It's reported that New labour will announce tomorrow morning some sort of 
deal that the banks will get more taxpayer money.

New Labour are already shitting themselves however as unlike the other EU 
countries that gave two fingers and a big fuck-you to the EU, the EU will 
investigate the UK for competition rules.

"Ar"  wrote in message 
news:48ebc3a6$0$16387$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> It's reported that New labour will announce tomorrow morning some sort of
> deal that the banks will get more taxpayer money.

So we get to pay the bank a fortune in charges and interest and now they 
want our taxes to get them out of the brown stuff. I think I'll go back to 
hiding cash under the bed ;-)

"GS"  wrote in message news:gcggv4$5ur$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Ar"  wrote in message 
> news:48ebc3a6$0$16387$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> It's reported that New labour will announce tomorrow morning some sort of
>> deal that the banks will get more taxpayer money.
>
> So we get to pay the bank a fortune in charges and interest and now they 
> want our taxes to get them out of the brown stuff.

its a fucking piss take !!!!

<uk.media.tv.misc>
<GS>
<Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:31:42 퍝>
<gcggv4$5ur$1@aioe.org>

> > It's reported that New labour will announce tomorrow morning some sort of
> > deal that the banks will get more taxpayer money.
> 
> So we get to pay the bank a fortune in charges and interest and now they 
> want our taxes to get them out of the brown stuff. I think I'll go back to 
> hiding cash under the bed ;-) 
> 

For the past 20 years or whatever all/most of the big uk banks have 
reported profits of £500,000,000 a year - or whatever .

Where does that money go ? .

The banking business does seem a good business to be in as when things 
are going good you reap the rewards - but when things go bad the 
government will step in to cover any losses .

The end result being you wont lose any money as you wont be asked to pay 
any of it back - you just wont earn any money until things get back to 
normal .


-- 
www.cannabisaware.co.uk

Ar wrote:
> It's reported that New labour will announce tomorrow morning some
> sort of deal that the banks will get more taxpayer money.

Erm no, they are being taken partially or in majority into public 
ownership, that is to say the taxpayer will get any future profits from 
them, and don't worry, there will be plenty of future profits.

In article <48ebd3d0$0$899$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, Lou Ravi
 writes
>> It's reported that New labour will announce tomorrow morning some
>> sort of deal that the banks will get more taxpayer money.
>
>Erm no, they are being taken partially or in majority into public 
>ownership, that is to say the taxpayer will get any future profits from 
>them, and don't worry, there will be plenty of future profits. 
>
>
Laugh, I almost pissed myself, especially liked the bit about 'the
taxpayer will get any future profit', not a chance, there won't be
anything left after the fat cats have had their cut.

Mike

-- 
Michael Swift           We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.      
Kirkheaton              We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.    
Yorkshire                                       Halvard Lange

Mike Swift wrote:
> In article <48ebd3d0$0$899$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, Lou Ravi
>  writes
>>> It's reported that New labour will announce tomorrow morning some
>>> sort of deal that the banks will get more taxpayer money.
>>
>> Erm no, they are being taken partially or in majority into public
>> ownership, that is to say the taxpayer will get any future profits
>> from them, and don't worry, there will be plenty of future profits.
>>
>>
> Laugh, I almost pissed myself, especially liked the bit about 'the
> taxpayer will get any future profit', not a chance, there won't be
> anything left after the fat cats have had their cut.

Don't be daft, they'll make a profit alright and the government will get 
its dividends pro-rata like any shareholder.

"Lou Ravi"  wrote in message 
news:48ec60ca$0$909$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> Mike Swift wrote:
>> In article <48ebd3d0$0$899$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, Lou Ravi
>>  writes
>>>> It's reported that New labour will announce tomorrow morning some
>>>> sort of deal that the banks will get more taxpayer money.
>>>
>>> Erm no, they are being taken partially or in majority into public
>>> ownership, that is to say the taxpayer will get any future profits
>>> from them, and don't worry, there will be plenty of future profits.
>>>
>>>
>> Laugh, I almost pissed myself, especially liked the bit about 'the
>> taxpayer will get any future profit', not a chance, there won't be
>> anything left after the fat cats have had their cut.
>
> Don't be daft, they'll make a profit alright and the government will get 
> its dividends pro-rata like any shareholder.

