Richard51

Because of the nanny state. Mr R51 NB Please take our comments  independently.

In this day and age everyone has the choice to be a parent or not, even more so by the time they have had two, whether they are male or female. The question is "why do people who plainly don't have the ability, in whatever sense, to support their offspring continue".  Lifestyle, aka financial incentives in the western world, must play some part. China has the right idea, and in the future I'm sure we will be singing to their tune given the greed that is currently endemic. Mr R51

I echo Benjamins comments. I hope that you are not now going into the unknown. I'm only used to the UK system, but I'd await the follow-up appointment with the referrer in terms of finding out the definitive (if possible) result and how to progress with your clinical situation. Go armed with lots of questions: I get the impression that they like that. Best wishes. Mr R51

Would have added that I agree Quillan. I'm slow at typing, especially after a cigarette (outside in the freezing cold) and vino. Mr R51

NickP - then why not go elsewhere. Gluestick - So now we are blaming the salesmen (women) rather than the bankers. That I agree with - but remember the buyer can always say no. Mr R51

Just come into this. Gluestick - I can't see the logic in your deductions from the comments made by Mrs R5. Greedy consumers or people wanting to make a fast buck by say investing in the property market (buying a house they can't afford) must be equally, if not more, to blame. Mr R51 NB not just defending Mrs51

Most of the above were driven by greed - the prospect of a nice fat lump sum on maturity of an endowment mortgage, the hoards of NHS etc idiots who traded in their public sector pensions for a promised bigger private pension, the much bigger returns offered by the Icesave.  I don't think any of them should have been given compensation. If you want to take a chance for the bigger money then it carries a risk.  If you loose out - tough.  Why should everyone else have to pick up the tab? Mrs R51 If the government really wants to save people from themselves, maybe introducing the subject of basic finance and budgeting into the school curriculum would be a better option?

[quote user="Gluestick"] Hmm...................Nice cop out! This is rather like fag companies denying any culpability for health problems related to cigarette smoking: booze companies denying any responsibility for alcoholism and binge drinking and perhaps, Union Carbide denying any responsibility for Bhopal. [/quote] Of course the cigarette companies didn't force the idiots to put the things in their mouths and puff away - the idiots themselves did that as they thought it would 'make them look cool and sophisticated'.  Kinda like the idiots that knowingly borrowed way more than they could afford, often lying about their earnings, to buy the smart pad, latest car, TV, iPlayer etc. that would 'make them look cool and sophisticated'.  Clearly we all still need a nanny state...to mother the poor little sods that now can't pay off their debt...and rap the knuckles of the big bully banks.  Kinda like the parents of spoiled brats who indulge them by forever paying off their debts for them. Mrs R51

It is a contrast agent (with paramagnetic properties) used in Magnetic resonance imaging (IRM). A bit like using barium or other contrast agents for some X-rays.  

It goes the other way too.  There are many fathers who would make much better parents than the mother but they are always overlooked.  Ditto there are absent mothers that are not contributing to their children.  It also seems that one parent can walk away from a family, set up a new home and their new income (i.e. the income of their new partner) is protected.  All incomes in the tangled web should be taken into account and there should be no presumption that the mother is a better parent. I also think that those parents drawing income for disabled children should be more closely monitored.  I know at least two situations where the parent is withholding treatment / care from the child to preserve their (very substantial) disability benefits.

Problem is - how do parents (who have had a crap upbringing themselves) supposed to parent? They don't know how.  For those seriously deprived kids, social services budget for the current financial year...and offer care accordingly.  Viz - never mind the future costs - how little money can we get away with investing now?

Benefits should require some sort of an input to the community.  I'm sure that there are a huge range of jobs that could be undertaken by the unemployed...and many disabled. And before anyone shouts - I'm disabled. Mrs R51

If a bloke is stupid enough not to use protection he deserves the CSA bill.  IMHO all men should be required to provide their NI number when the birth is registered.  Provision by the mother of said number should suffice.

[quote user="Jay"]Lots of people agree with Q http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11837538 - Well one at least! [/quote] Well that's a load of b*****s!!  I, and most of my (middle class) colleagues have been asking for years why the government continues to pay child benefit to middle class families who don't need it.  IMHO child benefit should be stopped period - and the money saved used to allow kids to go to university based on merit not on the basis of whether their parents can afford.  There are too many Beckham and similar degrees about.  Ideally degrees should be sponsored by industry - this would match courses to available jobs.

