get into your own thick head that I never
>>mentioned any specific law by name ...I simply referred to the fact
>>that retail price maintenance was outlawed, as it was.
>
>
>*Resale* Price Maintenance was what was "outlawed".


And it included retail price maintenance. Try fixing prices in any
retail shop in the way of the past and see what happens...

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:03:48 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:08:22 GMT, Neil Sunderland
>>
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>hummingbird wrote:
>>>>My earlier comments related to Retail Price Maintenance and that's
>>>>what I meant. IE - the practice of retailers selling goods/services 
>>>>at prices determined by their suppliers.
>>>
>>>For the hard of thinking:
>>><http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmtrdind/064/06422.htm>
>>>
>>>"The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is investigating anti-competitive
>>>behaviour in the United Kingdom market for cars under the Resale
>>>Prices Act 1976 (RPA), Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (RTPA),
>>>the Competition Act 1980 (CA) and the Fair Trading Act 1973 (FTA).
>>>Broadly speaking, for competition purposes the RPA is used against
>>>_resale price maintenance_ by a supplier, the RTPA against price
>>>fixing cartels, the CA against anti-competitive behaviour by
>>>individual companies and the FTA for industry-wide problems."
>>
>>Indeed but see my comments to the OP.
>
>It appears that the whole world could tell you it was "Resale", but
>you would continue to believe it was "retail".


I give up trying to restate my earlier comments. You simply don't 
seem to understand. You're an idiot. Get used to it.


>Were you a mule in a former life?  Or just this one?


You would know because you're an ass.
Now piss off before I call mummy to spank you.

-- 
aproveite a loucura enquanto ela dura.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:44:39 GMT, Neil Sunderland

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>Tony Polson wrote:
>>Were you a mule in a former life?
>
>Wrong genus, I believe.
>
>hummingbird (noun) creature that makes an annoying sound with its
>constant flapping.


And what would a village idiot from Devon know about hummingbirds?

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:04:28 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:58:43 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>But there are better free browsers around. I use Avant.
>>So not having the system overhead of IE is a boon for some.
>
>And I use Firefox for the Web, Free Agent for news, Gmail for mail and
>Musicmatch Jukebox for audio.


So you *chose* not to use MS products.


>>Many people prefer to choose which apps they use as MS apps tend 
>>to be bloatware and mediocre in performance.
>
>Agreed.  However, on today's level of hardware, they don't get in the
>way as such, and when coding it can be useful to assume the APIs to be
>present.


Most users are not programmers, they just want to use their system.
MS IE is a target for virus/worm writers.


>There is one greater benefit, however.  Having this kind of basic
>software included with the OS is a benefit for the non-techie end user
>who just wants to use the PC without having to faff around obtaining
>lots of different pieces of different software to get basic
>functionality.  Remember that just about every Linux distribution
>includes this kind of functionality as well.


Those who want an all-in-one system can continue to have it.
Those like you and me and many others want to choose.


>I don't *like* M$, but I fail to see why shipping a web browser etc
>with their OS is in any way inappropriate.  Their early distribution
>of a free IE on the Web to purposefully try and kill Netscape could be
>seen in that way, but I don't see bundling that way at all, certainly
>not in the way IT has developed.


Bundling prevents or reduces user options as most people who buy a
bundled system won't bother to change because of the problems of
uninstalling IE. Given the choice from day1, they might not choose IE
for a variety of reasons, but trying to uninstall IE, OE, WMP etc from
an XP system takes a set of skills that most people don't have and it
can easily screw up the system badly.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:04:28 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>And I use Firefox for the Web, Free Agent for news, Gmail for mail and
>Musicmatch Jukebox for audio.


Mozilla, FA, Eudora, Winamp.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:21:43 +0100, AlanG  wrote:


>Does it handle MS non W3C compliant sites?


