Visit the historic Lancashire Textile Project with over 500 photos and 190 taped interviews|2|0
Go to Page
  Previous Page    1  2  3  [4]  5  6   Next Page  Last Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted -  14/11/2010  :  06:26
NEW VERSION TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR MEMBERS WITH SLOW CONNECTIONS TO CONNECT.

Follw this LINK for last version.


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk
Replies
Author
Go to Page
  Previous Page    1  2  3  [4]  5  6   Next Page  Last Page
 
frankwilk
Senior Member


3975 Posts
Posted - 19/11/2010 : 21:13
Relax Thomo,
 
It reminds me of the tune we used to knock out when someone got a bit upitty  "Hold that Tiger"  " Hold that Tiger"  to a mess full of guys knocking out the tune on the mess tables LOL



Frank Wilkinson       Once Navy Always Navy Go to Top of Page
catgate
Senior Member


1764 Posts
Posted - 19/11/2010 : 23:29


quote:
thomo wrote:
I am sorry Catty, I simply do not understand any of that apart from duff judicial system. It is clear that you do not know of the store mentioned above, I do, as my wife is the assistant manager of one of the concessions in there. This is not a faceless multinational enterprise, it is a family business. This store employs over 800 staff from this area and there are three others in the country.

Edited by - thomo on 19/11/2010 8:53:32 PM


I do not know the store, as you rightly suggest, thomo.

The only one that I can dredge up out of my rather distant memory of East Lancs Is one owned by a family who used to be in the cotton trade and have a large supermarket kind of "outlet"  somewhere down the A1 in the Midlands. I think.

Is it a self service store, with goods freely accesable to "customers".?

You will have gathered that my point was, and still is, that  in this day and age running any sort of shop where goods and "shoppers " can intermingle freely, is folly. It is putting temptation into the way of those who are not honest, and the whole purpose of these types of stores is to use less staff so as to make more profit.

Another consideration come in too, and that is the extra amount of cash, added to the retail price of the goods, having to be borne by the honest customer, to pay for the goods take by the thieves. The prorietors, whom so ever they be, are not going to say "Oh dear, we will have to run at a loss" will they....and I doubt the insurance companies will want to continually hand out cash adjustmens no mater how expensive their premiums, which will also have to be paid for by higher prices for goods bought honestly 


Every silver lining has a cloud.


Go to Top of Page
Bradders
Senior Member


1880 Posts
Posted - 20/11/2010 : 00:24
Cat......I have been a shopkeeper (Antique and Collectable cameras , Watches and Musical stuff)...and I can tell you  that you become a target for all sorts of naughty tricks......(sometimes from the public !)

I'm sure that general retailers have a bigger problem than I did.......

Shoplifting is NEVER covered by insurance (unless violence is involved) ....

There are many overheads that customers  do not consider when it comes to their overview of how any retail business is structured.....

Here are a few......

Rental for premises

Non domestic rates  (the Biggest rip-off ever)

Water Rates (even if you have a lock-up and No Water !)

Staff wages 

Insurance (including public liability)

Security and alarms...(it  COSTS to be on-line to the police , 24/7)

Power and maintainance.

Advertisng (it  IS  neccessary !)

....to name but a few.

Sometimes it's difficult to remember that shopkeepers are not there to provide a Public Service , they are risking their own moneys to earn a living...When they get it right , people applaud them .... When they get into difficulties, they are often criticised as having been too greedy ,or stupid in some way ...It's a fine balance !

Edited by - Bradders on 20/11/2010 12:28:35 AM


BRADDERS BLUESINGER Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 20/11/2010 : 07:14
Catty, much sense in your piece on recompense of victims.

Thomo, I assume you mean Boundary Stores. And yes, it is self-service. Whilst I realise this is the modern model of retailing it is an obvious temptation to thievs and all these outlets have a high level of 'wastage'. Brad is right, simple shoplifting isn't insureable, only major theft, aggravated theft  or theft from enclosed pemises during closure.

I see a Labour donor was given a peerage as well but heard this morning that Youg Ed has blocked at least three such rewards. Good for him, especially given the state of the Party Funds.

