Nice people thread part 4 - sugar and spice and all things

Davesnave

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I honestly don't think that horses have to cost that much. My sisters "do" horses, but they do most of the dirty work themselves - getting up at the crack of dawn to muck out before work, so no labour / livery costs.

But there are livery costs if the pasture/stables are in someone else's ownership. If they're in your personal ownership, then it's fair to assume an amount for the loss of otherwise productive land.

Taking this a bit further, the land also has a cost, whether or not it is linked to a property, inherited, or WHY. So, the loss of interest on that money should be considered too.

silvercar

Masomnia wrote: »

I'm thinking I'll take that Blackberry. If I get bored of the phone I can always buy another unlocked and move the sim card across. £15 for those allowances means I'll be saving £240 over the two years on the HTC, so I could always just buy one if I fancied one at some point, or even something better. It's cheaper than what I'm paying now, and I'm currently on my old Nokia 3310 as my 'modern phone' broke, so I can't go wrong!

I owe you a pint vivs!

There are Blackberry curves and blackberry curves. Look for the number at the end. The more recent will have 3G (which means you can surf the Internet faster), a better camera, flash for said camera.

Ive got the curve 8520 which came out about a year ago. It now looks like an older model without said updates -though perfectly fine.

One note on data, iPhones eat data compared to blackberrys, far less Apps and unlikely to download videos to blackberrys, so 500MB is plenty for a BB but the lowest limit you would want for an iPhone. Assuming in both cases you link to wifi at home.

silvercar

Doozergirl wrote: »

When we first had DS, I worked out he cost about £12 a week. He could have been cheaper had he taken to breast milk and I taken to real nappies.

He is infinitely more expensive now he eats like a fully grown man. DD is cheaper to keep, possibly about the same as a fussed large dog with a big appetite for chew toys and hairbands

PasturesNew wrote: »

Not a lot/free... they're taxpayer funded. They only get expensive if the parents think they need new/modern clothes or activities. Sit one in the corner with a hunk of bread and soup, wearing a cardigan you knitted yourself from 2nd hand/donated wool and you're probably even in profit.

As kids get older they get more and more expensive. As to the the thought that they could be taxpayer funded....:rotfl:

I get CB for one, so that's about £18 a week. No other funding. That doesnt pay for food, let alone travel to school, stationary.

Then add on extra school stuff like materials, revision aids, extra text books, uni applications, exam entrance fees.

Then add on essential clothes, social life stuff, b'day presents for mates, visits to family / universities.

Then add on what some may call non-essentials like mobile phone, running a car, decent clothes, sports, social stuff.

Then add on the real non- essentials ie the things that we wouldn't do if money was tighter, private schools fees, said mobile being an iPhone, holidays, gym.

Tax payer funded - I wish!

Davesnave

fc123 wrote: »

The school thingy...I was having a think about this and wonder if it's something as simple as smaller classes.......a class of 12 will interract more with the adult than a class of 30.

The 'better' thing is untrue and not something I have noticed at all but DD did notice the extreme difference in lifestyles during her year in the R school (well, between her own and the bulk of the others ). It was very educational in itself and I am glad she had the experience. It was good for her to know uber rich people ( which is different to just very well-off) are just the same as not rich people from direct contact rather than me just saying in a sing sing voice 'well, we are all the same''.

You are right that the interaction in a class of, say, 24 is much better than in one of 15 pupils. I have direct experience of this. Over about 27 and things begin to go the other way with people being 'missed out.' I've had experience of that too!

What changed in our state school was that the uber rich/famous didn't send their kids to us after about 1990. Before that, it seemed that these kids had no problem with the private school exams (and probably less to fear from the paparazzi.)

It was handy having the occasional show biz person or rich benefactor for those little extras, like concerts, or refurbishing the swimming pool. Big loss for all IMO.

lostinrates

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

You can hunt, and foxes can accidentally get killed by dogs that get over-excited. You can't intend to get them.

AIUI, the law is pretty unenforceable and unenforced. One of my sisters (the veggie one, who hunts a lot) said there were 2,000 people at her hunt's Boxing Day Meet. She wasn't hunting herself that day, though. She just turned up to say "hi" or whatever it is you do at such events.

Most highly prosecuted wildlife crime in fact is it not currently? Resulting in more prosecution? Something like that.


......not necessarily showing how effective the law is but how hard legislating to protect wildlife is, and how poorly understood the needs of wildlife are, as there is always increasing legislation and wildlife continues to suffer. Ironically, I think a badger cull could, properly done, really help badgers for a while. However, I think its very possible it will be done well.