Only IE can do that.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:03:48 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:08:22 GMT, Neil Sunderland
>>
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>hummingbird wrote:
>>>>My earlier comments related to Retail Price Maintenance and that's
>>>>what I meant. IE - the practice of retailers selling goods/services 
>>>>at prices determined by their suppliers.
>>>
>>>For the hard of thinking:
>>><http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmtrdind/064/06422.htm>
>>>
>>>"The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is investigating anti-competitive
>>>behaviour in the United Kingdom market for cars under the Resale
>>>Prices Act 1976 (RPA), Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (RTPA),
>>>the Competition Act 1980 (CA) and the Fair Trading Act 1973 (FTA).
>>>Broadly speaking, for competition purposes the RPA is used against
>>>_resale price maintenance_ by a supplier, the RTPA against price
>>>fixing cartels, the CA against anti-competitive behaviour by
>>>individual companies and the FTA for industry-wide problems."
>>
>>Indeed but see my comments to the OP.
>
>It appears that the whole world could tell you it was "Resale", but
>you would continue to believe it was "retail".


I give up trying to restate my earlier comments. You simply don't 
seem to understand. You're an idiot. Get used to it.


>Were you a mule in a former life?  Or just this one?


You would know because you're an ass.
Now piss off before I call mummy to spank you.

-- 
aproveite a loucura enquanto ela dura.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:44:39 GMT, Neil Sunderland

 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>Tony Polson wrote:
>>Were you a mule in a former life?
>
>Wrong genus, I believe.
>
>hummingbird (noun) creature that makes an annoying sound with its
>constant flapping.


And what would a village idiot from Devon know about hummingbirds?

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:04:28 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:58:43 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>But there are better free browsers around. I use Avant.
>>So not having the system overhead of IE is a boon for some.
>
>And I use Firefox for the Web, Free Agent for news, Gmail for mail and
>Musicmatch Jukebox for audio.


So you *chose* not to use MS products.


>>Many people prefer to choose which apps they use as MS apps tend 
>>to be bloatware and mediocre in performance.
>
>Agreed.  However, on today's level of hardware, they don't get in the
>way as such, and when coding it can be useful to assume the APIs to be
>present.


Most users are not programmers, they just want to use their system.
MS IE is a target for virus/worm writers.


>There is one greater benefit, however.  Having this kind of basic
>software included with the OS is a benefit for the non-techie end user
>who just wants to use the PC without having to faff around obtaining
>lots of different pieces of different software to get basic
>functionality.  Remember that just about every Linux distribution
>includes this kind of functionality as well.


Those who want an all-in-one system can continue to have it.
Those like you and me and many others want to choose.


>I don't *like* M$, but I fail to see why shipping a web browser etc
>with their OS is in any way inappropriate.  Their early distribution
>of a free IE on the Web to purposefully try and kill Netscape could be
>seen in that way, but I don't see bundling that way at all, certainly
>not in the way IT has developed.


Bundling prevents or reduces user options as most people who buy a
bundled system won't bother to change because of the problems of
uninstalling IE. Given the choice from day1, they might not choose IE
for a variety of reasons, but trying to uninstall IE, OE, WMP etc from
an XP system takes a set of skills that most people don't have and it
can easily screw up the system badly.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:04:28 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>And I use Firefox for the Web, Free Agent for news, Gmail for mail and
>Musicmatch Jukebox for audio.


Mozilla, FA, Eudora, Winamp.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:21:43 +0100, AlanG  wrote:


>Does it handle MS non W3C compliant sites?


Only IE can do that.


-- 

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the
economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that
dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this
purpose in many ways: through the  selection of topics, distribution
of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis
and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises."

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:21:43 +0100, AlanG 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:58:43 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 14:49:33 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
>>Williams)
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:44:56 +0100, hummingbird
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Afaik MS are bringing out a cut down version of Windows to comply.
>>>>Will it be cheaper.....?
>>>
>>>Doubt it.  The whole thing is a nonsense, anyway.  Why *would* someone
>>>want to purchase a version of Windows without a built-in Web browser,
>>>when a Web browser is now a sensible OS component?
>>>
>>>You don't have to *use* it if you don't want to.
>>
>>But there are better free browsers around. I use Avant.
>Does it handle MS non W3C compliant sites?


