Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Scottish Regiments Update | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 11:45:41 12/03/04 Fri The great Charlatan-In-Chief Blair, has given his strongest indication yet, that the Scottish regiments will be amalgamated following the defence review. However, he has stated that the “reform is being driven by the Army, not politicians, and that historic local links and identities will not be lost.” So, let me get this straight. Geoff Hoon proposes another round of defence cuts to fund Gordon Brown’s largesse. This results in the “necessity” for two Scottish battalions, amongst others in Britain, to be axed. It is this unprovoked attack on our armed forces by politicians that has created the “necessity” for all the Scottish regiments to be amalgamated, and yet we are supposed to believe that the military themselves wish to destroy their history. Who does this guy think we are? Meanwhile, the aforementioned Sheriff of Nottingham reincarnate is planning on a pre-election giveaway, depending on continued high oil prices, in his pre-budget report. The self-proclaimed “great chancellor” strikes again, in a further effort to pull off a repeat confidence trick on the British people, and buy our votes for the last meaningful general election this country will ever have. I urge the people of this country to ponder his very real achievement of raising taxes 66 times, and yet still running a huge budget deficit – an achievement far less worthy of boasting. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Gordon Brown | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:06:18 12/03/04 Fri From my (very limited) observations, it appears Gordon Brown's "success" as Chancellor has been completely due to the reforms and action taken of the previous Tory government. The only step of significance he has taken is giving the Bank of England independence (although he plans to undermine this by giving its powers to the EU). This way of governing may do well for him politically in the short-term, however in the long term it will not do Britain any favours. The story is remarkably similar in Australia, although our government has at least pursued some reforms since 1996, notably continuing tariff reform and pursuing taxation and industrial relations reform. Australia's airports and some other government bodies have been privitised. We will soon also have a fully privitised telecommunications sector and deregulation of broadcasting and media. I am glad we have a government that is not resting on its laurels in the way the Blair government does (except in Kyoto protocol/climate change). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Telecoms | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:28:33 12/03/04 Fri Funny you should mention privatisation of the telecommunications industry, as today marks the 20th anniversary of the privatisation of BT (formerly the GPO). My God, has it really been that long? Now I do feel old. I was seven at the time, and I remember my father wondering if he should take the risk of buying shares! For the benefit of Owain (and Roberdin?), who were not even born, The GPO was an era where payphones never worked, getting cut off was a matter of course, and there was a waiting list for a phone. There was no internet, and certainly no broadband. Phones were enormous bakelite devices, usually in green, with enormous dials that would wear out your fingers, and take 30 seconds to dial a number. You also had the absurd restriction of having to remain within the cord-length diameter of the phone when making a call. One thing that I do regret about the privatisation of BT, is the gradual loss of our beloved red phone boxes. I hope others will join me in demanding their immediate reinstatement. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: GPO | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:38:50 12/03/04 Fri I must be showing my age but what was GPO? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: General Post Office... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:42:51 12/03/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: GPO | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:52:48 12/03/04 Fri If things in Britain were similar to what they were in Australia (which I suspect) GPO stands for General Post Office. Telecoms in Australia were originally handled by the Post Master General. If you walk around the streets there are still many manholes labled "PMG" or "Post Master General". Eventually the two were de-merged by the government some time ago forming Australia Post and Telecom Australia. Telecom Australia was renamed Telstra quite recently and the telecommunications sector experienced limited deregulation under Paul Keating, with more than one company being allowed (Optus [owned by cable and wireless]) and Vodafone also entred the market), under Howard the telecommunications sector has experienced further deregulation and we are now allowed to choose from several companies. Under Howard the Government has sold off 49.9% of its shares in Telstra and the process will be completed over the next three years. 20 years since privitisation in Britain......we really are a long way behind. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Problems with privatisation | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:42:50 12/03/04 Fri Providing decent communication to remote areas of Australia is not ever likely to be profitable, but it is essential for the integrity of the country. It is hard enough for a (partly) publicly-owned Telstra to subsidise remote-area services while remaining competitive in the lucrative markets, but it seems completely unlikely that a fully privatised Telstra will maintain decent remote-area services. Where does that leave us? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Rural Services | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:50:01 12/04/04 Sat The UK and US both operate a fully privitised telecommunications sector, if anything, I think their services in rural and regional areas are better than ours. There ways other public ownership to ensure decent services for all, as demonstarted in Britain. All public ownership does is promote inefficency and a lack of competition, which is indeed a detrement to services in rural and regional areas. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Neither the UK nor the US has areas as remote as the remote areas of Australia | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:41:53 12/04/04 Sat You can't simply apply the same model from far more densely populated countries. I'm not saying it can't work, but I have yet to see how a private company can run decent services in such isolated areas. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: I remember the GPO in Britain | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:52:10 12/03/04 Fri I remember visiting the UK about 1971 and London had a GPO tower which had an observation deck. Is this now called a BT Tower? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: yep | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:12:27 12/03/04 Fri A tower so secret that it does not appear on any maps, although this may have changed. It doesn't quite compare with the CN tower though does it? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Official Secret | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:47:05 12/04/04 Sat I've heard that about the BT tower - it's supposedly an official secret (like the location of the MI6 HQ [backdrop to the 007 film TWINE] and the operation of the Royal Mail). I don't know if it's still the same but I heard a couple of years ago that it was, technically, a criminal offence to direct someone to the BT Tower - even if it was just across the road. Ah, the wonderful world of Official Secrets! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Post Office Tower | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:45:17 12/04/04 Sat Somehow I doubt that it is an official secret... notwithstanding the fact that my place in London is practically at the bottom of it, and I regularly pass underneath it without seeing a single mean-looking security guard, it is true that for years one could go to the revolving restaurant in the top. I do not think that this is true of the MI6 building at Vauxhall! I went up there just before it was closed, and, while I was admittedly very young at the time, I do not recall seeing on the menus the legends "This bill of fare will self-destruct in five seconds" or, "remember: be sure not to tell your friends where you ate today"... Having said that, when they switch on the x-thousand gigawatt military searchlights on the top to test them, the bloody thing can light up the skies above the capital to the extent that it hardly seems like night-time. There's some pretty mean equipment in that edifice. Oh, and p.s., no true Londoner would ever call it the BT Tower or Telecom Tower. It is the Post Office Tower, whatever the overpayed electricians at BT may say. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: BT Tower | |
|
Author: British Telecom [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:18:05 12/03/04 Fri One can no longer go up the BT Tower, alas, alas - there used to be a revolving restaurant at the top, but the Provos struck and they closed it for security reasons. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: The CN Tower is a Toronto landmark with an obervation deck - I have photos from the top of it | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:09:40 12/03/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |