The Riff-Raff Element

[quote user="Tresco"] 5am is very bad, but the unearthly hour mentioned by Mr Ruff Riff, along with the 'blepping' leads me to suspect he lives on a Hellmouth. [/quote] What's a Hellmouth? Is it something to do with gingivitis? I'll have you know I live on a very nice little lane. About the only thing that lowers the tone around here is me.[Www]

[quote user="Jura"]No, but whoever wrote it was right. Traders in this business anywhere else work well over an 80 hour week. What a wimp. This bank has an operating income of 22 billion euros. This guy lost this bank in excess of 5 billion euros. It's net income! With employees numbering WORLDWIDE at 122,000. How many employees do Nationwide and Halifax employ UK wide? much more! This bank is in serious trouble with losses like that as are it's account holders. "Last night a spokesman for Sócíété Générálé denied that Kerviel was overworked, insisting he lost the money after betting that the French were about to stop being rude, lazy, arrogant b@stards" You can bet what you like on this one and never come out a winner. No icon here because I am serious. No wonder the French are the laughing stock of the world; after the UK that is. [/quote] You sure about this? Nationwide employ 19,000 people. Halifax are part of HBOS, which in its entirety employs about 72,000. Neither come close in size or reach to Socgen. Traders in a French bank work pretty much the same kind of hours as traders anywhere else. They have probably heard of the thirty five hour week but have no truck with it. That story was a chucklo-chucklo.

I really don't mind having to sort the household rubbish five ways these days - green stuff on the compost, glass into one bac, paper into another, "recyclables" into a third and whatever is left over into the forth. I don't even mind that "they" only come for the general waste every fortnight rather than weekly, though that could change during the summer. What really hacks me off is that for some reason I have yet to fathom, the dustcart arrives in our little hamlet at half-past one on a Tuesday morning, shattering the silence with engine noise, blepping as it backs round the corner at the bottom of the lane and assorted Gallic shouting. What possible advantage are they gaining by doing this? Are dustcarts now utilised 24 hours a day in the interests of "effeciency"???

It seems his brother was involved in a little argy-bargy* a little while ago. According to "Figaro" there was a spot of embezzlement at BNP in which he was implicated.... http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes-francaises/2008/01/29/04010-20080129ARTFIG00312-olivier-le-frere-de-jerome-detournait-a-son-profit.php *argy-bargy - nothing to do with hauling freight in unpowered water craft on the River Plate, but I think it ought to be.

[quote user="Benjamin"][quote user="Frenchie"]Ooooops, sorry [:$] I like the Vendée too .  I want to know more about the rich historical past of that departement, I will visit some museums soon. [/quote] Whilst looking on the In the Vendée site for the local weather forecast I came across this link http://www.inthevendee.com/vendee-wars/ (sorry but you'll have to cut and paste it) which is a giude in English titled Genocide - The Civil War in the Vendée Militaire by a guy called Tim Hayward. I haven't read it myself but now i've seen it again I have heard it's pretty factual but can be very harrowing. As I said in my earlier posting some of my neighbours maybe don't know a lot but they do remember their local history. [/quote] I've read it. I was given it by a bloke I met in a pub. Story of my life, that. Anyway, it is terribly good and should be read by everyone in the Vendée and surrounding depts. In fact, I think that the French should all learn English just so that they can read it too.

I am surprised and concerned that you were displeased with this establishment as I also have recommended them to a number of other people. Thank you for taking the trouble to feed back your impressions. I'll keep using them for the time being - we've been happy with the service -  but I'll be keeping my eyes open.

I'm generally proper  - clean socks every day, I never stack the washing up and I take care to rinse the sink after I shave. Oh hang on  - that's propre isn't it. Continue ignoring me.