MS "non" W3C compliant sites?
Avant works as a plug-in for IE and uses some of IE's modules.
Check it out: http://www.avantbrowser.com/


>>So not having the system overhead of IE is a boon for some.
>>
>>Even more so with Outlook Express which hogs system resources so 
>>I don't use it, preferring Agent. I also use Media Player Classic
>>instead of Windows Media Player - smaller and better.
>>
>>Many people prefer to choose which apps they use as MS apps tend 
>>to be bloatware and mediocre in performance.


-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:44:33 +0100, Roland Perry 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>In message , at 16:09:34 on 
>Sun, 7 Aug 2005, hummingbird  remarked:
>>>Doesn't this problem cut right across the board for consumer products.
>>>We didn't earn the tag, 'rip-off Britain' for nothing.
>>
>>Absolutely it does. And it goes right to the heart of how many goods
>>are supplied in Britain at rip-off prices. The bathroom cabinet I
>>bought is made by Metalmex (a German company) who supply their
>>products into Britain through an import agent, who then sell them to
>>retailers. So import company X imports a wagon load of the cabinets
>>which it pays ~40 each for and offers them to retailers for ~125
>>and provides a RRP of ~175.  Result: huge price ramping.
>>
>>When I saw my cabinet in Lewis's and explained that I had bought it
>>for 68, they looked it up in their control book and said "that's much
>>less than we pay from our suppliers".
>>
>>A secondary problem is that the manufacturers full range is not
>>usually available as import agents often choose only to import what
>>they think will be the best sellers. This problem also applies to
>>directly owned subsidiaries of global brand names who also only
>>import a limited range of their parent company's products to avoid
>>making mistakes with leftover stock.
>>
>>A third problem is continuity of supply; the import agent possibly
>>isn't planning to import anymore after his load has been sold on.
>>He's off elsewhere looking for other Far Eastern cheapies to make
>>huge profits on! When they're gone, that's it!
>>
>>It's true that these problems are difficult to resolve but they
>>usually only apply to imported goods.
>
>What would be interesting would be a price comparison between a UK made 
>bathroom cabinet in the UK and Germany.


Does Britain make bathroom cabinets these days? ;-)

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:33:43 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:33:06 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>>If a seller does not provide that, then people buy from someone else.
>
>>Sometimes. But there are many situations where there is no real
>>alternative or the others are just as bad. There is a culture of 
>>"take it or leave it" in British retailing and over many years Brits
>>have become accustomed to it. Only a few large forward-thinking
>>retailers understand the importance of customer service, hence the
>>number of corps now who only have 0870* telnums to contact them.
>
>How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
>undersell it.


We have WalMart here in the form of ASDA supermarkets.

Although their prices are often lower than the others, my local 
ASDA is the worst of the lot in terms of store cleanliness, stock
availability/freshness and the numbers of items which have one price
on the shelf but a higher price on the checkout computer (mainly 
on fresh produce). I've had to sort out three pricing problems in the
past four visits. It's quite possible other ASDA stores are better.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:57:29 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>>
>>Crude capitalism doesn't succeed on its own.
>
>No-one said it did, and certainly not me.  All I did was provide the
>definition.


I didn't need you to provide any definition of it. I simply pointed
out the utter naivety of your comments.


>Any inference you made is your own, and it is very funny
>watching you argue against an inference that only you have made.


I enjoy watching you make an idiot of yourself again.
Do you enjoy it too?


>Thank you for making me laugh!


Your welcome. I'm laughing at you too. Are you some sort of asswipe?

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:21:43 +0100, AlanG 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:58:43 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 14:49:33 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
>>Williams)
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:44:56 +0100, hummingbird
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Afaik MS are bringing out a cut down version of Windows to comply.
>>>>Will it be cheaper.....?
>>>
>>>Doubt it.  The whole thing is a nonsense, anyway.  Why *would* someone
>>>want to purchase a version of Windows without a built-in Web browser,
>>>when a Web browser is now a sensible OS component?
>>>
>>>You don't have to *use* it if you don't want to.
>>
>>But there are better free browsers around. I use Avant.
>Does it handle MS non W3C compliant sites?


