I'd been teaching a bookkeeper some accounts using QuickBooks.

She called up and said that, rather than use a company that had
planned to take her company over, the directors wanted to do the
payroll in house. She said she'd never done payroll before. I
explained that in this situation it would be better if I did the
payroll for her company. She said that the directors wanted payroll to
be done in house and there wasn't much she wanted to know "because I
used to know aomebody who used to do payroll".

When I need a house rewired rather than get an electrician I could ask
an electrician to teach me what to do.

PeterSaxton wrote:

> I'd been teaching a bookkeeper some accounts using QuickBooks.
> 
> She called up and said that, rather than use a company that had
> planned to take her company over, the directors wanted to do the
> payroll in house. She said she'd never done payroll before. I
> explained that in this situation it would be better if I did the
> payroll for her company. She said that the directors wanted payroll to
> be done in house and there wasn't much she wanted to know "because I
> used to know aomebody who used to do payroll".
> 
> When I need a house rewired rather than get an electrician I could ask
> an electrician to teach me what to do.

Analogies are great, and in this case it's clear that the directors
thought that "doing payroll" isn't really like rewiring a house at all,
more like changing a plug.  You don't need an electrician for that.

On 11 Aug, 16:44, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > I'd been teaching a bookkeeper some accounts using QuickBooks.
>
> > She called up and said that, rather than use a company that had
> > planned to take her company over, the directors wanted to do the
> > payroll in house. She said she'd never done payroll before. I
> > explained that in this situation it would be better if I did the
> > payroll for her company. She said that the directors wanted payroll to
> > be done in house and there wasn't much she wanted to know "because I
> > used to know aomebody who used to do payroll".
>
> > When I need a house rewired rather than get an electrician I could ask
> > an electrician to teach me what to do.
>
> Analogies are great, and in this case it's clear that the directors
> thought that "doing payroll" isn't really like rewiring a house at all,
> more like changing a plug.  You don't need an electrician for that.

They must think you only need to add a couple of numbers, look at a
line in a booklet and deduct one number from another.

I don't suppose they have considered the various statutory payments or
changes in tax codes.

I started doing the payroll for a company and noticed the tax codes
were several years out of date!

On 11 Aug, 21:04, PeterSaxton  wrote:
> On 11 Aug, 16:44, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > PeterSaxton wrote:
> > > I'd been teaching a bookkeeper some accounts using QuickBooks.
>
> > > She called up and said that, rather than use a company that had
> > > planned to take her company over, the directors wanted to do the
> > > payroll in house. She said she'd never done payroll before. I
> > > explained that in this situation it would be better if I did the
> > > payroll for her company. She said that the directors wanted payroll to
> > > be done in house and there wasn't much she wanted to know "because I
> > > used to know aomebody who used to do payroll".
>
> > > When I need a house rewired rather than get an electrician I could ask
> > > an electrician to teach me what to do.
>
> > Analogies are great, and in this case it's clear that the directors
> > thought that "doing payroll" isn't really like rewiring a house at all,
> > more like changing a plug.  You don't need an electrician for that.
>
> They must think you only need to add a couple of numbers, look at a
> line in a booklet and deduct one number from another.
>
> I don't suppose they have considered the various statutory payments or
> changes in tax codes.
>
> I started doing the payroll for a company and noticed the tax codes
> were several years out of date!-

It is axiomic that "You don't get your accountant to do the payroll",
The reasons being:

1) It is pretty easy once you have mastered QTax or Sage.
2) You have last month's figures as a pretty good gude to what this
month's figures should be. Same applies to the annual returns.
3) The cost of any (inevitable) cock up will be insignificant compared
to the cost of employing P Saxton to make sure there are no cock ups.

