Nice People Thread No. 15, a Cyber Summer

oldandhappy

GDB2222 wrote: »

What is a house with no upstairs access?

to be fair in the adjoining barn there is an open makeshift staircase that leads to above which has hit and miss old oak lengths of wood with a fair amount of gaps in(so I have been told by Mr Brave)if you can cross that section(or survive that)then there are some floorboards. Before renovation there where some stairs in the hall to properly access the upper level...not now though:eek:

oldandhappy

PasturesNew wrote: »

With all that annoying pecking, I assume he's not a pheasant plucker....

You knowledge PN is seamingly:rotfl: endless

silvercar

GDB2222 wrote: »

What is a house with no upstairs access?

A bungalow?

GDB2222

silvercar wrote: »

A bungalow?

Surely, that would be a house with no upstairs? You'll have to admit that it's pretty unusual to have the upstairs, but no stairs to get there. But maybe not in rural France.

oldandhappy

I honestly do not know about rural France as a newbie I know a lot more abou tEnglish and Spanish Properties but you see a lot of old stone houses that look quite rough on the outside(like war zones) but it is often quite different inside. The attitudes are very different here but like most countries they have their 'ways'. We have quite a few almost single roads...kind of tractor wide size...but the speed of travel does not deter a french person on any size of road..one speed FAST. thank god for the ditches at the sides. We always say you can tell if its a British person coming(aiming) towards you if they slow they are British and wave a thank you for not driving at them it they are French they continue regardless and would not need to wave of course. regards Dianne living the 'good life'

CKhalvashi

ukmaggie45 wrote: »

Joy unbridled! :beer: IDS has resigned! :j

I may get somewhat pished to celebrate later on... But then why wait? :beer:

The big danger is that someone worse will come in to replace him.

In answer to Gen's post, I recently watched something on Channel 5, which gave 3 families £26k in exchange for signing off benefits.

I floated the idea locally about 5 years ago, to be told that it's pointless and wouldn't work. I'm still of the opinion that giving someone what they'd be entitled to for a year would be a better use of government money than the current system of allowing fourtnightly/monthly payments to continue for years, especially if it's someone with no money behind them and they want to make a go of a business.

The big proviso would be no more money for the next 2 years (as I floated it). After watching the programme, I'm more confident than ever that in selected circumstances (such as a ready business plan etc) that it would be a good thing.

PasturesNew

CKhalvashi wrote: »

The big proviso would be no more money for the next 2 years (as I floated it). After watching the programme, I'm more confident than ever that in selected circumstances (such as a ready business plan etc) that it would be a good thing.

All looks good on paper, but "what if"? What if one of them ran off with all the money in week 2, leaving the other destitute and with kids? Kids trump everything these days.

A better model might be, say, for local people/businesses to guarantee them. So no more money for "X amount of time" if you can get people to underwrite your expenses if it all goes wrong. That's what used to happen with pregnant girls who weren't from a place, they'd have been shipped back home, but if they could get some local people to hand over money in the form of a bond and/or underwrite their expenses so they didn't have access to Parish money then they were allowed to stay.

CKhalvashi

PasturesNew wrote: »

All looks good on paper, but "what if"? What if one of them ran off with all the money in week 2, leaving the other destitute and with kids? Kids trump everything these days.

A better model might be, say, for local people/businesses to guarantee them. So no more money for "X amount of time" if you can get people to underwrite your expenses if it all goes wrong. That's what used to happen with pregnant girls who weren't from a place, they'd have been shipped back home, but if they could get some local people to hand over money in the form of a bond and/or underwrite their expenses so they didn't have access to Parish money then they were allowed to stay.

Certainly food for thought.

I'd definitely be up for getting involved with something like that (on an investment basis, obviously), but then comes the huge issue of regulation, which whilst needed to protect both parties, would possibly put people off applying.

The other issue is that where the money is needed, it isn't anyway, and if the ultimate aim of such a project would be to regenerate areas (not relevant to my area so much), then the reason that particular area is struggling is generally because not enough has been done in the past 30 years.

Generali

I just realized that today is the first time I've been cold in months. It's 19C and chucking it down. I am going to sleep like a log tonight.

Took the kids to TGI Friday for our anniversary. It's all glamour being a parent.

silvercar

CKhalvashi wrote: »

The big danger is that someone worse will come in to replace him.

In answer to Gen's post, I recently watched something on Channel 5, which gave 3 families £26k in exchange for signing off benefits.

I floated the idea locally about 5 years ago, to be told that it's pointless and wouldn't work. I'm still of the opinion that giving someone what they'd be entitled to for a year would be a better use of government money than the current system of allowing fourtnightly/monthly payments to continue for years, especially if it's someone with no money behind them and they want to make a go of a business.

The big proviso would be no more money for the next 2 years (as I floated it). After watching the programme, I'm more confident than ever that in selected circumstances (such as a ready business plan etc) that it would be a good thing.

I watched that series. Wasn't confident that they would manage to stay off benefits long term.

One turned his house into a reptile zoo with the intention of his reptiles performing at kid's parties. Sadly not everyone loved reptiles as much as he did and bookings were low. His idea of keep buying more animals makes me think he will fail long term. The wife's idea of party bags and sweetie cones looks more likely to succeed.

Another spent it on sorting her hair, teeth and skin. The pampering gave her the confidence to apply for jobs. Still zero in the bank. He was spending stupidly, buying junk for re-sale. Clueless hoarder.

Third lot was a woman who seemed sensible, was buying appliances to save on renting them, paying for stuff in advance rather than on credit. Big question is whether she will get a job. Otherwise her money will run out.

They all needed support from the finance guy, I reckon the ongoing support needed would need to many people to upscale to whole areas.