Miners in NZ. Not a good prospect in a gassy seam. I shall be thinking about them. Sounds as though an electrical fault evaded the safety systems. I always remember being concerned with a factory where one department had to be fitted out to mine safety standards because of explosive solvent vapour. I pointed out that the fire alarm buttons produced a spark and they had to be changed. The designer must have been a bad man at his job because they later found that the incredibly expensive flameproof flourescent light fittings they had installed weren't necessary as the vapour was heavier than air and never reched above ten feet from ground level. I think that even then a flameproof telephone cost over £3000.


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
Tizer
VIP Member


5150 Posts
Posted - 20/11/2010 : 11:38
The supermarkets like to call retail theft `shrinkage' and it amounted to US$107.3 billion worldwide in 2010.

The following data for the UK is from the Centre for Retail Research.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Costs of Crime: These were the overall 2010 crime costs of UK retailers:

Customer theft                                            £1886 M
Employee theft                                           £1624 M
Supplier fraud                                            £154 M
Card fraud                                                  £89 M
Robbery/burglary                                      £71 M
Criminal Damage                                      £39 M
Security and loss prevention                   £977 M
Error and waste (not caused by crime)  £753 M

The total UK costs of retail crime consist of the losses from thefts by customers, staff and suppliers, and the costs of security.

Costs of Retail Crime £3,863 million plus £977 million (Security costs) = £4,840 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that employee theft is almost as high as customer theft. As Catgate said, the supermarkets just take the view that `stuff happens' and dump the cost on the customers. It's the only way they can operate their open plan shops without putting radio-frequency tags on every item - which would be even more expensive and impossible for some items (loose potatoes, fruit etc?). It's not just expensive stuff that get's stolen!

Interestingly, bank fraud is increasingly due to bank employees rather than outside criminals.

Edited by - Tizer on 20/11/2010 11:43:05


Go to Top of Page
catgate
Senior Member


1764 Posts
Posted - 20/11/2010 : 11:49
 Bradders/Stanley

Shoplifting is NEVER covered by insurance (unless violence is involved) ....

I am not surprised, although  the greed of the insurance compnies is such that I thought they may well have done insurance at some exorbitant high risk rate.

So, someone has to pay for the cost of the thefts and it will not be the wholesale. The retailer buys and sells to make a profit and all his overheads (which must include his losses) must be paid for buy the honest customer.So the honest customer pays for the crimes.

This brings up the whole field of insurance, which is such a big feature of modern life. It is looked upon as a very responsible thing to and in the case of motoring, ans several other areas such as mortgages, it is mandatory. However the reality of it is that it is a way of passing on to others an awful lot of ones  financial resposibility should something inadvertently occur, in all most all field of activity. 

The result of this is that due to the blandishments of the Insurance "Industry" (carried on, no doubt, in the  dark satanic policy foundries of the North} people have largely forgotten they are really responsible for their own lives and how all their own actions affect others.

I have long held that if motoring insurance were to be abolished, and the motorist were required to fully cover ALL the costs of his actions, then the police force would require less traffic officers because speed limits would be unnecessary, AEUs in hospitals would be constantly empty, and fewer body shops would exist.. Driving with due care and diligence would be the norm.

 It is part of the Recompense to Victims diatribe penned severalpost above.


Every silver lining has a cloud.


Go to Top of Page
Tizer
VIP Member


5150 Posts
Posted - 20/11/2010 : 12:13
Catty, I don't agree with you about abolishing motor insurance, because otherwise most people wouldn't have the money to pay for the accidents they cause. The `innocent party' would then have to bear the cost. However I would like to see the person at fault having to pay *a part* of the costs - I don't mean the typical £100 `excess' but a more substantial amount calculated as a proportion of the total costs. This would be a deterrent which is largely missing from the current system, as you suggest.


Go to Top of Page
catgate
Senior Member


1764 Posts
Posted - 20/11/2010 : 16:53


quote:
Tizer wrote:
Catty, I don't agree with you about abolishing motor insurance, because otherwise most people wouldn't have the money to pay for the accidents they cause. The `innocent party' would then have to bear the cost.

As it is at present you and I, as innocent parties to accidents, pay much of the costs of all accidents, either through our own insurance premiums or through NI contributions or good old "public money" taxation sources. This gives the causer of the accident a "get out of trouble card" and the effect on him is minimal, as is the deterent effect on the rest of society.