On 12 Aug, 06:53, Troy Steadman  wrote:
> On 11 Aug, 21:04, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 Aug, 16:44, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> > > PeterSaxton wrote:
> > > > I'd been teaching a bookkeeper some accounts using QuickBooks.
>
> > > > She called up and said that, rather than use a company that had
> > > > planned to take her company over, the directors wanted to do the
> > > > payroll in house. She said she'd never done payroll before. I
> > > > explained that in this situation it would be better if I did the
> > > > payroll for her company. She said that the directors wanted payroll to
> > > > be done in house and there wasn't much she wanted to know "because I
> > > > used to know aomebody who used to do payroll".
>
> > > > When I need a house rewired rather than get an electrician I could ask
> > > > an electrician to teach me what to do.
>
> > > Analogies are great, and in this case it's clear that the directors
> > > thought that "doing payroll" isn't really like rewiring a house at all,
> > > more like changing a plug.  You don't need an electrician for that.
>
> > They must think you only need to add a couple of numbers, look at a
> > line in a booklet and deduct one number from another.
>
> > I don't suppose they have considered the various statutory payments or
> > changes in tax codes.
>
> > I started doing the payroll for a company and noticed the tax codes
> > were several years out of date!-
>
> It is axiomic that "You don't get your accountant to do the payroll",
> The reasons being:
>
> 1) It is pretty easy once you have mastered QTax or Sage.
> 2) You have last month's figures as a pretty good gude to what this
> month's figures should be. Same applies to the annual returns.
> 3) The cost of any (inevitable) cock up will be insignificant compared
> to the cost of employing P Saxton to make sure there are no cock ups.-

I would say that I would charge about £500 a year. Most clients who do
there own payroll spend about half a day on it every month plus the
year end.

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 12 Aug, 06:53, Troy Steadman  wrote:
>>
>> It is axiomic that "You don't get your accountant to do the payroll",
>> The reasons being:
>>
>> 1) It is pretty easy once you have mastered QTax or Sage.
>> 2) You have last month's figures as a pretty good gude to what this
>> month's figures should be. Same applies to the annual returns.
>> 3) The cost of any (inevitable) cock up will be insignificant compared
>> to the cost of employing P Saxton to make sure there are no cock ups.-
> 
> I would say that I would charge about £500 a year. Most clients who do
> there own payroll spend about half a day on it every month plus the
> year end.

Do you think that 6.5 days of a junior bookkeeper's time is going to cost
them more than £500, especially given that the person would perhaps be
underemployed if not doing this task?

In article 
, 
PeterSaxton  writes
>On 12 Aug, 06:53, Troy Steadman  wrote:
>> On 11 Aug, 21:04, PeterSaxton  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 11 Aug, 16:44, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>> > > PeterSaxton wrote:
>> > > > I'd been teaching a bookkeeper some accounts using QuickBooks.
>>
>> > > > She called up and said that, rather than use a company that had
>> > > > planned to take her company over, the directors wanted to do the
>> > > > payroll in house. She said she'd never done payroll before. I
>> > > > explained that in this situation it would be better if I did the
>> > > > payroll for her company. She said that the directors wanted payroll to
>> > > > be done in house and there wasn't much she wanted to know "because I
>> > > > used to know aomebody who used to do payroll".
>>
>> > > > When I need a house rewired rather than get an electrician I could ask
>> > > > an electrician to teach me what to do.
>>
>> > > Analogies are great, and in this case it's clear that the directors
>> > > thought that "doing payroll" isn't really like rewiring a house at all,
>> > > more like changing a plug.  You don't need an electrician for that.
>>
>> > They must think you only need to add a couple of numbers, look at a
>> > line in a booklet and deduct one number from another.
>>
>> > I don't suppose they have considered the various statutory payments or
>> > changes in tax codes.
>>
>> > I started doing the payroll for a company and noticed the tax codes
>> > were several years out of date!-
>>
>> It is axiomic that "You don't get your accountant to do the payroll",
>> The reasons being:
>>
>> 1) It is pretty easy once you have mastered QTax or Sage.
>> 2) You have last month's figures as a pretty good gude to what this
>> month's figures should be. Same applies to the annual returns.
>> 3) The cost of any (inevitable) cock up will be insignificant compared
>> to the cost of employing P Saxton to make sure there are no cock ups.-
>
>I would say that I would charge about £500 a year. Most clients who do
>there own payroll spend about half a day on it every month plus the
>year end.
>

For small payrolls of up to say a dozen employees it is probably more 
cost effective to get the accountant to do it.  By the time the client 
has spent money on annual software licence, and spent time administering 
it themselves there are few if any savings.  Especially if they get it 
wrong and the accountants has to spend time redoing it, such as a client 
of mine who phoned up today having discovered that their weekly payroll 
is still using 2007/08 legislation.


