"Tight rein', 'loose reign', 'free rein' "
Umm - 'loose reign' is probably less to do with horses and more like not paying due care and attention while in charge of a monarchy.
51 posts • joined 18 Dec 2014
"Makes sense, given the banks are also insurance brokers."
No. No it does not. Brokers are agents - they sell insurance but do not write it. They do not underwrite or carry third party risk. Conversely, for many risks that you might assume they would insure against, they may choose to self-insure (i.e. just take the risk and suffer the loss). The fact that banks sell some forms of insurance to customers has no link to why they may or may not be insured by a insurer for acts of theft or criminal damage.
Reminds me of an apocryphal WWII RAF exam question for pilots. Something like 'you are the pilot flying Winston Churchill, the PM, and his staff to an overseas conference when the rear cargo hatch blows open and WC is ejected from the plane. How do you react?' The answers varied from ' swoop down and catch him', jump out with a parachute and catch him', to 'divert to RIo and disappear'. The correct answer was, of course, 'adjust rear ailerons to compensate for reduced weight in rear cargo compartment'
According to some stories last year (?) a £50 note is not cash. Rather, it is a drug-smuggling/criminal proceeds money-laundering device. Apparently they are so rarely used by normal people and disproportionately used by those types that some central bankers and law enforcers want high denomination notes removed from circulation.
And anyway, what with the advent of super jumbo extra outsize choccy bars and the price of the stuff in general, I reckon a couple of said bars would not get much change out of £50 these days.
Several years ago I was heartened to see the French media regulator tell the French public broadcaster's TV news guys to just stop advertising their Twitter ID on air, as it was de facto advertising for a commercial entity on the public airwaves, and other social media were available. They probably long since lost that battle, but an admirable stance, for sure.
"...and it's the new office - not sure about client meetings though."
I seem to recall some time ago (1970s?) seeing a film extract on Barry Norman's Film programme of that year (if only I could remember which year) where the concept was to reverse eating and shitting. The extract showed a company board meeting taking place with everyone on a shitter, free to raise the lid and let rip, while those needing any food or drink had to excuse themselves to a small ante-room and do it in private, quietly. It was, of course, a foreign-langauge film. Wish I could find out what it was...
"they could perhaps control one of the world's easiest borders to control a little better than turn the NHS into big brother. "
Which prompts a thought. If the NHS is now to act as a de facto border force, perhaps the real Border Force could start doing health screenings at passport control? This could catch on. Let's get the MOD to run whatever DEFRA is called these days and let the farming and food lobby play with the ships, planes and tanks.
Two people in this thread have now claimed that staff reductions (a COST-reducing action) have propped up revenue. Please explain how cutting costs increases the money people spend with IBM?
Layoffs may be propping up margin or profit but do not impact what clients spend (REVENUE) other than perhaps negatively in the short term.
Sometimes, bean-counters can be useful to help us all understand what it is we are actually counting!
I remember the greasy spoons where it was instant (powdered, not freeze-dried) Nescafe - black or with cold milk in (and ordinary milk, too, no reduced fat choices, and with a fruit bowl of sugar on the counter, next to a teaspoon with a chain on its handle, and the other end of the chain nailed to the counter.
Unlike a visit to Star*ucks today, there was no confusion at all. I prefer that. I wish I could walk into Star*ucks and simply say "mug of Nescaff please".
You use that term "commercially viable" like it is the only criterion. There things that are a social good. I want there to be an efficient transport system that adds to the economic and social health of the country, even though I rarely use it, because I want it to be there when I actually DO need to use it. So I am not enamoured of the "marketise everything" approach that says all railway costs must be borne by passengers. You sound like one of those neo-liberals who knows the price of much but the value of almost nothing.
... Jaguar ... Nissan...
You do realise that your unypothecated taxes are to some extent subsidising both, don't you. What all the licence fee haters seem to hate more than the BCC is hypothecated tax. But we need it to be hypothecated to PREVENT it becoming the state broadcaster, or the LCD ad-fest of US TV example.
And here (thanks SkippyBing) we have, in one simple comment, the full argument against autonomous/driverless cars that are not in fact actually sufficiently autonomous to be capable of operation without mandating that a 'driver' is 'at the wheel' and ready to use the wheel at a nanosecond's notice.
Because after the usual suspects at whom the memo is directed are excluded, the only options left are the boneheadedly stupid ones. But at least they are an option (the memo writers figure, not paying attention to that option's consequences). If they do not vote for the only other option available, the memo does not get sent.
Many years ago, before such things were standardised (US motor manufacturers apart) a friend of the family was driving my Dad around in her new car. She kept indiciating right and turning left and vice versa. After one close shave too many my Dad finally broke: "What do you think you are doing, you keep (etc)"
Her reply: "What do you mean? It's up for left and down for right"
(Readers can work out the instrument design differences between her old car and the new one for themselves.)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019