You can also ''hunt'' with two hounds and a bird of prey legally...so you can just take two hounds, or take two hounds to hunt with and the others to get exercise behind.


And of course, when you're not hunting with hounds/followers and have a fox you can just call a farmer, a pest control person or get a gun yourself and pop it. Its a funny thing the hunting business....both the adamance of people eitherside and refusal to understand the perspective of those who feel differently. Personally, I wouldn't hunt if I could nowadays: but I'm not an anti FOX hunting. I'd personally prefer hounds to a poor shot and that many times over than poison or trapping.

lostinrates

Not that unusal, though not the majority. Many people feel farming conditions are worse ethically than something that equates to predataion in a wildlife chain after a life of freedom. e.g. its not unusal to hunt and be very very pro freedom food and increased welfare standards in livestock farming, plus hedge stewardship programmes for wildlife and verge schemes etc.

people have different opinions about welfare/thics, but that doesn't make them cruel or unhelpful. Much like we bvote for a party we think will make things better, not worse, even though we can vote differently.

tomterm8

The only way I can see a horse costing £300 a year is if it is a house horse which would be quite inconvenient. Otherwise, you need a field, fencing, probably food in the winter, as well as a farriers time, and probably vet time when the horse gets sick (and it will get sick eventually, all animals do unless you eat them first). £12,000 a year seems a lot, but £300 would only be possible if you exclude a lot of real expenses.

lostinrates

Davesnave wrote: »

But there are livery costs if the pasture/stables are in someone else's ownership. If they're in your personal ownership, then it's fair to assume an amount for the loss of otherwise productive land.

Taking this a bit further, the land also has a cost, whether or not it is linked to a property, inherited, or WHY. So, the loss of interest on that money should be considered too.

or in my position the gain! I make money from the horses! Having my own is part of what makes the conditions right for other peoples...I can guarantee companyu for their horses.

edit: I turned four horses away this week....would loved to have had them, would have been tremendous for income, but.....I just can't reasonably atm. I need my stables first or some more fencing.....some would have said yes, but not me!

lostinrates

tomterm8 wrote: »

The only way I can see a horse costing £300 a year is if it is a house horse which would be quite inconvenient. Otherwise, you need a field, fencing, probably food in the winter, as well as a farriers time, and probably vet time when the horse gets sick (and it will get sick eventually, all animals do unless you eat them first). £12,000 a year seems a lot, but £300 would only be possible if you exclude a lot of real expenses.

Lawn pony? which ever way you did it you need grass and you need hay/forage.....but even at current hay prices apart from vacs in her life old horse has seen a vet twice. (special horse a bit more, one serious incident, which would have boosted the cost of keeping, and a handful of times in recent years). The pony here is only eating a balan=cer year round. A farrier is NOT essential, in fact, is FAR less needed than people think, but if you do not use one or a trimmer then you need to seriously know what you are doing or risk extreme extra costs. More and more people are learning to barefoot trim (cost of eduvcation would need to be included). Its about choosing the right equid and pyutting in extra work and deciding you are not going to compete sand don't need lessons any more or latest tack and gadgetry. I don't have the appropriate horse for this, atm, but if I get one soon and remember I'll cost it over say, ten years? edit: I will never have a horse which needs routine shoeing again: I'd not work it enough, and you can buy boots for them. Ther is at least one race horse trainer running horses barefoot now and a few in other disciplines.....there are some difficulties with rullings in some sports which specify shoe weights.....but not whether the horse/pony has to where them! The rules are being read by governing bodies as ''yes'' to shoes I think in the main. Most horses work no way near hard enough on the wrong sort of surfaces to need shoes nowadays.

re livery costs, there are reductions in them too....some poeple opt to put their horse on working livery, share their horses, or are lucky enough to get land to use for free or in exchange for another sort of favour....I've been the last two people before now.

edit: I also have always known several people who have never worked in ''well paid jobs'', are on benefits, or are lower income end of being single parents who mange to keep a horse or pony....I'm certain they'd all paid more than £300 a year, but nothing like £12k which would have been totally impossible for them, as would half that amount I'm pretty sure.

Doozergirl

silvercar wrote: »

As kids get older they get more and more expensive. As to the the thought that they could be taxpayer funded....:rotfl:

I get CB for one, so that's about £18 a week. No other funding. That doesnt pay for food, let alone travel to school, stationary.

Oh y, my school run bill from the last house was £18 a day in petrol. It's now £9 or £12 dependant upon what time he finishes. Child benefit is probably just a bit of a tax rebate on the fuel.