MSE News: Legal battle launched over solar subsidy cuts

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Graham, yes I completely missed any hidden agenda in Cardew's post. Perhaps I'm being a little naive about the purpose of such discussion forums as these, but even after reading your suggestion, I'm still not sure that Cardew was having a personal attack on me.

Can I ask why you persist in such remarks. A couple of weeks ago, when I refused to bend to your opinion, and suggested that a discussion where some posters are reasonably negative, and some are reasonably positive would lead to a 'reasonable discussion'. Your responses were first to accuse me of being a political lobbyist for the PV industry. Then to accuse me of an extreme green agenda. Are you now accusing me of having an anti nuclear agenda? I'm just trying to enjoy and join in these discussions.

I simply fail to understand what this achieves. For a while I succumbed to a tooth for tooth and eye for an eye sillyness, but quickly realised that the only net result is to spoil these threads for everyone else.

Why can't I have long term concerns about our energy supply?
Why can't I have long term concerns about our environment?
Why am I not allowed to post these reasonable concerns without your personal attacks?

Can we please end this sillyness, as the recent posts, last few days have been very interesting and constructive.

Lastly, to answer your questions regarding nuclear, I'm not actually against it. It concerns me both on health and financial grounds, but like you I can't see what the short or medium term alternative is. So I therefore accept its role and the large costs that it places on UK households - I find it reasonable.

Hopefully we can now move on - if you want more details about my personal circumstances then I'll give them, I have nothing to hide, I'm extremely boring! I'm happy to supply any info you'd like on my PV system too if you'd like. It's not one of the better or cheaper ones, but I have lots of numbers, breakdowns etc. I find some of the numbers interesting, most people would probably find them boring.

Martyn.

I'm not sure whether you incorrectly think, yet again, that this is some sort of 'attack' on you, but I'll say it anyhow, since it is only a statement of fact.

That post contains more straw men arguments in one post than I have ever witnessed before.

HalloweenJack

grahamc2003 wrote: »

You don't understand - you should only change things for the better, not for the worse.

Quite disappointed in that post Al. What a shame.

he posted some question and you attack him for it? why? who do YOU work for and whats YOUR agenda?

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

You don't understand - you should only change things for the better, not for the worse.

Hi

Then I don't understand either, but the understanding/misunderstanding is based on the definition of 'better' and 'worse'. Without context and definition .... is cheaper better or worse than expensive ?, is faster better or worse than cheaper ?, is safety better or worse than cost ?, is a long term view better or worse than a short term one ?, is change always necessary or acceptable ?, is better for some worse for others ?, by better do we mean best ? - or is there a compromise element ?, is the first always the best or the worst always the cheapest ?, how do we define and afford the best ? ...... more ? .... is duplication & redundancy an engineers solution to security of continuity ? - is this approach better or worse or more expensive or cheaper than a better engineered solution without duplication and redundancy ?

Without context, the notion of better or worse is meaningless and without compromise 'better' becomes unaffordable because 'better' would always equate to 'best' ....

HTH
Z

SallyKing

Blossom2528 wrote: »

I dont know why your asking, he never answers just complains about everything you lot say. Like being in school, slags people off thne pretends he never said it. Whats the point in using this place if nobody can disagree with him. won't bother any more and I was enjoying all the renewable stuff.
don't get upset mart your not allowed to speak if you don't agree with him. He's just rude.

I have to agree 100% with this. My initial impression was that Grahamc2003 was adding value to the discussion. Its now very clear that he (along with Cardew) will just bully anyone who has a differing view. Quite arrogant and rude, just like all male chest beating playground bullies.

I would also like to add that my father was an engineer. He always used to say that a good engineer designs solutions to problems. It seems that all Grahamc2003 and Cardew can manage to do is pick on people and say it cant be done.

If people like that had their way we really would all be living in caves still.

I have great faith in mankinds ability to find working solutions to our future energy needs. In the short term, shale gas should tide us over.

SallyKing

HalloweenJack wrote: »

he posted some question and you attack him for it? why? who do YOU work for and whats YOUR agenda?

So who do you work for Grahamc2003? Would you care to declare your vested interests?

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Your logic escapes me! Do you not appreciate the impact of the two different subsidies?

1. You earn £250,000 p.a and live in a company owned mansion.

2. I am a poor pensioner struggling to make ends meet, with an income not quite enough to pay tax.

A. Some of the huge amount of tax you(should!) pay goes toward the subsidy for Nuclear power enabling them to produce my my electricity cheaper.

I pay no tax.