[quote user="Gluestick"]I agreee: we ought to actually try and do something: even in the singular cause of better air to breathe. However and unfortunately, what? [/quote] Where to start? At home, I think. I'm not going to parade my green credentials for approval - I'll limit myself to saying that we've decided to spend some money (and claim some back from les impôts to be sure) on making our footprints as shallow as possible. Pretty much anyone can do something if they wish, be it some modifications to the home or being prepared to spend a few extra quid and take the train to the UK every once in a while rather than flying every time. It doesn't have to ruin your lifestyle. The French governement do at least seem prepared to put their money where their mouth is in terms of coughing up where people are prepared to invest themselves and the take-up of the rebates and so forth - from what I can see - is accelerating. They may also bring in legislation to ensure new buildings must have solar roofs, use heat pumps for heating, etc - all of which is entirely possible. I know a few people locally who have gone down that route with newbuilds and are perfectly comfortable at 22°C with plenty of hot water. France is different from the UK in that she produces precious little hydrocarbon of her own and therefore has a big incentive to cut back the two million or so barrels she imports each day. Plus much of the kit - solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps, trains, rolling stock and even new nuclear reactors - that the French policy approach requires is made in France or on mainland Europe and the manufacturers will be perfectly happy with increased demand for their products. As for the Asian economies - they will boom for as long as they have markets for their products. There is nothing to stop anyone occasionally buying something European made every now and again, even if it does mean paying a little extra. While alternatives are still available, that is.

[quote user="Dick Smith"]I would have thought that one free mailshot to party members would cover it. Then, if the candidates want to schmooze union leaders/business leaders/whoever the Lib Dems schmooze (???) they can do it out of their own pockets/a few K. I think it must be hiring help and lobbyists that eats the money. But I can't see the British public settling for election expenses/party expenses let alone money for internal elections. If you could get the parties to agree on the sums involved, which I doubt. And it's very odd the way party funds go up and down. All parties. [/quote] And banks lend them money. Against what? Most of them don't own property any more, they don't manufacture anything and their only income seems to be subs and donations. Perhaps now that banks aren't lending to any one who walks through the door the UK parties could find themselves very badly off indeed. Which could raise some interesting problems when the polls come around. The real reason that Mr B held off on the snap election? We should be told.[:)] They'll be out with collection tins next. Do political parties have charitable status?

[quote user="Dick Smith"] He (or his people) checked that the person donating was a) on the electoral register and b) a Labour party member. He was. He just hadn't told anyone that his brother had given him the money. They did all they had to under the rules as far as I can see. From the way the Labour Party has responded I should think they are waterproof on this. Your second point - correct I think - but will the public stand for paying these expenses out of taxes? Remember that although parliamentary candidates get some expenses (such as free postage for election addresses) party elections have no such concessions. In the course of the Labour deputy leadership elections I got  number of mailshots from most of the candidates, that costs money. That said, they didn't make a lot of difference, and were all pretty much of a muchness. Very uncontroversial. A lot of the money raised (and don't forget all parties have been in trouble over this) must go to lobbying, travel expenses, clerical and other staff, so I can see how you could spend 100K on it. Whether or not there should be a cap is another matter. [/quote] Well, there's no case to answer. Quite why anyone would want to donate money for an internal party matter I cannot understand, but I cannot see that this chap himself is to blame. Must have been a slow news day... Quite a lot of European nations already have public funding above a certain level, do they not? France for one...I must look into how they sold this to the tax payers. I can't imagine UK tax payers taking it calmly somehow.

[quote user="Dick Smith"] [quote user="Russethouse"] Perhaps because they may want or need a favour, (planning for example, or some other project they need support for) and hope to gain advantage this way, by doing it through a third party it isn't so obvious ? [/quote] Except that the recipient did not know (and he checked) the identity of the donor. So the simple knee-jerk cynical Daily Mail response doesn't really wash. If you found yourself in an awkward position would YOU like to get some benefit of the doubt - or at least that someone would take a quick glance at the circumstances before accusing you of dishonesty? [/quote] Hang on - do I misunderstand: he checked, but was unable to indentify the donor and took the money anyway? Or he was fibbed to as to the indentity of the donor? Just to be clear. If it were the former then that strikes me as a very silly thing to do. The latter, then OK he was fibbed to - not his fault. It is all a bit sordid, this donating lark. Public funding for politicos might be an idea whose time has come.