The problem is that it's very hard to have a kid as a single parent and go back to work.  Most low paid work requires shift and / or out of hours working and there is no child care provision available in the evenings and at the weekend.  The child care initiatives of the Labour government helped the middle class / married couples not poor single parents. Mrs R51

[quote user="Araucaria"] At the public meeting the cost was the main concern of the audience. But one of the other topics that seemed to generate a lot of heat related to farmers emptying their own septic tanks and then spraying it on the fields. The departmental official who was there said that septic tanks could only be emptied by licensed operators. He eventually said that as a matter of practice there wasn't any likelihood of SPANC stopping people from doing what they have always done. [/quote] That's pretty much the impression we got.  We had ours inspected (and failed) two and half years ago.  At the time we had no idea where it was.  The inspection consisted of bloke in wellies and lady in tottery heels furking about with a depth tester, a soil type sampler and a tape measure, scribbling on a peice of paper which we were asked to sign at the bottom.  Paper basically said, inspected, non compliant (no reason) and our signature that we would replace within two years from date of visit.  We since found out where exactly it is (renters kids stuffing yards of loo roll down the toilet which caused a blockage).  When we dug the thing up (in the lucky one week window between renters) we discovered that the outlet pipes to the bac dégraisseur had been broken (we think by contracters who used the bucket of a digger to access the roof to replace broken tiles).  It also hadn't been emptied for some considerable time...despite the assurances of the venders that this would be done before we signed for the property. The upshot.  Tank was emptied by a local farmer (cash only - nod and wink...viz not licenced under new rules).  Broken pipes were replaced and a new vent installed (to replaced the one cunningly disguised (not) by the tree). The recification date agreed with SPANC of 2 years we were told to ignore.  Apparently, the decision to install and extend the mains drainage is made by the local commune.  Likewise, they enforce the replacement of non conforming tanks.  The bod from our local commune (who is responsible for said decision / enforcement) told us that it's a political hot potato.  Many of those with non compliant tanks haven't the money to replace so it's almost impossible to enforce.  He also said the date for implementation had already been postponed once because of this - apparently it was originally sometime in 2005?

This year was our first year and we didn't start advertising until March.  We have let about 12 weeks this year which wasn't too bad.  We let predominantly to French families (easier!) and have noticed they often book at short notice.  They also like weekends / short breaks outside the main season.  For 2011, August is now booked bar one week.

The rules I was given don't go into the technical assessments just the legal requirements.  If they are anything like the UK, then they will be another useless way of parting the home owner from his cash...viz a load of b*ll***s.  Most people buying an older, character property know it will be less energy efficient than the box like, modern alternative, but...they don't care. Mrs R51

I've just finished a translation of the rules for our local estate agent.  If anyone wants a copy, pm me. Mrs R51

Stay at home and don't watch the TV?

But bear in mind that this is the result of a survey of the average French guy....viz the same guy that prefers to live in a 'crepied' concrete / breeze block structure in a lotissement.... If you look at most of those regions appearing at the upper end of the tables they do so because they have a large, sprawling urbanisation (e.g. potential employment) in their midst. Mrs R51

Without an 'Etat des Lieu' on entry I cannot see that you have any grounds for recovery against the renter.  We complete one even for a one week letting. Mrs R51

We had a similar problem with our old (and definitely uninsulated!) house.  The roof of the oldest part of the house was in a bad state of repair and needed replacing anyway so we insulated (to 12" thickness) at the same time.  The section of the house that didn't need re-roofing was more problematic as we couldn't put any insulation between the tiles and the ceilings if that insulation was likely to come into physical contact with the tiles.  (As it gets so cold in our bit of France, this could potentially cause cracking of the roof tiles.)   All our upstairs bedrooms are mansarded and with reasonably high ceilings, so we constructed a framework about a foot away from the internal wall / ceiling surfaces.  We packed the space it created with laine de verre and then boarded over and refinished.  The rooms are slightly smaller (but they were big to start off with) but are so much wamer - and our oil bill is a fraction of what it was pre-insulation. Mrs R51

Woooly Very profound - I think. Reminds me of the Eng Lit that I tried to understand but couldn't as there were too many innuendos. Perhaps its because I have a PhD in a science subject and still question fundamentals and  think in terms of right or wrong, yet still work in the public sector!! Could you explain what the quote means to you in plain English ( or as more of a challenge to me, as the OH is away, in French). Mr R51 Thinking about it - perhaps just in English! 0)

Fred (erick) Exactly why "management" have taken a more proactive stance!!! Perhaps controversial: Though its more difficult to sack people in the public sector than private. To give this a more French twist - its impossible in France in either sector!!!!. I await the comments!!!!