Chesterfield

A fantastic set of shots - I like seeing nature reclaiming an area, its fascinating stuff. I enjoyed the documentart series "life after people" theorising on what would happen to various places around the world if people just dissappeared. I had no idea that you could arrange tours of this area, and it is certainly something I would consider doing before radiation levels drop further and it becomes commercially viable to run these types of tours in large numbers.

I'd quite happily chat to anyone about some of the things Ive heard at recent public procurement events if you want boring for half an hour or so, but its an eye opener thats for sure. The current procurement strategies and thinking from many organisations leads me to believe there is no way we will see fuel, road and any other taxes coming down any time soon. Just to play devils advocate, I wonder how many of those people out on strike wanting to retain their final salary pensions which will cost the treasury billions, also dont like the high taxes and fuel prices either?

Inflation didnt touch 30%, though granted at times in the 70's it went as far as about 24 in 1975, though the average is much less than that. Having found myself with nothing better to do at lunch, I created a spreadsheet (Mike will spit his tea out as he knows I love spreadsheets ) £2.5k is indeed worth about £14,000 today accounting for inflation: http://safalra.com/other/historical-uk- ... onversion/ However, the contributions in 1976 werent £2500. They were £512.50. So even accounting for inflation, thats about £2,800 today. So how does this fund a years pension even on the 1/80ths scheme. Also, as for investing the funds, there will be strict regulations on what public pension pots can and can't be invested in. And as with all investments in stocks/bonds/hedge funds etc etc, they can go down as well as up. Or were they somehow magically protected against events such as black wednesday or even the more recent crashes? How 40/80's (or 1/2) of £30k results at 12.5K I dont know. You also haven't accounted for the lump sum on the 1/80th scheme, which is actually a 3/80ths lump sum accrual. 35 years at 3/80ths accrual on a final salary of 30k results in: 30K /80 *3 *35 = £39,375. To cover a final salary scheme based on the 1/80th + lump sum, and pay a pension for just 12 years after retirement, the fund would need to grow at over 6.6% per annum. If the fund grew at the RPI inflation figure for each year from 1976 to 2010, the fund would be in defecit by over £70,000 and if it grew at BOE base rate applicable for each of the years, it would be £12,000 in defecit. As for the extra 7 years payments, hows about the suggestion that the pension is calculated on whatever their salary is after 40 years service, they stop paying in and any increases in pay over the next seven years are not used to calculate their pension? I bet I can guess what the employees/unions want though.... To stop paying the premiums after 40 years service, but have their pension calculated on whatever their salary is after 47 years....

Brilliant book!

Rather than write another long reply: More out than in equals nothing left. This can apply to an individuals income and expenditure, a whole countries economy, a pension scheme or a bloody bucket of water. If people can't understand this basic concept then there is no hope. Furthermore (and all in my opinion), people who can't grasp this simple concept have no place teaching our children anything. Ever.

No, Im not on the same salary as I was on 10 years ago. Yes I have had a bonus and yes I've had a salary increase. However, NONE of these have ever been guaranteed. They have all been performance based or indeed in recent times based on the performance of the company itself. If the company takes a reduction in earnings/profits this year, so will I. Im actually staring a 30-35% pay cut in the face this year. The company is making less money, so I earn less money. If I take out more than the company can afford to pay, then the company goes broke, and I have no job. The same principals apply to treasury funded public sectors. Public sector workers have become so used to guaranteed pay rises and bonuses, they have lost sight of real world economics. The treasury is spending more than it gets, and things have to budge. Either they try and get more in, or the spend less. If people want to talk about a fair system. Lets start with tax that pays for these services in the first place. Why should a high earner pay a higher percentage? "Because they can afford it" is not a suitable answer. Hows about when you buy a loaf of bread from tesco, they charge you 30% more as you are on under 30K, but the person behind you in the queue is on less than 20K so they get that same loaf 30% cheaper than you. You can afford to pay more than them, so where's the problem? Seems to be acceptable for the tax system, so hows about we start it for everything? If the public sector want a pension that returns the sort of returns they presently get, then hows about they put their hand in their pocket and pay for it. You want the tax payer to fund a pension scheme that is mathematically flawed and you talk about "fair" ? The terms and conditions are not being "erroded" though Im sure thats the term spouted by the unions. They are being altered to cope with the changes in the economy. I notice people weren't out in the streets campagning against the changes Brown made when he improved the system from 1/80th to 1/60th. Economy was doing OK and they got a better system. So when the economy is about to go broke, why is it not "fair" that the system changes for the worse? They did once try to change the system so that people who used the services the most paid the most - it was called the poll tax. That went down well I recall. The public sector workers have the right to strike if they want to. However all I would suggest is they put the union leaflets and propoganda to one side, research for themselves exactly what changes are being proposed and what will happen to the economy if the changes arent made. What affect will it have on their circumstances and whether the alternative is better. Anyone out on strike should be able to answer the following questions: 1. What changes specific to your conditions are being proposed 2. What financial difference will this make to your earnings now. 3. What financial difference will this make to your pension fund/retirement income. 4. If there are no changes made to pension reform, and income tax levels are adjusted to account for the defecit, what financial difference will this make to you/your households income. For the above, I would expect them to be able to show their workings on how the changes affect their own personal contributions/finances. Figures copied and pasted from a union powerpoint presentation would be given 0 marks. The taxpayer already funds the true cost. Well apart from the odd 100 billion or thereabouts defecit in the pension fund, maybe if the taxpayer paid that as well, then we could have income tax raised by say 10% or so. Would the public sector workers like to contribute another 3% now toward a still pretty fat pension upon retirement, or keep their final salary schemes, but pay 10% more in tax instead, and just hope they live to spend it later? As Ekona has said, along with many others on many other web sites, how do the public sector suggest we pay for the pension plans? Just come up with a solution to where we find the money and the problem goes away. Until the public sector can answer that and come up with a real alternative, its nothing more than toys out of the pram because they dont want to face up to basic maths and change their finances and future plans to cope with a changing world.