Gluestick - we seem to share much the same views. Personally, I think it highly likely that not only that global warming is real but that it is least partly due to human activity. That is where the balance of sober evidence seems to point. It strikes me, therefore, as being pretty sensible to try and do something to halt it. We COULD wait until it was undenable, but by that time if the effects are real, and due to us, we would probably be finished. A parallel from human history might be the attempts to appease Hitler: something could have been done at considerable expense and inconvenience in 1935/6, but instead many people chose to ignore what was going on and lots of people got killed. It bugs me hugely that some idiots try and blame absolutely anything they can on climate change - houses getting flooded on flood plains being a fine example - because it cheapens the debate. I don't think the Al Gore stuff helped either.

[quote] I think the Riff-Raff are right on this one. Though actually getting the father to pay up may be another matter. Seems strange in this day and age that anyone would want to stop their kid getting an educatiuon.[6] [/quote] Not bad for me. OK - it was civil code not penal code and the article number was wrong, BUT I did get the general idea correct. What stuck in my mind was an Envoyé Spécial edition last year which featured a girl (faintly obnoixious in my opinion) who wanted to go to Canada to study and successfully sued her own mother for the fees. The money was taken from the woman's salary. The girl I think was about 23 years old. Anyway, it can be done - parents can be forced to cough up for adult offspring where grants are not available.

They'll need to do some calling around, but I have a feeling that the lad's father is obliged to give his son support for education. There has been a lot in the media about how unfair (on parents, that is) penal code article 402 (? - someone will know) is in this respect. He may have to go to tribunal, but if I have understood correctly, if his father has the money he is obliged to pay up.

[quote]Curtailing emissions of these gases may have no actual impact on the heating effect, but until it is properly tried no-one knows. It rather comes down to how much you're prepared to gamble. Cutting emissions will be expensive, failing to do so may be catastrophic. Do you feel lucky? [/quote] [quote user="Gluestick"]Nice theory! [/quote] Thanks. I didn't think of it all by myself, though. Its been doing the rounds amongst the climate science lot for a while [quote user="Gluestick"]So how, precisely, are you suggesting that we "Curtail emissions of these gases"? [/quote] Since you ask, I'd suggest technologically. There are some interesting strands being pursued toward making a carbon neutral industrialised world possible. Aside from improving the efficiency of use I mean. Fusion technology is one obvious possibility, genetic modification of algae to manufacture hydrocarbon-like fuels via photosynthesis out at sea is another. Both require a huge amount of funding. And there's the rub. It would be investment that might not be necessary. Huamnkind might not be having an effect on climate at all. But being wrong about that has the potential for complete and utter catastrophy. Not recession in Western economies but complete disintergration. [quote user="Gluestick"]Imagine: the Western world, including the USA cut their usage of fossil fuels by 50%. In so doing, they destroy their post-Kenynsian economic model which requires annual growth and destitute themselves and their societies in the process. Meanwhile, China, India, Korea et al (the biggest polluters amongst the IDCs) continue on their paths of massive economic and industrial expansion. The experiment fails. What has actually been achieved? [/quote] If they do this without first establishing replacement technologies then no arguement from me. Your absolutely right. But throw hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem of developing your alternatives and you'd probably have them in a decade. Think of the Manhattan project. I have a feeling that many of our leaders are already convinced of this, which is why they are trying to raise the cash at every turn.... [quote user="Gluestick"]It's just like the "Science" applied to GM crops. Since it is impossible to prevent cross-pollination from GM to non GM (since thus far mankind and scientists have not developed methodologies to control nature), claims made by such as Monsanto simply can't hold water! However and of course, Monsanto want above everything to "prove" how safe GM crops are: and can produce at any one time, a tribe of "Experts" to "prove" their cause. What they fail to mention, of course, is their new world plants have sterile seeds, thus preventing Third World farmers from doing what they have done for thousands of years: reserve some of their crop for seeds for next year's planting! [/quote] Well, we have developed methodologies in some areas - take the Pill: control of reproductive biology achieved for hundreds of millions of women. That said, some of the behaviour adopted by the big agro-chems stink, in my view, though to be fair farmers in the developing world still don't have access to some of the best yielding crops because they cannot afford F1 hybrid seeds each year. F1 hybrids do not breed true so keeping seed back is not possible, à la GM. Though I thought the idea of a "terminator" gene had been dropped already? [quote user="Gluestick"]The only way to prove either set of dynamics would be in an eco-dome. How much would it cost to build a model of the Earth and its atmosphere and honestly replicate the atmosphere, stratosphere and etc? If not, then the experiment is valueless: and pointless. [/quote] Well, you could build one I suppose. It would cost billions and whatever results you got people would argue about and the whole exercise might take thirty years by which time it might be far too late to do much about climate change if it is real. So we might as well get on and try and do somethiong now.

