one for Martyn...

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:46:34 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On or around Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:10:07 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother}
>@"@101fc.net> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:38:37 +0100, Austin Shackles
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>further to the military vehicle thing...
>>>
>>>
>>>http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270002187845
>>
>>I've more space in my S3!
>>
>>Plus I reckon it's a little heavyweight for me.
>
>I thought you had yer eyes on a stolly?

Basically the same vehicle, really. As with the Saladin and
Salamander.

Alex

On or around Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:52:59 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother}
@"@101fc.net> enlightened us thusly:

>On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:46:34 +0100, Austin Shackles
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Plus I reckon it's a little heavyweight for me.
>>
>>I thought you had yer eyes on a stolly?
>
>I could get a 101 in the loadbay of a Stolly.
>
>Mind, may have my eye on one - doubt the boss'll ever let me get my
>arse in one, though.

'ere, this one looks original:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260002955654

is it my imagination or have the ebay item numbers grown bigger?
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms...
------------------------------------------------\
>> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them.
a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too!

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:52:59 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother}
> @"@101fc.net> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:46:34 +0100, Austin Shackles
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Plus I reckon it's a little heavyweight for me.
>>>
>>> I thought you had yer eyes on a stolly?
>>
>> I could get a 101 in the loadbay of a Stolly.
>>
>> Mind, may have my eye on one - doubt the boss'll ever let me get my
>> arse in one, though.
>
> 'ere, this one looks original:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260002955654
>
> is it my imagination or have the ebay item numbers grown bigger?

3% surcharge for Paypal?

--
"He who says it cannot be done would be well advised not to interrupt
her doing it."

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!

In message <[email protected]>
"Lee_D" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> uttered summat worrerz funny about:
>
> > Hmm, and there's me thinking the 101FC had reached the end of its
> > service and land rover had no replacement...
> >
> > What would you suggest they do, replace the ageing 101s with transit
> > vans?
>
> What is actually wrong with the 101, all be it not the aging ones, but the
> model it's self? Landrover could easliy have bunged the 200 and 30 Tdi's in
> them and still been quicker than the Pinz.
>
> Like other than the engine and box the 110 seems to offer little more than
> the 109's. Ok suspension is different but in principle the vehicle offers
> little more to the end users.
>
> Nowt wrong with the V8 mind (for the 101) but the Military seem to have gone
> down the line of a single fuel where they can.
>
> The Llama appeared on the face of it to be ready to roll off the production
> lines so Landrover could have pulled it off had the money been waved under
> there noses, or so it seems to a casual observer.
>
> Lee D
>
>

The Llama was also a victim of politics, and bad timing. For whatever
reason LR entered it in the trials with the V8 just when the Army
went "all diesel". The Llama was either pulled, or was pushed, from
the tirals process before they were completed - why has never been
answered. It could have been because it was petrol (but then sticking
a 200Tdi would not have been a major problem), or there could have
been a fundametal problem (the plastic cab doesn't sound all the
good an idea to me) or [insert reason of choice here].

Personaly, I think the goal-posts for the trial were moved to
suit some political motive. Why else was the RB-44 procured -
a vehicle that ought to have excellent s/h value on the basis
that most never actually managed to turn a wheel and are/were
therfore definately low-milage.

Anyone who thinks that MOD procurement is not almost soley
motivated by political considerations only has to look at
the RB-44 fiasco to see it. And the assault rifle, the Black
Hawk helicopters (still grounded last I heard), etc, etc

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

On 2006-06-30, beamendsltd <[email protected]> wrote:

> Anyone who thinks that MOD procurement is not almost soley
> motivated by political considerations only has to look at
> the RB-44 fiasco to see it. And the assault rifle, the Black
> Hawk helicopters (still grounded last I heard), etc, etc

ISTR the Apache Longhorn being an odd one too, built in Britain for
many times the cost that they could have been bought from the US. I
think that the weapons system is heavily modified though, and some
argument could be put forward that the money is better spent in this
country (inward investment) than totally given to the Americans. I
think the figures were quite different though, something like £6
million each to buy from the US, £40 million each to build here.

Arms sales are highly political for sure, as is much international
government trade. Even with businesses, export tariffs and
restrictions are manipulated for political reasons but this isn't
always a bad thing.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:

> ISTR the Apache Longhorn being an odd one too, built in Britain for
> many times the cost that they could have been bought from the US. I
> think that the weapons system is heavily modified though, and some
> argument could be put forward that the money is better spent in this
> country (inward investment) than totally given to the Americans. I
> think the figures were quite different though, something like £6
> million each to buy from the US, £40 million each to build here.