MS "non" W3C compliant sites?
Avant works as a plug-in for IE and uses some of IE's modules.
Check it out: http://www.avantbrowser.com/


>>So not having the system overhead of IE is a boon for some.
>>
>>Even more so with Outlook Express which hogs system resources so 
>>I don't use it, preferring Agent. I also use Media Player Classic
>>instead of Windows Media Player - smaller and better.
>>
>>Many people prefer to choose which apps they use as MS apps tend 
>>to be bloatware and mediocre in performance.


-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:44:33 +0100, Roland Perry 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>In message , at 16:09:34 on 
>Sun, 7 Aug 2005, hummingbird  remarked:
>>>Doesn't this problem cut right across the board for consumer products.
>>>We didn't earn the tag, 'rip-off Britain' for nothing.
>>
>>Absolutely it does. And it goes right to the heart of how many goods
>>are supplied in Britain at rip-off prices. The bathroom cabinet I
>>bought is made by Metalmex (a German company) who supply their
>>products into Britain through an import agent, who then sell them to
>>retailers. So import company X imports a wagon load of the cabinets
>>which it pays ~40 each for and offers them to retailers for ~125
>>and provides a RRP of ~175.  Result: huge price ramping.
>>
>>When I saw my cabinet in Lewis's and explained that I had bought it
>>for 68, they looked it up in their control book and said "that's much
>>less than we pay from our suppliers".
>>
>>A secondary problem is that the manufacturers full range is not
>>usually available as import agents often choose only to import what
>>they think will be the best sellers. This problem also applies to
>>directly owned subsidiaries of global brand names who also only
>>import a limited range of their parent company's products to avoid
>>making mistakes with leftover stock.
>>
>>A third problem is continuity of supply; the import agent possibly
>>isn't planning to import anymore after his load has been sold on.
>>He's off elsewhere looking for other Far Eastern cheapies to make
>>huge profits on! When they're gone, that's it!
>>
>>It's true that these problems are difficult to resolve but they
>>usually only apply to imported goods.
>
>What would be interesting would be a price comparison between a UK made 
>bathroom cabinet in the UK and Germany.


Does Britain make bathroom cabinets these days? ;-)

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:33:43 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Anubis)
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:33:06 +0100, hummingbird
> wrote:
>
>>>If a seller does not provide that, then people buy from someone else.
>
>>Sometimes. But there are many situations where there is no real
>>alternative or the others are just as bad. There is a culture of 
>>"take it or leave it" in British retailing and over many years Brits
>>have become accustomed to it. Only a few large forward-thinking
>>retailers understand the importance of customer service, hence the
>>number of corps now who only have 0870* telnums to contact them.
>
>How does WalMart exist in Britain? It's policy is that no one will
>undersell it.


We have WalMart here in the form of ASDA supermarkets.

Although their prices are often lower than the others, my local 
ASDA is the worst of the lot in terms of store cleanliness, stock
availability/freshness and the numbers of items which have one price
on the shelf but a higher price on the checkout computer (mainly 
on fresh produce). I've had to sort out three pricing problems in the
past four visits. It's quite possible other ASDA stores are better.

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:57:29 +0100, Tony  Polson 
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...


>hummingbird  wrote:
>>
>>Crude capitalism doesn't succeed on its own.
>
>No-one said it did, and certainly not me.  All I did was provide the
>definition.


I didn't need you to provide any definition of it. I simply pointed
out the utter naivety of your comments.


>Any inference you made is your own, and it is very funny
>watching you argue against an inference that only you have made.


I enjoy watching you make an idiot of yourself again.
Do you enjoy it too?


>Thank you for making me laugh!


Your welcome. I'm laughing at you too. Are you some sort of asswipe?

-- 
smart men solve problems, wise men avoid them.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 01:30:10 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>Bundling prevents or reduces user options as most people who buy a
>bundled system won't bother to change because of the problems of
>uninstalling IE. 


Rubbish.  It is, as you and I have both proven by using other
products, not in the slightest bit necessary to remove IE to use them.

They may not use Firefox (for example) because they find IE adequate,
or they don't know Firefox exists.  That's not the same issue. 

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 01:30:10 +0100, hummingbird
 wrote:


>Bundling prevents or reduces user options as most people who buy a
>bundled system won't bother to change because of the problems of
>uninstalling IE. 


Rubbish.  It is, as you and I have both proven by using other
products, not in the slightest bit necessary to remove IE to use them.