Railtrack, was forced into administration by this government even though it 
showed a profit. Network rail showed a profit last year yet asked for more 
government money - how does that work then? Like most government schemes you 
can bet the little guy won't benefit from it ;-)

"Lou Ravi"  wrote in message 
news:48ec60ca$0$909$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> Mike Swift wrote:
>> In article <48ebd3d0$0$899$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>, Lou Ravi
>>  writes
>>>> It's reported that New labour will announce tomorrow morning some
>>>> sort of deal that the banks will get more taxpayer money.
>>>
>>> Erm no, they are being taken partially or in majority into public
>>> ownership, that is to say the taxpayer will get any future profits
>>> from them, and don't worry, there will be plenty of future profits.
>>>
>>>
>> Laugh, I almost pissed myself, especially liked the bit about 'the
>> taxpayer will get any future profit', not a chance, there won't be
>> anything left after the fat cats have had their cut.
>
> Don't be daft, they'll make a profit alright and the government will get 
> its dividends pro-rata like any shareholder.

snigger, yeah right

Redman

GS wrote:

> Railtrack, was forced into administration by this government even
> though it showed a profit.

It was forced into administration because it was incompetent. It had not 
done its job (see Hatfield et al) and when it was obliged to do it, 
improe maintenance and upgrade lines it asked the government for money, 
about 500 million, it then paid over 130 million of this money to 
shareholders. Good riddance to it.

> Network rail showed a profit last year yet
> asked for more government money - how does that work then?

Probably because it needed to invest more money than it could supply
itself just as many or most businesses ask for loans from banks when
they want to develop.

"Lou Ravi"  wrote in message 
news:48eca5e3$0$927$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> GS wrote:
>
>> Railtrack, was forced into administration by this government even
>> though it showed a profit.
>
> It was forced into administration because it was incompetent. It had not 
> done its job (see Hatfield et al) and when it was obliged to do it, improe 
> maintenance and upgrade lines it asked the government for money, about 500 
> million, it then paid over 130 million of this money to shareholders. Good 
> riddance to it.
>

Actually it was doing its job, Hatfield was the result of a contractor not 
doing their job when they said they had.

GS wrote:
> "Lou Ravi"  wrote in message
> news:48eca5e3$0$927$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
>> GS wrote:
>>
>>> Railtrack, was forced into administration by this government even
>>> though it showed a profit.
>>
>> It was forced into administration because it was incompetent. It had
>> not done its job (see Hatfield et al) and when it was obliged to do
>> it, improe maintenance and upgrade lines it asked the government for
>> money, about 500 million, it then paid over 130 million of this
>> money to shareholders. Good riddance to it.
>>
>
> Actually it was doing its job, Hatfield was the result of a
> contractor not doing their job when they said they had.

And who was the contractor employed by? Why Railtrack of course. It was 
their duty to ensure that the work was done correctly, they didn't, 
there was a crash and subsequently they went out of business. Good 
riddance, they think they can take money without supplying the services 
for which they receive it.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:32:36 +0200, Lou Ravi wrote:

>> Railtrack, was forced into administration by this government even
>> though it showed a profit.
> 
> It was forced into administration because

.. they were not given the next installment of public subsidy it was 
expecting. This was deliberate and forced Railtrack to go into 
administration, and the government stole the company "for the benefit of 
the taxpayer."

"Lou Ravi"  wrote in message 
news:48ecc984$0$869$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> GS wrote:
>> "Lou Ravi"  wrote in message
>> news:48eca5e3$0$927$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
>>> GS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Railtrack, was forced into administration by this government even
>>>> though it showed a profit.
>>>
>>> It was forced into administration because it was incompetent. It had
>>> not done its job (see Hatfield et al) and when it was obliged to do
>>> it, improe maintenance and upgrade lines it asked the government for
>>> money, about 500 million, it then paid over 130 million of this
>>> money to shareholders. Good riddance to it.
>>>
>>
>> Actually it was doing its job, Hatfield was the result of a
>> contractor not doing their job when they said they had.
>
> And who was the contractor employed by? Why Railtrack of course. It was 
> their duty to ensure that the work was done correctly, they didn't, there 
> was a crash and subsequently they went out of business. Good riddance, 
> they think they can take money without supplying the services for which 
> they receive it.
>

That is a very blinkered view of the whole issue really, Balfour Beatty 
should have made Railtrack fully aware of the situation and Balfour Beattys 
civil engineer (Nicholas Jeffries I think) had the power to either close the 
line or impose ESRs which they failed to do. Yet it's easy to point the 
finger at Railtrack and blame them isn't it? Labour wanted an excuse to take 
over Railtrack which Hatfield gave them.

>
> Railtrack, was forced into administration by this government even though it
> showed a profit. Network rail showed a profit last year yet asked for more
> government money - how does that work then?
>

Railtrack got themselves into deep shit by giving commitments to
Virgin trains over the WCML upgrade that they couldn't possibly meet
or afford.