The potential effect of an action, whether there is risk of accident involved or not, is usually considered before taking any action. I may be taking a hot dish out of an oven (do I need oven gloves? sort of thing) to tearing along the road at an inapproriate speed (to fast or even too slow) for the conditions. This sort of thought pattern I think will be inherent in most people. Although with the present outlook of "everything being someone elses fault and we must sue" I think there is a rapidly growing tendancy for this self assesment to diminish.

I see the matter of motor car accidents as being heavily loaded towards the motorist always being the guilty party, because it is much easier to deal with that way. It has always fascinated me that in all our towns and cities it is perfectly acceptable for pedestrians to be walking along a pavement with vehicles passing only inches from them at 30 m.p,h,, with nothing between them but tthin air. The motorists have been tutored and tested in their proficiency in this exercise but the pedestrian, and the kids on bikes, just get on and do it "freehand". Those who ever think about it ..well...they have their rights. This seems to be the cause of a lot of road accidents, and since the  motorist has been the criminal of society since the first of the squirachy was tipped on to the floor by his hunter at its first encounter with a horseless carriage. the criminal must be found guilty. I must just be coincidence that most magistrates seemed to be drawn from the squirachy in the not-so-long-ago.

Going back to our errant motorist who can not stump up the money to pay for his carelesness. He will just have to find it even if it means working another shift per day down at the grunge foundry until has paid it all off, or died of his exertions. There is no such thing as a free lunch.


Every silver lining has a cloud.


Go to Top of Page
catgate
Senior Member


1764 Posts
Posted - 20/11/2010 : 21:07
I know this is not quite in the spirit of  "What attracted your attention today" but following on from above the appended experience returned to my mind just after my last post about insurance and the attendant matters:-

 

 

Talk of accidents and responsibility reminds me of a very quaint incident a good many years ago.

My wife and I had bought a nice little bungalow on the very edge of a small relatively new estate. The rear garden butted up to fields that stretched up eventually onto Ilkley moors. The bungalow was one of the last to be built on the estate and we were only the second owners, the previous ownere having been there for only about six or seven years. Next door lived a couple who had a very attractive daughter in her late teens.

At the time central heating was the exception rather than the rule and so I decided, in the interests of cost and customer satisfaction, that I would do my own installation of a Baxi boiler and attendant trimmings. I wondered whether to go over the top or underneath with the pipe work and after finding the bottom of the matwell at the rear door was removable, presumably intentionally (it all looked purpose made) I decided to go beneath.

There was very little head room (in fact it was so low that I would have do it all in a horizontal position, including navigating to and from the “pop hole”) and so quincyquontly the pipe work would have to be partially assembled at ground level and then joined together below, using compression fittings.

We had moved in during the summer and as usual there was the messing about with decorating here and there, and the attack on the heating system was left for quite a few weeks. When I finally got the necessary hardware delivered it was early autumn and upon opening up the doorway to the nether world I could see small pools of water and mud. The evenings and weekends of following couple of weeks were spent like a pig wallowing in shallow mud. However it all got completed, fired up and it ran trouble free until we moved on a few years later.

I was talking to a neighbour across the road one day and telling him of the water problem. He apparently was living there when all the bungalows on our side of the road were being built. The ground behind us sloped upwards to the field, and our back garden was reached by going up three steps. The neighbour across the road was quite a bit lower than us and so gravity was a factor in this matter. It turned out they the builder had simply JCBed the land horizontal where he wanted to build the bungalows, and in so doing had gone straight through the land drains and done nothing to redirect the land water. Such was the problem that a couple of bungalows further along the road often appeared to be incontinent. Building inspectors.....who knows.?????

So slowly as we got to know the neighbours we found the next door neighbours with the daughter were very nice people, contrary to the old couple the other side of us. The young girl had a boy friend who was interested in motor cars and when he found I was “into” BMC Minis he was a frequent visitor.

One summers evening when the parents were away on holiday, he appeared looking a little bit fed up and I asked what was matter. He said he wondered if I had any floorboarding and some nails, and a hammer and a saw and etc. etc. So I enquired what he was proposing to do, I could see no commection with BMC Minis.

It turned out that he and the young girl had been earnestly practicing contraception on her bed when the were suddenly give extra impetus by the sudden collapse of the rotten floor boards beneath them.

I supplied him with what I could and he did effect some sort of repair, because the matter was never raised again by anyone, other than a knowing wink from the daughter a couple of days after the parents returned.


Insurance ….what could the claim form look like? 
 