You must never forget that money spent on imports is exported money
while money spent at home stays at home and goes round and round
from supplier to sub-supplier until it finally all becomes either
profits or wages and that part that doesn't actually go to the
government in direct or indirect taxation keeps people off support.
Nothing actually costs anything when you come right down to it, you
only pay people.

That's why building 'infrastructure', politician talk for roads,
bridges, buildings, railways, is always high on the agenda of any
political party of any persuasion. That barely costs the Government
anything. A good home grown weapons program is far better than paying
dole as the money filters down through far more people with the workers,
the guy that redoes the workers bathroom, the restaurant staff that
sells the bathroom man a fancy meal etc...

Governments have to care about these things as they have so many zeros
on the end of their numbers. If you net export money you glut the
outside world and they want lots more next time.

nigelH



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 2006-06-30, Nigel Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:

> You must never forget that money spent on imports is exported money
> while money spent at home stays at home and goes round and round
> from supplier to sub-supplier until it finally all becomes either
> profits or wages and that part that doesn't actually go to the
> government in direct or indirect taxation keeps people off support.

I didn't, I spent two lines saying that, rather less than you did I'll
admit ;-)

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:42:22 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The 101 AIUI just wasn't developed by Land Rover, or the units they
>did develop didn't make the grade (was it the Llama?). It seems they
>gave up on the military market as the brand took off in the consumer
>market.

There were about 12 different proposals put forward for the 101 - the
MoD however, at a meeting in July 1986, told Land Rover not to further
waste their time as they were not interested (I have the original Memo
confirming this decision).


--
Coming quite soon:
http://www.ulrc.net

On 2006-06-30, Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net> wrote:

> There were about 12 different proposals put forward for the 101 - the
> MoD however, at a meeting in July 1986, told Land Rover not to further
> waste their time as they were not interested

Any idea why they weren't?

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

In message <[email protected]>
"Nigel Hewitt" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ISTR the Apache Longhorn being an odd one too, built in Britain for
> > many times the cost that they could have been bought from the US. I
> > think that the weapons system is heavily modified though, and some
> > argument could be put forward that the money is better spent in this
> > country (inward investment) than totally given to the Americans. I
> > think the figures were quite different though, something like £6
> > million each to buy from the US, £40 million each to build here.
>
> You must never forget that money spent on imports is exported money
> while money spent at home stays at home and goes round and round
> from supplier to sub-supplier until it finally all becomes either
> profits or wages and that part that doesn't actually go to the
> government in direct or indirect taxation keeps people off support.
> Nothing actually costs anything when you come right down to it, you
> only pay people.
>
> That's why building 'infrastructure', politician talk for roads,
> bridges, buildings, railways, is always high on the agenda of any
> political party of any persuasion. That barely costs the Government
> anything. A good home grown weapons program is far better than paying
> dole as the money filters down through far more people with the workers,
> the guy that redoes the workers bathroom, the restaurant staff that
> sells the bathroom man a fancy meal etc...
>
> Governments have to care about these things as they have so many zeros
> on the end of their numbers. If you net export money you glut the
> outside world and they want lots more next time.
>
> nigelH
>
>
>

I couldn't agree more - I'm a great believer in the £1 Battleship
theory.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

Nigel Hewitt wrote:

> You must never forget that money spent on imports is exported money

How do you export money ? Even if you buy abroad, in dollars, dollars
have to be bought and GBP have to come home by some circuitous route.
If governments allow money to inflate THEN they "export money"

Steve

In message <[email protected]>
Steve Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nigel Hewitt wrote:
>
> > You must never forget that money spent on imports is exported money
>
> How do you export money ? Even if you buy abroad, in dollars, dollars
> have to be bought and GBP have to come home by some circuitous route.
> If governments allow money to inflate THEN they "export money"
>
> Steve

I see that a different way. You go on holiday to Spain and spend, for
arguments sake, £1000.00 while there. If non of the goods or services
you buy on that holiday are made in the UK (i.e. have no UK content)
then UK Plc has lost £1000.00 - forever. If a nice Spaniard them
comes to the UK and also spends £1000.00 then that's great
(ignoring taxes!), and if he spends £1001.00 that's even better -
unless, of course, he buys a load of parts for his Seat and half a
ton of imported Piella, which is not good, as fair %age of his
£1000.00 ends up back in Spain, so UK Plc has dipped out as we
don't make Seat spares or piella (fortunately in the latter case).

Maggies great idea that we could just become a nation of shop
keepers and service providers only works if there is sufficeint
manufacturing, locally owned so the proft stays in UK Plc's bank
account, to top up money going abroad. Without it we export our
wealth and eventually the circle breaks and UK Plc goes bust.