B. The subsidy for solar is paid directly by myself in higher fuel bills; which I can't afford.

To add insult to injury, that subsidy goes to less than 1% of the population and rich investors in Rent a Roof firms(wouldn't mind betting you are one!;))

Even worse the people getting that subsidy don't even have to export any of that generated electricity - they can use it in their own houses.

Ok, now I'm angry (sorry Sally).

I've been re-reading these posts trying to work out what Graham was going on about.

I took your 'you earn £250,000 .....' remarks on the chin, petty I thought, but on the chin.

What I completely missed was that reference to my being a rich RaR. You are a thoroughly unpleasant person. You attack my character, and all my attempts to help people with PV advice etc. Imply I'm a rich man, misleading people, then like a coward slap a silly smiley face on the end, as if that makes it ok. It doesn't.

Who am I really, stop guessing and lying about me and just ask.

I'm 41, living on DLA. My wife earns £22k pa.
I've suffered from leg and spine problems from birth. In 2000, these got worse, and started to affect my spinal cord. I had to reduce my hours in work, before leaving in 2005. I was on unpaid leave for 5 years, but work decided they couldn't wait any longer for me (fair enough, can't blame them) and I took a voluntary severance of £14k for 18years service (16 years after reducing for part time).

Last summer after a lot of stress and worry, my wife and I decided to invest the bulk of the money £12k in a PV system. ESE not great, and a payback of 12 years, 18 years if you include interest.

We are not rich, we are not RaR's with a mansion, we are just ordinary people on a reasonable income, doing the best we can.

On good days, I do voluntary work for elderly neighbours (maybe 30 to 60 mins) but I can't stand for too long. My wife volunteers as a friend for U, taking an underpriveleged child out once a week. She volunteers at a deaf youth club every friday (having trained to stage 3 sign language solely to volunteer). She also, on average, does 1 weekend a month volunteering for deaf charities at residential camps (fri to sun) only transport costs are paid.

We are members of several charities, VOS, Plan Cambodia, George Thomas Trust and some smaller ones.

I can't travel (1 drive to physio each month, 1 drive to chiropractor once a week), so I devote time to learning. And find renewables extremely interesting. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. If I can share some knowledge and make some friends then great.

I'm sorry to empty my heart like this, and I know it's wholly inappropriate, but I think I'm a nice guy, and my wife is positively lovely. So any personal attack on me, my family, my finances, my 'ulterior motives for posting', is only ever going to upset and anger me.

Apologies for this post everyone, I know this isn't the place, but I'm so angry.

Martyn.

grahamc2003

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Then I don't understand either, but the understanding/misunderstanding is based on the definition of 'better' and 'worse'. Without context and definition .... is cheaper better or worse than expensive ?, is faster better or worse than cheaper ?, is safety better or worse than cost ?, is a long term view better or worse than a short term one ?, is change always necessary or acceptable ?, is better for some worse for others ?, by better do we mean best ? - or is there a compromise element ?, is the first always the best or the worst always the cheapest ?, how do we define and afford the best ? ...... more ? .... is duplication & redundancy an engineers solution to security of continuity ? - is this approach better or worse or more expensive or cheaper than a better engineered solution without duplication and redundancy ?

Without context, the notion of better or worse is meaningless and without compromise 'better' becomes unaffordable because 'better' would always equate to 'best' ....

HTH
Z

Well my response of 'when you change, you want to change for the better' (or words to that effect) was in response to someone I understood as saying that we must always change. Surely that's an unassailable statement isn't it?

I agree that 'better' depends on many factors and requires analysis, so I guess I was saying we don't change unless some analysis has been done, and the changed position is better than the previous position.

Tha's all I was saying. Hardly earth shattering I admit.

grahamc2003

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Ok, now I'm angry (sorry Sally).

I've been re-reading these posts trying to work out what Graham was going on about.

I took your 'you earn £250,000 .....' remarks on the chin, petty I thought, but on the chin.

What I completely missed was that reference to my being a rich RaR. What I completely missed was that reference to my being a rich RaR. You are a thoroughly unpleasant person. You attack my character, and all my attempts to help people with PV advice etc. Imply I'm a rich man, misleading people, then like a coward slap a silly smiley face on the end, as if that makes it ok. It doesn't.

Martyn.

Could you post a reference to where I said those things?

No. Because I didn't say them.

edit - and I NEVER use the silly smiling faces you mention.

albyota

Graham, I think Martyn has aimed that particular post at Cardew, Are we going to continue this discussion like grown-ups or shall we just not bother?

AL

HalloweenJack

Grahamc2003

who do you represent?

you are trolling this forum and attacking those who disagree with your opnion - this isnt 4Chan.