Edited by - catgate on 20/11/2010 9:08:52 PM


Every silver lining has a cloud.


Go to Top of Page

Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 21/11/2010 : 05:54
Catty I agree with Tiz that the insurance principle is a good one and protects the innocent. The basic principle is that there is a fund to pay all claims as this would not be the case if left to the miscreants, think of the litigation and heartache, delays in courts, lives ruined. I was once hit by an army vehicle and was surprised to find that HMG don't insure, they carry their own risk. Royal Family as well? We had no problem and got paid. In the early days of motoring when compulsory insurance was brought in there was a clause which allowed the well-heeled to make a deposit in the Bank of England, I think it was £10,000, to cover any claims and thus were exempt from insurance. I've often wondered whether it is still in force.

The first small house down Skipton Road next to the pizza joint on the corner had the floor problem about 40 years ago. The sole occupant came back from the pub and when he stepped through the door he fell into the undercroft. The whole floor had collapsed while he was out due to dry rot.

News item on World Service about Nuremberg trials. They said Room 600 is still used as a court. This is essentially correct, it is used only for murder trials but in one respect not quite right. The present room is the original Room 600, The wall to the next court was knocked through by the Americans to double the size of the court for the War Crime trial.

Back to insurance. There used to be a haulage firm called Wild Brothers in Barlick. If there was an accident the driver had to fill in a report on the circumstances for the insurance company. This included space for a diagram. To make things easier the insurance co. provided a small set of rubber stamps for different vehicles and common road objects. One driver was filling in such a report one day and Edgar Wild noticed he was doing a lot of rooting in the collection of stamps. When he enquired if there was a problem the driver said he couldn't find the stamp for a steam roller! Those were the days.

 NZ mine explosion isn't looking good.


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
Bodger
Regular Member


892 Posts
Posted - 21/11/2010 : 09:48
Stanley, re car insurance, maybe you could confirm, a few years ago i was in Western Australia, and i seem to reccall that basic insurance was built in to the road tax ?, if you wanted full cover you paid extra, this meant that all cars taxed had third party insurance


"You can only make as well as you can measure"
                           Joseph Whitworth
  Go to Top of Page
Bodger
Regular Member


892 Posts
Posted - 21/11/2010 : 18:06
Frank, i was'nt sure where to post this link, it is a sequence of letters written by a stoker in 1862, i found it interesting reading?
http://johnkerhistory.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-ker-1835-1865.html


"You can only make as well as you can measure"
                           Joseph Whitworth
  Go to Top of Page
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart


36804 Posts
Posted - 22/11/2010 : 05:24
Bodge, you just blew an hour of my morning away! Wonderful find and lots of information in there. I have sent the link to a mate of mine who is a curator in the US Naval Museum in case he doesn't know about it. Great find, thanks for posting it.

No movement in NZ to press. Worrying and my thoughts are with them.

Main thing that's grabbed me for two days is not having to work on a book! Done nothing but essentials, walk the dog and read LTC Rolt. I've almost read all he's written. I might even make a start on the Calf Hall stuff today, but once I do I shall have a five year tiger by the tail!


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk Go to Top of Page
frankwilk
Senior Member


3975 Posts
Posted - 22/11/2010 : 08:06
You must have more time than me Stanley only half way through it !!!



Frank Wilkinson       Once Navy Always Navy Go to Top of Page
Another
Traycle Mine Overseer


6250 Posts
Posted - 22/11/2010 : 08:16
Wait until the rest of  the private sector follow the example of the care home company that has decided to pay staff basic wages for working over Christmas. The reason - so as not to discriminate against followers of other religions who do not get national holidays as a celebration. The bosses of the company - they're all on 2 weeks paid leave over the Christmas period. Surprisingly its not The Gruniad that reports this but  Cameron's rag, The Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331767/Christmas-overtime-pay-axed-care-home-bosses-say-discriminates-religions.html

Nolic


" I'm a self made man who worships his creator" Go to Top of Page
Topic is 167 Pages Long:
Go to Page
  Previous Page    1  2  3  [4]  5  6   Next Page  Last Page
 


Set us as your default homepage Bookmark us Privacy   Copyright 2004-2011 www.oneguyfrombarlick.co.uk All Rights Reserved. Design by: Frost SkyPortal.net Go To Top Of Page

Page load time - 1.875