Railtrack was a privatisation that should never have succeeded and
only did so because there was an endless supply of greedy ‘quick buck’
small investors fresh from a frenzy of  ‘fill your boots’ previous
privatisations.

They deserved to go under and, with hindsight, always were going to
because they were well out of their depth’ - Network Rail was the
sorry result.

"allan tracy"  wrote in message 
news:2962f363-eea6-434a-be62-b19b685aad81@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Railtrack, was forced into administration by this government even though 
>> it
>> showed a profit. Network rail showed a profit last year yet asked for 
>> more
>> government money - how does that work then?
>

>Railtrack got themselves into deep shit by giving commitments to
>Virgin trains over the WCML upgrade that they couldn't possibly meet
>or afford.

Whether they were in the shit or not over their commitments to the WCML 
upgrade does not change the fact that they were not bankrupt or even close 
to it when they were forced into administration by Labour.

>Railtrack was a privatisation that should never have succeeded and
>only did so because there was an endless supply of greedy ‘quick buck’
>small investors fresh from a frenzy of  ‘fill your boots’ previous
>privatisations.

But, it did succeed and whether it was because of the greedy or not it does 
not detract from the fact the government wanted Railtrack out of the way.

>They deserved to go under and, with hindsight, always were going to
>because they were well out of their depth’ - Network Rail was the
>sorry result.

I don't think a company that is doing well deserves to be shafted by the 
government, it sets a bad example that the goverment can do what they want 
to who they want.

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:42:46 +0100, GS  wrote:

> "allan tracy"  wrote in message
> news:2962f363-eea6-434a-be62-b19b685aad81@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Railtrack, was forced into administration by this government even  
>>> though
>>> it
>>> showed a profit. Network rail showed a profit last year yet asked for
>>> more
>>> government money - how does that work then?
>>
>
>> Railtrack got themselves into deep shit by giving commitments to
>> Virgin trains over the WCML upgrade that they couldn't possibly meet
>> or afford.
>
> Whether they were in the shit or not over their commitments to the WCML
> upgrade does not change the fact that they were not bankrupt or even  
> close
> to it when they were forced into administration by Labour.
>
>> Railtrack was a privatisation that should never have succeeded and
>> only did so because there was an endless supply of greedy ‘quick buck’
>> small investors fresh from a frenzy of  ‘fill your boots’ previous
>> privatisations.
>
> But, it did succeed and whether it was because of the greedy or not it  
> does
> not detract from the fact the government wanted Railtrack out of the way.
>
>> They deserved to go under and, with hindsight, always were going to
>> because they were well out of their depth’ - Network Rail was the
>> sorry result.
>
> I don't think a company that is doing well deserves to be shafted by the
> government, it sets a bad example that the goverment can do what they  
> want
> to who they want.

It what sense were Railtrack "doing well"? They had to have billions of
pounds of taxpayers money in order to stay solvent. Do you also think
that Northern Rock were doing well when the government nationalised it?

Fred X

"Fred X"  wrote in message 
news:op.uirbcqjfj3tnem@skynet.wag54gs...
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:42:46 +0100, GS  wrote:
>
>> "allan tracy"  wrote in message
>> news:2962f363-eea6-434a-be62-b19b685aad81@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> Railtrack, was forced into administration by this government even 
>>>> though
>>>> it
>>>> showed a profit. Network rail showed a profit last year yet asked for
>>>> more
>>>> government money - how does that work then?
>>>
>>
>>> Railtrack got themselves into deep shit by giving commitments to
>>> Virgin trains over the WCML upgrade that they couldn't possibly meet
>>> or afford.
>>
>> Whether they were in the shit or not over their commitments to the WCML
>> upgrade does not change the fact that they were not bankrupt or even 
>> close
>> to it when they were forced into administration by Labour.
>>
>>> Railtrack was a privatisation that should never have succeeded and
>>> only did so because there was an endless supply of greedy 'quick buck'
>>> small investors fresh from a frenzy of  'fill your boots' previous
>>> privatisations.
>>
>> But, it did succeed and whether it was because of the greedy or not it 
>> does
>> not detract from the fact the government wanted Railtrack out of the way.
>>
>>> They deserved to go under and, with hindsight, always were going to
>>> because they were well out of their depth' - Network Rail was the
>>> sorry result.
>>
>> I don't think a company that is doing well deserves to be shafted by the
>> government, it sets a bad example that the goverment can do what they 
>> want
>> to who they want.
>
> It what sense were Railtrack "doing well"? They had to have billions of
> pounds of taxpayers money in order to stay solvent. Do you also think
> that Northern Rock were doing well when the government nationalised it?
>

In what way do you imagine Network Rail is any different, they still go to 
the government at regular intervals and ask for money - the majority of 
passengers won't notice any difference either.

