Mell1599968579

Hi Craig, email me on feedback@bpka.co.uk Sounds like an address issue or PO problem. We always post before banking so that means that it was sent. I can send you a PDF copy so that you have proof asap. Cheers Mell

Poor Raggity..... As for FF......well......are there any surprises? Mell

I was away in London and thought Atmosphere was last week (which is why I mad sure the previous stuff was done), however I didnt have access to things and now I am back. I have created a PDF of the cert and emailed it to the people concerned hower, whoever asked to cancel the cheque etc its been done Cheers Mell

fingers crossed the bank stays with it.....

If you had purchased $1000 of Delta Airlines stock one year ago, you would have $49 today. If you had purchased $1000 of AIG stock one year ago, you would have $33 today. If you had purchased $1000 of Lehman Brothers stock one year ago, you will have $0 today. However, if you had purchased $1000 worth of beer one year ago, drank all the beer, then turned in the aluminum cans for recycling, you would have received $214 today at redemptions. Based on the above, the best current investment plan is to drink heavily & recycle. It is called the 401-KEG Plan. not sure who wrote it

I thought I would dip my toe in.... The American Issue.... In housing, mortgages, loans there is something referred to as the ‘sub-prime’ market and the ‘prime’ market. The prime market is the ‘affluent’ side of the market who, keep up repayments and pay back loans etc. The ‘sub-prime’ market is the ‘risky’ side of the business, where people do not necessarily pay ‘on time’ and are leant money despite their ‘ financial’ history etc. Now, the banks/loaners, bundled the debt from the sub-prime and prime market and sold it on, which allowed them to start again and do the same thing. How can you sell debt? Well if you take a mortgage say of £70K, then on completion you would get maybe $140 K back. But, if you sell the debt say for £90k then you make a quick profit of £20K and the buyer makes a profit, over the term of £50k. All well and good. However, people were not paying back the money and therefore the buyers were not buying up the debts from the loaners, which meant the loaners have not got any money to loan. Remember, when you bank any money, that money is loaned to others, gambled etc. (stocks and shares), but if the bank hasn’t got any money and therefore cant pay out your money or give any loans as its already loaned out, then you get a problem. If people lose confidence in your bank they dump shares, share price tumbles. Also, as more an more debt is not being repaid and is viewed as risky then banks up the rate at which they loan to other banks, which then knocks on to the lending/mortgage market. In the UK it is much the same. The lending rate between banks is called the ‘libor rate’ which has increased and therefore banks lose their ability to function (see it as cash flow). When people use the stock market it is generally perceived that they buy shares so that they go up in value and are then sold, to make a profit. However, you can also make a profit by ‘short selling’. This occurs when shares are ‘borrowed’ by a company and then sold with a view to the share value dropping. When the shares have dropped sufficiently, they are bought back at a much lower price and then passed back to the original share holder and the man in the middle makes a fat profit from the difference that he sold them at and bought them back. ( I don’t understand the ‘borrowing’ bit but that’s what happens). Short selling has caused some of the major crashes and its perceived as bad because it is easy to ‘whisper’ the shares down, i.e. imply that the business is having a problem etc. Many companies float on the stock market and do so for many reasons. Once a company is floated then the value of the shares of that company are completely in the hands of the share holders. When confidence is good, share values are up, when confidence is down, shares lose value. It is no more than a gamble and is similar to a casino..when your winning woohoo, when your not...... Whilst taxpayers money is being used to prop up the banking sector it is a necessary evil. If it isn’t done then the impact of banks, finance houses etc having no money has a knock on effect throughout the whole of peoples daily lives. It may not seem so but already some effects can be seen, housing market, building and construction, cars... and so on. What must be realised is that without the fluidity of credit/loans/borrowing etc. everything slowly grinds to a halt. It would be great if the business’s banks, financiers who messed up their own business went to the wall (like normal businesses do) but it would hurt too much and is something that would have very far reaching consequences. So best take the devil by the horns and do what can be done. When I had a mortgage, it was fixed at 7.25% (1998) and mortgages have yet to reach that value even now. During the early 90’s the mortgage rate went to 15% ... In its very simplest form.......imagine a hundred quid being paid into a bank. The bank lend it to a farmer, who buys stuff from a supplier, who buys from somebody else who then pays it into a bank. The bank then lends it to somebody else and so on....everything is kept flowing... but when it isn’t paid back... the flow stops.... that’s where we are now. Mell

It was a good advert for the sport. Two people having fun and enjoying themselves. If there was a criticism to make it would be that the speeds mentioned can create the wrong impression, always better to be vague as in 'pretty quick' etc. Mell

My mistake, I should not have posted. You should NEVER rely on insurance to take part in any activity. Incompetance is not a measure of skill.......follow the guidlines/rules as mentioned and even without skill you should be unlikely to cause any third party claim............ Somebody who is highly skilled and a 'veteran' can just as easily be incompentant if they fly in a situation where a claim is likely to arise. mell