-- 
Jon Griffey FCCA CTA
Hackett Griffey
Chartered Certified Accountants & Registered Auditors
2 Mill Road, Haverhill, Suffolk, CB9 8BD

Tel (01440) 762024

www.hackettgriffey.com

See www.hackettgriffey.com/pages/legal.html for disclaimers

On 12 Aug, 13:28, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 12 Aug, 06:53, Troy Steadman  wrote:
>
> >> It is axiomic that "You don't get your accountant to do the payroll",
> >> The reasons being:
>
> >> 1) It is pretty easy once you have mastered QTax or Sage.
> >> 2) You have last month's figures as a pretty good gude to what this
> >> month's figures should be. Same applies to the annual returns.
> >> 3) The cost of any (inevitable) cock up will be insignificant compared
> >> to the cost of employing P Saxton to make sure there are no cock ups.-
>
> > I would say that I would charge about £500 a year. Most clients who do
> > there own payroll spend about half a day on it every month plus the
> > year end.
>
> Do you think that 6.5 days of a junior bookkeeper's time is going to cost
> them more than £500, especially given that the person would perhaps be
> underemployed if not doing this task?

Is it worth the practical certainty that they will get things wrong?
They are not usually very good at taking into account changes in
legislation, changing tax codes, dealing with statutory payments, etc.
If a client wants their small payroll done properly they would be
better off getting an accountant to do it.

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 12 Aug, 13:28, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> PeterSaxton wrote:
>> > I would say that I would charge about £500 a year. Most clients who do
>> > there own payroll spend about half a day on it every month plus the
>> > year end.
>>
>> Do you think that 6.5 days of a junior bookkeeper's time is going to cost
>> them more than £500, especially given that the person would perhaps be
>> underemployed if not doing this task?
> 
> Is it worth the practical certainty that they will get things wrong?
> They are not usually very good at taking into account changes in
> legislation, changing tax codes, dealing with statutory payments, etc.
> If a client wants their small payroll done properly they would be
> better off getting an accountant to do it.

Don't HMRC provide idiot-proof instructions to businesses wishing
to do it themselves?

On 13 Aug, 00:19, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 12 Aug, 13:28, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
> >> > I would say that I would charge about £500 a year. Most clients who do
> >> > there own payroll spend about half a day on it every month plus the
> >> > year end.
>
> >> Do you think that 6.5 days of a junior bookkeeper's time is going to cost
> >> them more than £500, especially given that the person would perhaps be
> >> underemployed if not doing this task?
>
> > Is it worth the practical certainty that they will get things wrong?
> > They are not usually very good at taking into account changes in
> > legislation, changing tax codes, dealing with statutory payments, etc.
> > If a client wants their small payroll done properly they would be
> > better off getting an accountant to do it.
>
> Don't HMRC provide idiot-proof instructions to businesses wishing
> to do it themselves?-

You underestimaet idiots. Idiots are too clever. They manage to get
round them.

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 13 Aug, 00:19, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> PeterSaxton wrote:
>> > On 12 Aug, 13:28, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
>> >> > I would say that I would charge about £500 a year. Most clients who
>> >> > do there own payroll spend about half a day on it every month plus
>> >> > the year end.
>>
>> >> Do you think that 6.5 days of a junior bookkeeper's time is going to
>> >> cost them more than £500, especially given that the person would
>> >> perhaps be underemployed if not doing this task?
>>
>> > Is it worth the practical certainty that they will get things wrong?
>> > They are not usually very good at taking into account changes in
>> > legislation, changing tax codes, dealing with statutory payments, etc.
>> > If a client wants their small payroll done properly they would be
>> > better off getting an accountant to do it.
>>
>> Don't HMRC provide idiot-proof instructions to businesses wishing
>> to do it themselves?-
> 
> You underestimaet idiots. Idiots are too clever. They manage to get
> round them.

Tsk.  Given your unstinting praise of HMRC's incompetence, I thought
you would have said something along the lines of "it takes an idiot
to write idiot-proof instructions".

On 13 Aug, 10:58, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 13 Aug, 00:19, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
> >> > On 12 Aug, 13:28, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
> >> >> > I would say that I would charge about £500 a year. Most clients who
> >> >> > do there own payroll spend about half a day on it every month plus
> >> >> > the year end.
>
> >> >> Do you think that 6.5 days of a junior bookkeeper's time is going to
> >> >> cost them more than £500, especially given that the person would
> >> >> perhaps be underemployed if not doing this task?
>
> >> > Is it worth the practical certainty that they will get things wrong?
> >> > They are not usually very good at taking into account changes in
> >> > legislation, changing tax codes, dealing with statutory payments, etc.
> >> > If a client wants their small payroll done properly they would be
> >> > better off getting an accountant to do it.
>
> >> Don't HMRC provide idiot-proof instructions to businesses wishing
> >> to do it themselves?-
>
> > You underestimaet idiots. Idiots are too clever. They manage to get
> > round them.
>
> Tsk.  Given your unstinting praise of HMRC's incompetence, I thought
> you would have said something along the lines of "it takes an idiot
> to write idiot-proof instructions".-

Unstinting praise? I don't remember that.