So of that £2.5k salary in 1976, the ammount paid in in was 6.4% by the employee (£160), and 14.1% by the employer (£352.50). Or a total of £512.50 Retire today (2011) on a salary of £30k, after 35 years service since 1976 and your pension is £17,500 a year. So the teacher puts in £160 in 1976 and expects £17,500 back 35 years later. Imgaine how much a few years of being on that sort of salary and having a final salary scheme is going to increase the defecit in the fund.... Though as Sasha points out - the changes proposed will not affect any pensions accrued to date. Its only the accruals going forward that are affected. Meaning your £160 contribution in 1976 will still bag you £17,500 today. The union leaders did explain that it only affected accruals going forward and wouldnt be retrospectively applied, didn't they?.... Hows about this - who agrees with the business model of companies like pay day loans and wonga etc whom charge interest rates the likes of 1200% APR? Anyone like how they charge ridiculous interest rates to some of the most vulnerable/gullible in our society? Well, in the example above, the public sector worker paying in £160 and expecting £17.5k back in 35 years is expecting their pension fund/taxpayer to pay them over 1500% APR for 35 years. Without starting to take pictures of the digits on my calculator, I seriously don't know how to make it any easier for the public sector to understand the problem being faced. EDITED to add: The same problem existed in the 70s, but of course Labour didnt want to upset the unions, so they just didnt mention it. The tories tried a few things in the 80s to try and make up for some of the defecit, but as lots of people wanted maggies head on a spike just for taking the milk away, trying to change the pensions wasnt exactly going to fly. In the 90s/00's Labour just made the schemes even better for people as Gordon just started selling stuff to pay for it, like a few billion £'s worth of bullion for a start. They imposed massive increases in the numbers of, and levels of, taxes to pay for their spend spend spend attitude. Now we find ourselves in the 10's and the problem still persists, though its grown by many billions since the 70's, its now at tipping point - if we dont do anything about it, the country will be broke. Its not far off already.

Going for the full weekend - staying in a hotel nearby.

locked. should have done it with my last post but forgot to click the button.

Agree with the sentiments of many in this thread, in that having a thread of this type serves no positive purpose. If it gets to 20 or 30 pages long over a few months, who is going to sit there and read all the thread before making a decision to purchase from a trader or not? Currently the process works much like it does everywhere else. Any member affected takes up their issue with the trader via PM. Sent and received PMs are kept by both parties, and if no amacable resolution can be found, the team can be contacted (by either the trader or the customer depending on who has the grievance) - the team will then endevour to resolve the sitiuation between the two parties. If the actions of one side are deemed inappropriate behaviour then we can (and have) taken action to remove them from the forum (while still ensuring that communication channels outside the forum are maintained. Often the threat of removal from trading or being a member of the forum is enough to focus the mind of the trader or customer depending on who is at fault. If there are problems with traders, then they are made very apparent by many customers in tha traders own area of the forum. There is no need for a "bashing" thread. We dont have threads specifically designed to bash other clubs or people that dont trade here, so I see no reason why we should have one bashing people that do trade here. We can at some point in the future look for a "feedback" system for the forum (for all members including traders) - so that an verall picture can be seen similar to ebay, but until that is implemented I we would ask that the common courtesy approach be undertaken as per above.