Just becaue you have insurance does not mean that you can be reckless and expect insurers to pay out. It would like be saying to car drivers, go have fun, bugger the consequences. If you ever engage in anything that you wouldnt do if you were not covered by insurance then you shouldnt be doing it. Each incident is assesed on its own merits and providing that it was an acident and all adequate precautions had been taken, the rules/guidelines of the organisation had been followed and all necessary steps to avoid an incident had been followed then you would likely be covered in case of a claim. But, insurance does not cover incompetance. p.s. I am not expressing an opinion on this case, mereley stating a few 'misnomers' (sp). Mell

Moan moan moan. ***** ***** *****. Moan moan moan.... Not long ago 'is this sport dying?' 'whats happening to our sport'..... and when some exposure comes along...... YAWN.... (oh and there is another prog that may possibly have something too, how long before thats an issue?). Publicity is publicity is publicity, if its used right..... Mell

We are following predicted paths and tbh it is no surprise. Previously Germany was the biggest and most active market and then the 'trend' moved over to the UK and will no doubt move on to another country. Kiting (more specifically power kiting) is not so big in some of the countries but if you watch it will be and bigger than us. Any sport/activity grows, peaks and plateuas... then drops back a bit leaving behind the people who are actually interested rather than those who 'jump aboard'. Are bans killing the sport? I wouldnt have thought so. The number of sites that have bans are minimal and if people have any sense they would keep their 'local' site secret. Many local sites can not hold the capacity of hoards of people turning up, and if they do it raises attention and may be banned. Clubs of any sort will more than likely and do get bans addressed, working with the councils or landowners is better than 'alienating' them with mail protests, letter campaigns and the like. At present we have 17 affiliated clubs who all seem to be managing fine. Some figures: When we first started officially in 94 it took us six years to hit number 1000 for our membership numbers, although actual members at that time were approx 700. Over the next couple of years this rapidly increased to the point that we gained 1200 new members in the first 3 months of one year (I can't remember which year) but I suspect that it was at the time when we hit 5,000 actual members. For years we tended to have approx 50% of active memebrs compared to the membership numbers, however this has changed over the last two years and now we do not. Active members lie between 3-4 thousand and membership numbers will hit 12,000 soon. We try and keep everybodys numbers the same so that we can tell what is happening and can produce reasonable figures. Last years MW lost us approx 400 members due to the weather, this years 'no wallop' has not had so much of an impact. Another area where we havent done anything is demonstrations, we used to do about 6-7 a year at major events...now we do none. We used to manage to obtain press coverage, radio and TV on a regular basis, now we done none. As Rich pointed pointed out there is new 'seeding' afoot but this will take a little time to reach fruition. Whilst retailers are finding it hard and the market is slowing down its hardly surprising.... when I purchased a 10 metre Peel it retailed at £1100, more than enough to keep the retailers, manufacturers etc in business. Mell

nicked the kids GHIII. Set it up for Black Magic Woman... Tune guitar to proper pitch, play tune with full backing track ...sounds good.. Now have large blister on third finger...and havent got all way through yet but hey, its me playing! Mell

I think thats more or less sort of what I thought. Its not like a mysterious glass controller, its somebody who has invested heavily in the glass and if you want to see whats in the shop then the shopkeeper pays the glass people so that you can see. If they dont pay they dont get seen. Is that wrong? If the internet was a free, public funded service then yeh, it would be wrong but it isnt. Its a collection of systems paid for in the main by the business's that use it and if I have invested millions in my equipment why should it be wrong for me to levy a charge for some third parties data to be transmitted over my systems? Why should I be obligated to give a 'stranger' a free ride in MY car that I have paid for, just because a group of people at my destination like to look at my unpaying passenger?

I am a bit confused. What Virgin seem to be doing is business and that’s it. They can do what they like with their equipment, business and customers to a certain extent. Whether you choose to go with them is entirely your choice and if you do not well, that’s a bit of business they will not be getting. Isn’t this no different than a tied pub selling only the beer from its tied brewery in a manner of speaking? Why should any ISP not be paid some amount of money by any business or company or anybody else for that matter, to allow their ‘message’ to be carried across the ISP’s bandwidth? Surely as times change traditional advertising revenue will decrease (as is already happening) and other sources must be found. ITV is ‘free’ providing you put up with adverts, BBC on the other hand is not. In fact you even have to pay the BBC to receive ITV. Surely it’s a simple case of ‘he whoever pays most will get the greatest benefit’ from a technology that somebody else has invested in. Is that a sin? The only option available is to create a co-operative ISP that supplies ALL access to ALL sites and the members pay for it. However, that may turn out to be expensive and as their wouldn’t be the option of a revenue from any of the content providers how long would it last? I sometimes think that it is forgotten that the NET was originally provided as a means for the yanks to be able to communicate between the military and the uni’s etc., the fact that we have access at all is surely a blessing. Any access is better than none eh?

John Prescot LIke a badly chucked up burger. p.s. Mike is Mell