They may not use Firefox (for example) because they find IE adequate,
or they don't know Firefox exists.  That's not the same issue. 

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message <1123445632.e61d17f804ecbc9b02558be3d8bc0e37@teranews>, at 
21:13:31 on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, AlanG  remarked:

>You have sales taxes and customs too.
>Just been looking to buy one of these before winter comes back
>http://www.countryloversstore.com/index.html?lang=en-uk&target=d1.html&lmd=38496.620069
>
>In NZ roughly half the price.
>http://www.hartings.co.nz/drizabone_riding_coat.htm


That's quite an interesting site, as they charge *more* to sell to the 
USA than the UK.


>Adding the import duty and vat


Yes, the UK has quite high import duties on clothing, a legacy of trying 
to protect domestic production.


>it is not going to cost me much more to
>drive over to the UK retailer and buy one here


The comparison above is also yet another demonstration of how it's 
costly to buy imported goods from a specialist local retailer. The same 
is true in the USA - just look at the price of European wine, for 
example. Whereas they can ship German beer over there and sell it in 
supermarkets cheaper than in the UK.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <1123445632.e61d17f804ecbc9b02558be3d8bc0e37@teranews>, at 
21:13:31 on Sun, 7 Aug 2005, AlanG  remarked:

>You have sales taxes and customs too.
>Just been looking to buy one of these before winter comes back
>http://www.countryloversstore.com/index.html?lang=en-uk&target=d1.html&lmd=38496.620069
>
>In NZ roughly half the price.
>http://www.hartings.co.nz/drizabone_riding_coat.htm


That's quite an interesting site, as they charge *more* to sell to the 
USA than the UK.


>Adding the import duty and vat


Yes, the UK has quite high import duties on clothing, a legacy of trying 
to protect domestic production.


>it is not going to cost me much more to
>drive over to the UK retailer and buy one here


The comparison above is also yet another demonstration of how it's 
costly to buy imported goods from a specialist local retailer. The same 
is true in the USA - just look at the price of European wine, for 
example. Whereas they can ship German beer over there and sell it in 
supermarkets cheaper than in the UK.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:25:50 on 
Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Derek ^  remarked:

>>>>What would be interesting would be a price comparison between a UK made
>>>>bathroom cabinet in the UK and Germany.
>>>
>>>Securicor parcels delivery service (& DHL) has recently been bought by
>>>Deutsche Post.  There is a manyfold difference in the cost of shipping
>>>a parcel .de >.uk compared with .uk >.de
>>
>>And that's relevant to the German price for UK manufactured goods?
>
>Abso-fucking-lootly it is. Obviously.
>
>The prices that get charged are those that customers will pay. If
>British customers will pay 2.5 to 4.00 times what German customers
>will pay to send a parcel 800 Km between the same 2 points then that
>is a valid illustration of the difference in the price sensitivity of
>the market "There" and "Here".


There is an element of "what the market will stand" for all things, DHL 
type services included. But rather than go off at a tangent, why not 
answer the question, which is doing a price comparison of UK made goods 
in German shops.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:35:41 on Sun, 7 Aug 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:41:38 +0100, Roland Perry 
>wrote:
>
>>Indeed, but as you are now beginning to realise, the British seem much
>>more inclined to shop at places at the Neiman Marcus end of the
>>spectrum. Despite it being much better than Walmart, a lot of Brits
>>would consider it "slumming it" to shop in ASDA. Tesco used to have the
>>same reputation, but has successfully gone upmarket over the years.
>
>Really?  My impression was always that Tesco were expensive but fairly
>average-mediocre, perhaps a bit lower in the market than Sainsbury's
>(an awful supermarket - expensive and poorly-stocked) but not far off.


Tesco have (and it's the last 30 years I'm on about) gone upmarket and 
Sainsburys have gone downmarket, They've kinda met in the middle.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 21:25:50 on 
Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Derek ^  remarked:

>>>>What would be interesting would be a price comparison between a UK made
>>>>bathroom cabinet in the UK and Germany.
>>>
>>>Securicor parcels delivery service (& DHL) has recently been bought by
>>>Deuts