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 13 Aug, 10:58, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> 
>> Tsk.  Given your unstinting praise of HMRC's incompetence, I thought
>> you would have said something along the lines of "it takes an idiot
>> to write idiot-proof instructions".-
> 
> Unstinting praise? I don't remember that.

Well, you do go on and on, I'd call that unstinting.
And you don't praise their competence.

On 14 Aug, 23:17, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 13 Aug, 10:58, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> >> Tsk.  Given your unstinting praise of HMRC's incompetence, I thought
> >> you would have said something along the lines of "it takes an idiot
> >> to write idiot-proof instructions".-
>
> > Unstinting praise? I don't remember that.
>
> Well, you do go on and on, I'd call that unstinting.

Adjectives attach to particular nouns not any one that suits.

> And you don't praise their competence.

I think you have a problem with logic there. Because A doesn't praise
Bs competence it doesn't follow that they praise their incompetence.

Anyway, I'm off to Hull City v Fulham tomorrow!

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 14 Aug, 23:17, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> PeterSaxton wrote:
>> > On 13 Aug, 10:58, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>> >> Tsk.  Given your unstinting praise of HMRC's incompetence, I thought
>> >> you would have said something along the lines of "it takes an idiot
>> >> to write idiot-proof instructions".-
>>
>> > Unstinting praise? I don't remember that.
>>
>> Well, you do go on and on, I'd call that unstinting.
> 
> Adjectives attach to particular nouns not any one that suits.

What do you think "unstinting" was attached to?  I meant it to attach
to "praise".

>> And you don't praise their competence.
> 
> I think you have a problem with logic there. Because A doesn't praise
> Bs competence it doesn't follow that they praise their incompetence.

There is no logic problem.  If the only observation available were that
A doesn't praise B's competence, then the conclusion wouldn't follow.

However, in this case the conclusion is already available as a separate
observation, so it doesn't need to follow from anything.

It is well documented that you're in the habit of heaping much praise
on their incompetence.  Actually negative praise, of course, which ought
to go without saying.  You'll be familiar, I dare say, with the concept
of sarcarsm.  [Strictly speaking, it's negative praise of their
competence, and negative praise of *in*competence would be a double
negative.]

Sarcasm apart, allow me to draw your attention to a documented (i.e.
I didn't just make it up) definition which supports use of "praise"
in an adverse sense.

Webster's 3NID [1961, 1986]:

"Praise, n, 1a: an act of praising" hence
"Praise, vb, ... 2a: to determine the worth of, appraise"

I'm sure you'll agree that appraising and determining worth are neutral
terms of assessment of value, in anticipation of telling it as it is.
They don't carry the preconception that the value involved must be high.

> Anyway, I'm off to Hull City v Fulham tomorrow!

Then you can heap unstinting praise on both sides!

On 15 Aug, 11:49, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 14 Aug, 23:17, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> PeterSaxton wrote:
> >> > On 13 Aug, 10:58, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> >> >> Tsk.  Given your unstinting praise of HMRC's incompetence, I thought
> >> >> you would have said something along the lines of "it takes an idiot
> >> >> to write idiot-proof instructions".-
>
> >> > Unstinting praise? I don't remember that.
>
> >> Well, you do go on and on, I'd call that unstinting.
>
> > Adjectives attach to particular nouns not any one that suits.
>
> What do you think "unstinting" was attached to?  I meant it to attach
> to "praise".
>
> >> And you don't praise their competence.
>
> > I think you have a problem with logic there. Because A doesn't praise
> > Bs competence it doesn't follow that they praise their incompetence.
>
> There is no logic problem.  If the only observation available were that
> A doesn't praise B's competence, then the conclusion wouldn't follow.
>
> However, in this case the conclusion is already available as a separate
> observation, so it doesn't need to follow from anything.
>
> It is well documented that you're in the habit of heaping much praise
> on their incompetence.  Actually negative praise, of course, which ought
> to go without saying.  You'll be familiar, I dare say, with the concept
> of sarcarsm.  [Strictly speaking, it's negative praise of their
> competence, and negative praise of *in*competence would be a double
> negative.]
>
> Sarcasm apart, allow me to draw your attention to a documented (i.e.
> I didn't just make it up) definition which supports use of "praise"
> in an adverse sense.
>
> Webster's 3NID [1961, 1986]:
>
> "Praise, n, 1a: an act of praising" hence
> "Praise, vb, ... 2a: to determine the worth of, appraise"
>
> I'm sure you'll agree that appraising and determining worth are neutral
> terms of assessment of value, in anticipation of telling it as it is.
> They don't carry the preconception that the value involved must be high.
>
Would you call success failure (which just happened to be the negative
kind) instead?