I'll agree with stew, the veyron doesn't do it for me either. Also having had another snoop round one at a meet today, I'm starting to fall out of love with the 458 too. It's great, but it's just going to become one of the family in time, just like the 355, 360 and now 430 are blending into one line of evolution and fade away. I'm starting to favour icons or stand out one offs now. The ford gt, murcielago and even jaguar xj220 that are all outclassed by the 458 just seem to have that something else. The gallardo too is going the same way for me. Today parked next to a murci, it just didn't have that same "spaceship" or bonkers car appeal that the countach, murci and diablo had/have. Maybe im just going off modern cars, and starting to look at classics in a different light. Time for the pipe and slippers I think.

I had to google Oban. Im not a Tom Tom

You cant enter Sh*t aroma here!

Seat Alte FR - 170 Jaguar XF - 275 350Z GT4 - 296 F430 - 490 Transit - 85 Total - 1316

Because larger corporate firms cant be bothered to interview people properly or consider people for what/who they are rather than the qualifications on a bit of paper. Its just like the way they treat people as a number rather than a person.

Depends where the pension scheme is invested. My private scheme is effectively just a whole bunch of investments in various financial markets and companies around the globe, with a fund manager looking after the whole thing - not just for me, they manage billion pound funds, all made up from thousands of private and corporate investors. If none of my fund is based on UK markets, then the economy here wont affect it. Thats the beausty of it - if one countries economy takes a bit of a dive, then the fund gets shifted around to cope. Needless to say, the ammount of the fund invested in Greek companies and markets is precisely nill. The public sector schemes are more like pyramid selling. The reason they (the unions) dont want anyone opting out of the scheme, is that they know full well its only the money from those still at work thats even remotely propping up the pensions for those nearer the retirement age. Thats why they dont want it changing - not that they care about the new entrants. They know if new entrants take their premiums elsewhere, then the scheme collapses. So too does their credibility as a union leader and their £100k+ earnings from the union subscriptions.

Seeing as the scotts dont like the english when it comes to any sporting event, and even go so far as to have "anyone but england" on T-shirts, etc. Im adopting the "anyone but murray" approach to the tennis. And yes - he looks a chuff.

Realistically - Id have bid on the 348TS, the 66 mustang and the Alfa SZ - or maybe the 61 E-type. In a fantasy world, the F40, GTB daytona and the Bugatti T35 - what a collection that would be

As an employer from the small business sector, I dont really put the educational qualifications at the top of any must have list. I think that any institution or corporate entity may choose to employ only those with degrees on "graduate" courses as they believe this will naturaly weed out all those who would be better burger flipping, is just doing this as they can't be bothered to interview properly. While it may be true, that only asking for graduates to apply may weed out burger flippers, it can also throw out the baby with the bathwater. As an extreme example, some organisations looking for sales directors that only look at CV's from graduates, would throw Alan Sugars CV in the bin based on his educational qualifications alone. When I was looking for more sales staff, if a candidate had nothing better than D grades at GCSE, then they probably wouldnt have got an interview for a sales position, but at the other extreme Im not going to favour those with degrees just for the fact they have a degree. I look at employment history, tasks undertaken in the roles they have held, and how committed to their roles they have been. Someone could apply with a 1st in sales and marketing, but if they haven't worked for the same company for more than 6 months without moving to another role elsewhere, then I would question their dedication to an employer - something very key to a small business. Blanket accepting people for consideration just because they have a degree is no substitute for actually interviewing people properly and getting to know the candidates. Some of the best sales people in our company have not got degrees, HND's at best, and at least one top salesperson has no higher eductaion qualifications at all. I only went as far as a HND myself. To those who are worried that the university they wanted to go to hasnt accepted them, and their degree from a "lower" university wont get them as far, or those who are worried that by not getting into university they are harming their career prospects, I would say dont worry. While a degree may open some doors earlier on, it wont open nearly as many as experience and a good CV will later on. I know several six figure earners who haven't got any form of degree at all. Its not the be all and end all. Those who get a degree and then expect to waltz straight into a £30k per annum job on the back of it, are also for the most part extremely deluded imho.