I am a doom-and-gloom merchant I know, but I think the circle
has already broken and the Government knows it, hence the
off-loading of Government services to the provate sector
(aka out-sourcing) so they have someone else to blame when
the bills can't be paid. We are going to end up as part of
the United States of Europe not because we want to, but
because we will have no choice if we want EU subsidies.

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

beamendsltd wrote:
> I see that a different way. You go on holiday to Spain and spend, for
> arguments sake, £1000.00 while there. If non of the goods or services
> you buy on that holiday are made in the UK (i.e. have no UK content)
> then UK Plc has lost £1000.00 - forever.

No, as I see it, because ultimately the only place to get that 1000 quid
back is from the UK. You bought 1500 Euro with your 1000 quid. In other
words some bank or whatever somewhere has 1000 quid. Where can they
spend that 1000 quid ?

We only export our wealth if the government loses the value of our money
by printing it, or by the cumulative value of our trade balance.

Steve

In message <[email protected]>
Steve Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> beamendsltd wrote:
> > I see that a different way. You go on holiday to Spain and spend, for
> > arguments sake, £1000.00 while there. If non of the goods or services
> > you buy on that holiday are made in the UK (i.e. have no UK content)
> > then UK Plc has lost £1000.00 - forever.
>
> No, as I see it, because ultimately the only place to get that 1000 quid
> back is from the UK. You bought 1500 Euro with your 1000 quid. In other
> words some bank or whatever somewhere has 1000 quid. Where can they
> spend that 1000 quid ?

But when you change your £1000 for n Euros, ignoring any commission,
UK Plc's Bank account value doesn't decrease or increase - you've
only swaped some bits of paper for other bits of paper, you havn't
spent any money. It's exactly the same as going into a shop and
swapping a £10 note for 10 £1 coins - no one gains or loses
(except of course you now have all their lead £1 coins).

>
> We only export our wealth if the government loses the value of our money
> by printing it, or by the cumulative value of our trade balance.

Not the only way, but as Dennis Healy proved that is also an effective
method of stuffing the economy ;-)

>
> Steve

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

beamendsltd wrote:

> But when you change your £1000 for n Euros, ignoring any commission,
> UK Plc's Bank account value doesn't decrease or increase - you've
> only swaped some bits of paper for other bits of paper, you havn't
> spent any money.
Isn't that MY point ?

Steve

In message <[email protected]>
Steve Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> beamendsltd wrote:
>
> > But when you change your £1000 for n Euros, ignoring any commission,
> > UK Plc's Bank account value doesn't decrease or increase - you've
> > only swaped some bits of paper for other bits of paper, you havn't
> > spent any money.
> Isn't that MY point ?
>

That's not how I read it. I understood it that you were saying
the UK Plc gained £1000.00 when you changed your money. If it
were your point, the you must agree that when you then spend
you Euros in Spain and come back with nothing, having spent
the Euros on drinak and food, that UK Plc now has a deficit
of £1000.00, so the money has been exported.

> Steve

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:36:57 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> There were about 12 different proposals put forward for the 101 - the
>> MoD however, at a meeting in July 1986, told Land Rover not to further
>> waste their time as they were not interested
>
>Any idea why they weren't?

Nothing on record, plenty of anecdotal chatter.


--
Coming quite soon:
http://www.ulrc.net

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:29:16 +0100, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I see that a different way.

Doesn't really matter what way anyone sees it.

You buy a product in or from [x] country, you contribute to their GDP.

You buy the means to purchase their product (their 'local' currency)
at the going exchange rate - you are simply buying another of their
products (the value of their tradable currency against yours).

If they (the country, not the trader) have GBP they may then trade it
when GBP is weak against their own currency and make a bit extra, if
they trade it when GBP is strong, they make a bit less.

Capitalism, love it or loath it, be sure that it ****s us all.


--
Coming quite soon:
http://www.ulrc.net

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 23:23:54 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:29:16 +0100, beamendsltd
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I see that a different way.
>
>Doesn't really matter what way anyone sees it.
>
>You buy a product in or from [x] country, you contribute to their GDP.
>
>You buy the means to purchase their product (their 'local' currency)
>at the going exchange rate - you are simply buying another of their
>products (the value of their tradable currency against yours).
>
>If they (the country, not the trader) have GBP they may then trade it
>when GBP is weak against their own currency and make a bit extra, if
>they trade it when GBP is strong, they make a bit less.
>

Do you mind, no advanced economics and math at this time of night,
please

Alex