> > Anyway, I'm off to Hull City v Fulham tomorrow!
>
> Then you can heap unstinting praise on both sides!

In your world yes, but I think there will be a dramatic difference
between my attitude towards the different sides. Fulham won't get away
lightly because they are my nearest professional football club.

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 15 Aug, 11:49, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>> Sarcasm apart, allow me to draw your attention to a documented (i.e.
>> I didn't just make it up) definition which supports use of "praise"
>> in an adverse sense.
>>
>> Webster's 3NID [1961, 1986]:
>>
>> "Praise, n, 1a: an act of praising" hence
>> "Praise, vb, ... 2a: to determine the worth of, appraise"
>>
>> I'm sure you'll agree that appraising and determining worth are neutral
>> terms of assessment of value, in anticipation of telling it as it is.
>> They don't carry the preconception that the value involved must be high.
> 
> Would you call success failure (which just happened to be the negative
> kind) instead?

I might.  "He succeded in wrapping his car around a tree" would
indicate a failure to arrive at his destination safely.

Also, I might call failure success.  Good old W3NID:

"Success, n, 1: something that ensues, outcome, consequence, issue;
... 3a: the degree or measure of attaining a desired end"

So a failure to achieve the desired end would have the kind of success
in meaning 1 of being an undesired outcome, or in meaning 3a of having
a low degree of attainment.

>> > Anyway, I'm off to Hull City v Fulham tomorrow!
>>
>> Then you can heap unstinting praise on both sides!
> 
> In your world yes, but I think there will be a dramatic difference
> between my attitude towards the different sides. Fulham won't get away
> lightly because they are my nearest professional football club.

You can't have success without failure.  If F beat HC 1-0 the game
would be a success for F and a failure for HC.  So in a way success
and failure are the same thing.  Football is so boring, all you can
do is witness success and failure, or in the event of a draw, just
failure.

On 15 Aug, 13:25, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 15 Aug, 11:49, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> >> Sarcasm apart, allow me to draw your attention to a documented (i.e.
> >> I didn't just make it up) definition which supports use of "praise"
> >> in an adverse sense.
>
> >> Webster's 3NID [1961, 1986]:
>
> >> "Praise, n, 1a: an act of praising" hence
> >> "Praise, vb, ... 2a: to determine the worth of, appraise"
>
> >> I'm sure you'll agree that appraising and determining worth are neutral
> >> terms of assessment of value, in anticipation of telling it as it is.
> >> They don't carry the preconception that the value involved must be high.
>
> > Would you call success failure (which just happened to be the negative
> > kind) instead?
>
> I might.  "He succeded in wrapping his car around a tree" would
> indicate a failure to arrive at his destination safely.
>
> Also, I might call failure success.  Good old W3NID:
>
> "Success, n, 1: something that ensues, outcome, consequence, issue;
> ... 3a: the degree or measure of attaining a desired end"
>
> So a failure to achieve the desired end would have the kind of success
> in meaning 1 of being an undesired outcome, or in meaning 3a of having
> a low degree of attainment.
>
You seem to be on a campaign to dispense with the value of english.

> >> > Anyway, I'm off to Hull City v Fulham tomorrow!
>
> >> Then you can heap unstinting praise on both sides!
>
> > In your world yes, but I think there will be a dramatic difference
> > between my attitude towards the different sides. Fulham won't get away
> > lightly because they are my nearest professional football club.
>
> You can't have success without failure.  If F beat HC 1-0 the game
> would be a success for F and a failure for HC.  So in a way success
> and failure are the same thing.  Football is so boring, all you can
> do is witness success and failure, or in the event of a draw, just
> failure.-

Tell that to the 40,000 Hull City fans at Wembley in May.