>
> In what way do you imagine Network Rail is any different, they still go to
> the government at regular intervals and ask for money - the majority of
> passengers won't notice any difference either.
>

The difference is that now the railways are expensively micro managed
badly by the DfT.

So you get some clueless civil servant, that's never been outside
London, deciding that commuters in Bristol can do without a train,
they've relied on for years, or can still have a train but only two
coaches when a local manager would have know far better.

The passengers are noticing the difference and so did the government
in the last council elections.

Another hole dug long and deep.

"allan tracy"  wrote in message 
news:97198d90-b205-4ac0-ac76-3869ad7e2001@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> >
>> In what way do you imagine Network Rail is any different, they still go 
>> to
>> the government at regular intervals and ask for money - the majority of
>> passengers won't notice any difference either.
>>
>
> The difference is that now the railways are expensively micro managed
> badly by the DfT.
>
> So you get some clueless civil servant, that's never been outside
> London, deciding that commuters in Bristol can do without a train,
> they've relied on for years, or can still have a train but only two
> coaches when a local manager would have know far better.
>
> The passengers are noticing the difference and so did the government
> in the last council elections.
>
> Another hole dug long and deep.

True, it's a big problem which many do not even notice now is they have 
senior managers that don't know a thing about the railway; in the days of BR 
it was normal for manager to move up through the ranks so they know the 
business. Anyway, I think this is now way OT ;-)

allan tracy wrote:
>> In what way do you imagine Network Rail is any different, they still go to
>> the government at regular intervals and ask for money - the majority of
>> passengers won't notice any difference either.
>>
> 
> The difference is that now the railways are expensively micro managed
> badly by the DfT.
> 
> So you get some clueless civil servant, that's never been outside
> London, deciding that commuters in Bristol can do without a train,
> they've relied on for years, or can still have a train but only two
> coaches when a local manager would have know far better.

or a chemist who worked for ICI.

> 
> The passengers are noticing the difference and so did the government
> in the last council elections.
> 
> Another hole dug long and deep.

Remind us which party was in power and who was in charge of British 
Railways when Dr Beeching did a survey one week in mid- April and axed 
all the lines that carried holiday makers to the coast.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:25:41 +0100, GS  wrote:

> "Fred X"  wrote in message
> news:op.uirbcqjfj3tnem@skynet.wag54gs...
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:42:46 +0100, GS  wrote:
>>
>>> "allan tracy"  wrote in message
>>> news:2962f363-eea6-434a-be62-b19b685aad81@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Railtrack, was forced into administration by this government even
>>>>> though
>>>>> it
>>>>> showed a profit. Network rail showed a profit last year yet asked for
>>>>> more
>>>>> government money - how does that work then?
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Railtrack got themselves into deep shit by giving commitments to
>>>> Virgin trains over the WCML upgrade that they couldn't possibly meet
>>>> or afford.
>>>
>>> Whether they were in the shit or not over their commitments to the WCML
>>> upgrade does not change the fact that they were not bankrupt or even
>>> close
>>> to it when they were forced into administration by Labour.
>>>
>>>> Railtrack was a privatisation that should never have succeeded and
>>>> only did so because there was an endless supply of greedy 'quick buck'
>>>> small investors fresh from a frenzy of  'fill your boots' previous
>>>> privatisations.
>>>
>>> But, it did succeed and whether it was because of the greedy or not it
>>> does
>>> not detract from the fact the government wanted Railtrack out of the  
>>> way.
>>>
>>>> They deserved to go under and, with hindsight, always were going to
>>>> because they were well out of their depth' - Network Rail was the
>>>> sorry result.
>>>
>>> I don't think a company that is doing well deserves to be shafted by  
>>> the
>>> government, it sets a bad example that the goverment can do what they
>>> want
>>> to who they want.
>>
>> It what sense were Railtrack "doing well"? They had to have billions of
>> pounds of taxpayers money in order to stay solvent. Do you also think
>> that Northern Rock were doing well when the government nationalised it?
>>
>
> In what way do you imagine Network Rail is any different, they still go  
> to
> the government at regular intervals and ask for money - the majority of
> passengers won't notice any difference either.
>

Yes, but the money is being spent on upgrading the railways and not to
line the pockets of shareholders. The last time Railtrack were given a
large amount of government money, they promptly gave £137 million of it
to their shareholders!

Fred X