[quote user="Gluestick"] I am interested only in, and concerned with, empirical scientific proof, not scaremongering for political gain and commercial profit. [/quote] And predicting the imminant death of British industry is not scaremongering? Actual "proof" in science is very, very rare. Unequivocal, unassailable fact, that is. I trained as a scientst and I'm hard pushed to think of much in my field that is not still open to some discussion. What we are usually left with is a balance of liklihood. Actual proof might be available about the time that Florida and half of Western Europe disappear under six feet of water, but even then I doubt it. Most climatologists agree that the world is heating up. This may be natural, it may not be. But there is good evidence that elevated levels of certain gases - not just CO2 - in the atmosphere add to the effect. This has been actively researched for more than half a century, by better scientific brains, I would suggest, than the chairman of the CBI and Mr Chrichton. Given the normally difficult time the scientific community has in getting politicos to take anything seriously (BSE, the rise of HIV, the damage to young brains caused by lead in petrol - "but gasoline without added lead will be too expensive for inductry to bear, etc,etc") the fact that many governments seem to take this seriously gives some clue as to the weight of evidence. Curtailing emissions of these gases may have no actual impact on the heating effect, but until it is properly tried no-one knows. It rather comes down to how much you're prepared to gamble. Cutting emissions will be expensive, failing to do so may be catastrophic. Do you feel lucky?

I think the French stance seems quite reasonable: you can't just go around exposing people to radiation without telling them that you are doing so, no matter that they might be trying to smuggle themselves across a border unlawfully. A single dose might be OK, but supposing they got 10 doses in as many days? Or if they were pregant? Or they were carrying an infant? There are plenty of passive ways of detecting people hiding in lorries: heat sensors, carbon dioxide sniffers, scent detectors - dogs even - but these of course require skilled (read expensive) operators, whereas a gamma ray or X ray scanner requires the ability to watch television. What is worrying is that the UK authorities think that this is perfectly OK, so maybe they are already zapping the citizenry of Britain left, right and centre in the interests of prosecuting the war against terror, preventing dissent amongst the supermarket going populace or seeing just who that hoodie really is. Mutations could be imminant. Actually, looking at the state of modern British pimply youth, Russell Brand and that strange Winehouse girl, perhaps it is already rife. If the Mail starts running tales of two headed children in Bridlington or some such, remember you heard it here first.

[quote user="Jura"] The French in general need to stop being such a bunch of sheep. They do as they are all told and that is the problem, they could really make this country something great if they put their heads together...like they did in 1790 except actually do it right this time![:)] [/quote] Hang on - surely by going on strike they are being decidedly un-sheeplike in that they are not doing what they are told?

[quote user="Logan"]Oil will fall to 50 dollars if the USA hits recession. [8-|][/quote] No it won't. US demand was once the only game in town but the world of oil fundementals has shifted far further than most people appreciate. It might fall that far if someone manages to fomulate "compound X" that catalyses the spliting of water under ambiant conditions by sunlight, or achieves cold fusion or something, but a simple recession? Nope.

[quote user="Gardian"]Jon ........... Well, I actually bought a small tray of Fontenay on the market the other day - the bloke told me that they were 'earlies'.  When I got back, I looked them up in my reference book and it said that they were 'early maincrop' (hence the question), but I guess that it all rather depends on when you plant them.  Down here, we're frost-free from end-Feb, so they'll be in within the next 4-5 wks. Anyway, thanks.  Sounds like I picked a guddun, even if only by chance.  [/quote] I put my Belles in on or about March 17th, my middle daughter's birthday AND St Patrick's day. He probably isn't, but I always think of St Patrick as being the patron saint of potatoes being as they once were the staple food for much of the population of Ireland. This is possibly a little anorak, but there is a terribly good book called "The Potato" by a bloke called Larry Zuckerman which I would recommend to anyone remotely interested in the devine tuber.