In many cases it doesnt sit anywhere now, as there is more going out than coming in. Also we are comparing averages. Average salaries in the private sector are lower. If we compare the specifics of a qualified engineer who chooses to teach, and a qualified engineer who chooses to take a position in the private sector, then yes - they may earn more. But what about the pensions? Add up everything they take home after tax for both, then add in the pensions they both get, and Ill assure you that even after any changes proposed the public sector will still end up with much more in total than the private sector employee. In order to obtain the same pension benefit, the private sector employee would have to put in about three times as much to a private pension. So for a worker starting out on 22k, its a contribution of £176 a month (at a new higher contribution level of 9.6%). The private sector employee would need to put in an extra £300 a month, so £476 in total - or about one third of their take home pay Is the basic salary 33% higher in the private sector? And dont forget you would then get clobbered by the higher rate of income tax too.... Oh and your employer wont be sticking their hand in their pockets for 14% contributions either. So - if the public sector want final salary schemes, and they want annual pay rises. Just tell us where we should get the money from and the problem goes away. Simples. Id actually propose a scheme whereby if public sector workers think that after these proposed changes they will be worse off and no better than the private sector they if they can prove they are able to get and pass an interview in the private sector and be offered the job - then the public sector will match that pay scale they would have received in the private sector role, but remove their public sector pension scheme and let them have a private one. Any volunteers? Thought not.

Sorry Vik, but in my opinion the local government pension scheme most certainly is a fat pension. Its the same 1/60th as the teachers scheme I based calculations on before. For service before April 08, it was 1/80th with a 3/80ths lump sum! 40 years sevice at 30K (no pay rises) based on the old system will generate total contributions of £246000. It will also generate a pension of £15,000 and a lump sum of £45,000 - the money will run out in 13 years (age 78) On the new system, that same service/salary leaves a pension of £20,000 - the money will run out in just over 12 years. Ive even stumbled across a presentation by the ATL teachers union on proposed strike action and discussing the proposed changes. The examples they use to illustate their "point" that it isnt fair are just laughable. They also go so far as to say the changes are being made to remove 2.8Bn from the public sector pension scheme, and to reduce the budget deficit. The Local Government pension scheme in 2007 was already £27Bn in deficit. In 2011 its ballooned to now over £70Bn. These changes arent all about robbing the pensions of the public sector to help pay for the budget deficit for everyone. These changes are completely and utterly necessary to ensure the pension scheme can still exist at all. As for women taking maternity pay - yes they will, but that is their choice. Just like myself and Tracy have waited until we are financially sound enough to begin even thinking about a family, why shouldnt everyone else. Or should people be able to pop a kid out whenever they like and just expect everyone around them (including the employer) to pick up the tab? Ive got someone on maternity leave at present - sure we get to claim most of the money we pay out back, but not all of it. And who is doing the work while that person is off - little work faries that visit in the night?, or could it be the temp I've got in at just under £20k? Whos paying for that then? Oh - and as for public sector wages being lower than in the private sector. That may be true for Doctors/surgeons etc - but have a read of this.... And the gap has grown since this was published in 2010, due to the public sectors unrest if they dont get a pay rise while the economy is crashing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... r-pay.html People in the public sector have a higher average salary than in the private sector. So all this "we get paid less on average so we should keep the pension perk" is just a complete load of carp spouted by the union leaders to safeguard their own golden handshakes.

1/60th 1/80th etc etc in relation to a final salary scheme, means that for each year of service you put in, your pension increases by 1/60th, 1/80th etc of your final salary. Example - if you pay in for 25 years, and your scheme is 1/60th then you have 25/60ths of your final salary as a pension. If your final salary was £60k, then your pension would be £25k after 40 years (based on a 1/60th scheme). The old scheme used to work, becuase to cut it short, people died younger and they didn't always have this culture of guaranteed/expected pay rises. It actually makes me laugh how the public sector expect guaranteed pay rises year on year and also want a final salary pension scheme. How exactly can those two co-exist ever. Its just mathematicaly impossible. example: Start on £20k, pay rise of just 2% per year for 40 years, gives a final salary of £43,294. So for your first year in the job, your contributions were 6.1% of £20k. The employer paid 14.1% of £20k. Yet your pension after 40 years employment is now 40/60ths of £43,294 or £28,862. One year after retirement will use up almost the entire contributions made (by the employee and the employer) in your first 7 years work. The entire contributions over the 40 years are £247,648. But because its a final salary scheme, now paying just shy of £29k, the money will run out in just over 8.5 years. So live until 74 and there is no money left. Thats a whole 9 years less than the first example I gave and only based on 2% pay rise per annum. Using the same starting salary and a 3% pay rise per annum the money at retirement will run out in 7.3 years. At 4% per annum it runs out in just over 6 years.