PeterSaxton wrote:

> On 15 Aug, 13:25, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>> Also, I might call failure success.  Good old W3NID:
>>
>> "Success, n, 1: something that ensues, outcome, consequence, issue;
>> ... 3a: the degree or measure of attaining a desired end"
>>
>> So a failure to achieve the desired end would have the kind of success
>> in meaning 1 of being an undesired outcome, or in meaning 3a of having
>> a low degree of attainment.
>>
> You seem to be on a campaign to dispense with the value of english.

On the contrary, the richness of the language is such that you can
twist it around to put any spin you like on almost anything, Minister.

>> Football is so boring, all you can
>> do is witness success and failure, or in the event of a draw, just
>> failure.-
> 
> Tell that to the 40,000 Hull City fans at Wembley in May.

I wonder what their wags would have to say on the matter.

On 17 Aug, 10:07, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > On 15 Aug, 13:25, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> >> Also, I might call failure success.  Good old W3NID:
>
> >> "Success, n, 1: something that ensues, outcome, consequence, issue;
> >> ... 3a: the degree or measure of attaining a desired end"
>
> >> So a failure to achieve the desired end would have the kind of success
> >> in meaning 1 of being an undesired outcome, or in meaning 3a of having
> >> a low degree of attainment.
>
> > You seem to be on a campaign to dispense with the value of english.
>
> On the contrary, the richness of the language is such that you can
> twist it around to put any spin you like on almost anything, Minister.
>
> >> Football is so boring, all you can
> >> do is witness success and failure, or in the event of a draw, just
> >> failure.-
>
> > Tell that to the 40,000 Hull City fans at Wembley in May.
>
> I wonder what their wags would have to say on the matter.

what about the one's who have habs?

> > PeterSaxton wrote:
> > > Tell that to the 40,000 Hull City fans at Wembley in May.
> >
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
> > I wonder what their wags would have to say on the matter.
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> what about the one's who have habs?

They should decide on one or the other, and stop being so greedy?

On 17 Aug, 20:24, "Tim"  wrote:
> > > PeterSaxton wrote:
> > > > Tell that to the 40,000 Hull City fans at Wembley in May.
>
> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
> > > I wonder what their wags would have to say on the matter.
>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
> > what about the one's who have habs?
>
> They should decide on one or the other, and stop being so greedy?

The point I was making were that we were talking about fans not the
players so the fans are made up of both sexes rather than one without
even bring sexuality into it.

PeterSaxton wrote:

> The point I was making were that we were talking about fans not the
> players so the fans are made up of both sexes

Are they really?  The odd ladette perhaps, but I would have thought
most women would be too sensible to put themselves in a position to
have to endure that sort of stuff, let alone profess to enjoy it.
Maybe they just come to keep an eye on their habs.

We can't be talking as much as even 5% of spectators being female,
can we?

>> > > PeterSaxton wrote:
>> > > > Tell that to the 40,000 Hull City fans at Wembley in May.
>>
>> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
>> > > I wonder what their wags would have to say on the matter.
>>
>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> > what about the one's who have habs?
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> They should decide on one or the other, and stop being so greedy?
>
"PeterSaxton" wrote
> The point I was making were that we were talking about
> fans not the players so the fans are made up of both
> sexes rather than one without even bring sexuality into it.

Ah, but the point I was making was that you shouldn't really
have used the term "habs" in the context you were using.

Written in full, you said:-
"what about the one's who have husbands AND boyfriends?"
Perhaps that should have been:-
"what about the one's who have husbands OR boyfriends?"
... or, shortened to:-
"what about the one's who have hobs?"  (not habs)

Tim wrote:

>>> > > PeterSaxton wrote:
>>> > > > Tell that to the 40,000 Hull City fans at Wembley in May.
>>>
>>> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
>>> > > I wonder what their wags would have to say on the matter.
>>>
>>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>>> > what about the one's who have habs?
>>>
>> "Tim" wrote:
>>> They should decide on one or the other, and stop being so greedy?
>>
> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>> The point I was making were that we were talking about
>> fans not the players so the fans are made up of both
>> sexes rather than one without even bring sexuality into it.
> 
> Ah, but the point I was making was that you shouldn't really
> have used the term "habs" in the context you were using.
> 
> Written in full, you said:-
> "what about the one's who have husbands AND boyfriends?"
> Perhaps that should have been:-
> "what about the one's who have husbands OR boyfriends?"
> ... or, shortened to:-
> "what about the one's who have hobs?"  (not habs)

Maybe I should have said wogs, but that could have been misconstrued.