Belle de Fontenay. Fantastic flavour, very early. I'm not sure in my own mind that they aren't the same variety as that marketed as "Jersey Royal" but I would be happy to be corrected.

The goat's called Norma? So, assuming that goats are named with the same convention as dogs and cats, wouldn't that make her born 1992? A 15 year old goat is pretty impressive and, I think, bears out my earlier asserting that the Vendéen goat is one sturdy beast. Good company too. Terrible breath though. I don't think I could with clear conscience ever advise anyone on the investment potential of anything whatsoever due to my complete lack of any qualifications at all. Certainly when it comes to a second home in France I have always suggested that it should be treated as a hobby, and hobbies cost money. I can only offer that this a fine part of France, with an agreeable climate, high quality farm animals - not just the goats - and (generally) nice inhabitants. We have no regrets about either buying property here or living here. But everyone's experince is different.

In a parliamentary democracy laws are passed by majority with the peoples consent by proxy. Their elected representatives are just that. If they vote against the wishes of their electorate they have to answer to them. A government is constructed from the same representatives and act in the name of the majority of people who elected them. It’s called government by consent. When governments try to pass laws against the majority wish they become unstuck. Dictatorship is something else entirely. In principle, perhaps, but in most parliamentary democracies voting in that parliament is whipped along party lines. Free votes are so unusual that they get reported in the press. Once elected, our proxies seldom take any notice of their electors until such time as they need to slime for re-appointment to the gravy train at which point we are presented with a Hobson’s choice of voting for the muppet "our" party puts up or switching allegiance to some other muppet.  Either way, we usually get a muppet, pre-selected by their party as being “sound.” And any muppet that loses his seat generally finds gainful employment as a consultant or some such on some other gravy train, so once they've got their feet under the table there is little incentive for them to listen to anybody. At best I'd say "parliamentary democracy" is a "quasi democracy." I quite like the Swiss system of frequent referendums, but Switzerland really is not to my taste and the chance of my being able to vote there before I die of either old age or crushing boredom is nil. And I can’t see many other nations being so willing to hand direct legislative power to the people. I sometimes think benign dictatorship might be a preferable to this complete circus. Perhaps we should agitate for the re-establishment of the absolute monarch. And why should anyone think that the abolition of département numbers on car number plates in any way be « more » efficient? Let alone the wholesale centralisation of officialdom that would be the result of getting rid of the départemental bureaucracy. Because it won’t be.  Virtually nothing that claims to be more efficient and save money ever is, once it is examined. It might save the government money and this they can gleefully report to the taxpayer as being a success, but in practice we’ll all be spending huge amounts of otherwise unproductive time working our way through automated telephone menus before being placed on hold for 15 minutes and finally transferred to a warehouse outside Lille to be told that we’ve got the wrong organisation altogether. That is highly inefficient for the user, even if they have gained an extra 50 centimes a week in return for having their local town centre denuded of administrative offices. Whereas, at the moment, I can wander into town, pick up a few groceries and a new pair of slippers to replace the ones that the dog ate, have a cup of coffee (and a bun, if I am feeling extravagant), nip into the sous-prefecture to sort out all kinds of pressing matters, go across the road to the DDE to see what the reason for declining my planning application might be this week and pop next door to see Mary. That is efficient.

[quote user="Ian"] ... I don't know if there exists a "Living England" discussion forum, but I can imagine two quite different schools of thought about someone relocating themselves and their family to Britain... [/quote] Ian...that is brilliant.

[quote user="sweet 17"]I suppose, Riff-Raff, the other factor to take into account is that if we all ingest a few more germs, we gradually get used to them and they can no longer harm us in quite the same way.  Mind you, that's only one of those things that gets bandied about.  I don't know whether there is any factual basis for such observations.[/quote] I amit that it sort of feels right - kept the old immune system humming with some small infections ready for the Big One. But I've no idea if it's actually true. I've been told that children brought up in houses that are not too clean tend to be more healthy and less prone to allergies. That excuse is good enough for me!