Apologies if this offends anyone in the public sector, but having been subject to it on Sky News all day in the office, I was wondering if this would come up on the forum. When I started work I thought Id be retiring at 65 - now its 68. Why should I retire later? Because if we dont accept these changes, then its bad news for everyone. Public sector pensions even after any proposed changes will be massively more generous than private sector pension schemes. A typical contribution of 6% is now being proposed to go to 9%. For the average salary job in the private sector to pay out the same benefits upon retirement, the contributions from the employee would have to be nearer 40%. Why should the public sector have this culture of guaranteed pay rises too? If you have a large visa bill that you are struggling to pay off, why would you decide to start spending more on luxuries? Thats exactly what Public sector employees are expecting to happen while country is running at massive debt. If my company starts losing money this year, exactly how much of a pay rise am I going to get, or any of my staff for that matter? If the amount of money being spent on pensions is greater than the amount going in - where do we get the rest from? The taxpayers that have been living with pay freezes, increased costs of living and massive redundancies? I really hope there werent any economics or maths teachers on strike today - if there were, then they shouldn't go back. If you take a larger number away from a smaller one, you end up with a negative number. If you spend more than you earn, things get tricky. This basic concept remains the same even when talking about pension funds worth billions. More out than in = pension fund going pop alltogether. Even after the changes, 9% contriubtions for an average salary pension and something like a 25-40k lump sum sounds like a bloody good deal to me. There is a reason that private sectors wiped out final salary pension schemes, and it was due to the same basics that now mean public sector pensions have to be revised. People are living longer after retirement and wages are higher. End result is that the money starts to run out. Its not so they can make a huge profit, as the pension schemes have been ringfenced from genereal company accounts since Maxwell jumped off his boat. Its because if they dont change, the scheme will go bankrupt, leaving everyone out of pocket. If public sector pensions arent changed, anyone working in the public sector who isnt retiring in the next 15 years will not get a pension anyway, as the whole ponzi scheme will have come crashing down by then due to those who cant see their hand in front of their face. Apologies if this offends anyone working in the public sector, but for way too long these Union bosses have been yanking the puppet strings of the masses, spinning all sorts of crap to justify their own existence. Its those on £100k plus in the public sector that will see the biggest financial changes from any reform, and its those people who pull the strings of all the others. If they ge their way and convince the goverment to back down, they will simply delay the inevitable of the funds going bankrupt. Which of course wont bother them one jot, as they will have their nice tidy private schemes they have been able to afford being on the money they are. Heres a few figures taking a teachers pension scheme as an example: Current retirement age of 65 (if joined the scheme after Jan 2007, otherwise its 60) Final Salary Scheme employee contribution 6.4% employers (taxpayers) contribution = 14.1% Newly qualified teacher salary is around £21,000 - so they pay £1,344 per year into their pension. Employer (taxpayer) pays £2,961 per year Total contributions = £4,305 per year. Lets say they never get a pay rise, and retire after 40 years service on that same £21,000. (in the real world they will get rises, but then the contributions go up too, so lets keep it simple) After 40 years they will have paid in 40 x £1344 = £53,760 The employer will have paid 40 x £2961 = £118,440 Total input over 40 years = £172,200 They have an acrual rate of 1/60th final salary - so 40/60 * 21000 = pension of £14,000. Now, lets say the live a long and happy life from 65 to 85. Thats 20 years x £14,000 - or £280,000. So. £280,000 out and £172,200 in. Problem starting to make itself clear yet? That doesnt even account for the good old "you got a pay rise two years before you retire on your final salary scheme, now hows about that for lucky" routine that is rife - hence the proposed average salary schemes. So back to the example - Where do we get this extra £108,000 from? Hows about the good old taxpayer?....... Average household income in the UK aparantley stands at around £30,000. Tax payable (inc NI) on earnings of £30,000 is about £7250 a year. So to cover that £108,000 gap in a single persons pension scheme in the public sector, it would tae the total tax revenue generated by one household in just under 15 years. 15 years worth of household tax revenue for a single public sectoremployees pension scheme. What about the libraries, roads, health service, even the salaries of public sector workers. If public sector workers think the changes being proposed are bad for their pension schemes, then I suggest they sit down wit a mug of coffee, a calculator and some figures from the office of national statistics and work out exactly what the funds will look like in 15 years from now if they dont make any changes. A damned sight worse than they are proposing now, thats for sure. They will carry on striking though no doubt - oblivious to complete destruction of the pension funds if they dont change, and when it all comes crashing down like a house of cards no doubt the Union leaders at the time will have found someone else to blame, and they will all be out with placards again.

Is that all?

Tiny boot opening on the Q7, when we were looking round, the actual boot opening size on the Q7 is smaller than our Seat Altea.