Strictly, should it not have been "the ones who have a husband or a
boyfriend"?  Does not the plural form "husbands and boyfriends"
suggest that we're talking about those who have more than one of each?

That being the case, I'm not sure what to make of your comment about
deciding on "one or the other".  The choice seems to be between, on the
one hand, at least two husbands, and on the other, at least two boyfriends.

Questionable morals.  You can have as many husbands as you like, or as
many boyfriends as you like.  But as soon as you get married, no more
boyfriends.

>>>> > > PeterSaxton wrote:
>>>> > > > Tell that to the 40,000 Hull City fans at Wembley in May.
>>>>
>>>> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
>>>> > > I wonder what their wags would have to say on the matter.
>>>>
>>>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>>>> > what about the one's who have habs?
>>>>
>>> "Tim" wrote:
>>>> They should decide on one or the other, and stop being so greedy?
>>>
>> "PeterSaxton" wrote
>>> The point I was making were that we were talking about
>>> fans not the players so the fans are made up of both
>>> sexes rather than one without even bring sexuality into it.
>>
> "Tim" wrote:
>> Ah, but the point I was making was that you shouldn't really
>> have used the term "habs" in the context you were using.
>>
>> Written in full, you said:-
>> "what about the one's who have husbands AND boyfriends?"
>> Perhaps that should have been:-
>> "what about the one's who have husbands OR boyfriends?"
>> ... or, shortened to:-
>> "what about the one's who have hobs?"  (not habs)
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> Maybe I should have said wogs, but that could have been misconstrued.

Ah, but I think your use of wags was probably acceptable:-
"I wonder what their wives and girlfriends would have to say on the matter."

The *group* to which you referred with "their" may
have several husbands *and* several boyfriends.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> Strictly, should it not have been "the ones who have a husband or a
> boyfriend"?  Does not the plural form "husbands and boyfriends" ...

[Did you mean to say "husbands OR boyfriends" here?]


"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> ... suggest that we're talking about those who have more than one of each?

Hehe - silly me!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> That being the case, I'm not sure what to make of your comment about
> deciding on "one or the other".  The choice seems to be between, on the
> one hand, at least two husbands, and on the other, at least two 
> boyfriends.
>
> Questionable morals.  You can have as many husbands
> as you like, or as many boyfriends as you like.  But
> as soon as you get married, no more boyfriends.

I accept that I should have said AHOAB rather than HOBS.
Doesn't seem to trip off the tongue quite as easily though...

Tim wrote:

> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> Maybe I should have said wogs, but that could have been misconstrued.
> 
> Ah, but I think your use of wags was probably acceptable:-
> "I wonder what their wives and girlfriends would have to say on the
> matter."

Only probably?  :-(

> The *group* to which you referred with "their" may
> have several husbands *and* several boyfriends.

Yes, though "include" may be a little clearer here than "have".

Many members of this group will (individually) have a wog, or a wag,
or even several Gs with or without a W (omitting bigamists as being
statistically insignificant).  But if you concede, assuming we
stipulate that each male fan has at most one female partner to whom
he is possibly married, that it is acceptable to refer to this
set of partners as wags, even though wogs might be more correct [wags
could suggest, if not that each man has more than one, then at least
that each partner is both someone's W and someone (else's) G], then
why does that concession necessarily not extend to Peter's version?

After all, "the ones who have habs" is short for "the ones who have
Hs and Bs", which *can* mean "the ones who have both Hs and Bs", but
can *also* instead in turn just be a contraction of "the ones who
have Hs and the ones who have Bs", so even though "hobs" is better,
"habs" is not all bad.

> Hehe - silly me!
> I accept that I should have said AHOAB rather than HOBS.

That's about as close as you'll ever get to saying "I was wrong".  :-)

On 19 Aug, 10:19, Ronald Raygun <no.s...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> PeterSaxton wrote:
> > The point I was making were that we were talking about fans not the
> > players so the fans are made up of both sexes
>
> Are they really?  The odd ladette perhaps, but I would have thought
> most women would be too sensible to put themselves in a position to
> have to endure that sort of stuff, let alone profess to enjoy it.
> Maybe they just come to keep an eye on their habs.
>
> We can't be talking as much as even 5% of spectators being female,
> can we?

22% of spectators are female.