Hoonercat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:10 am
It cost the French 8 billion Euros to cap energy prices in 2022, and an estimated 10 billion to nationalise EDF (at which point, they will actually own something for their money).
The UK's energy subsidy schemes are estimated to cost £60 billion over the next six months, at which point they'll own a bigger pile of debt and will quite possibly be looking at large price increases if the schemes are not extended in April, which will further fuel inflation.
To be fair in comparison the French have trumped the UK in the energy business, I'm not sure anyone would argue otherwise, but that above is not quite the full story, they owned most of it anyway, they only bought up the bit that was left and they'll still have to run the company at an estimated loss running into tens of billions a year.
Admittedly it's still better than paying through the nose and not owning your own infrastructure, but it's not exactly all roses.
Like I said, owning banks is better than not having banks, but it didn't stop banking problems.
Potter wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:22 am
and they'll still have to run the company at an estimated loss running into tens of billions a year.
Yup, not all roses. IIRC they have maintenance backlog issues which have resulted in several power stations being offline.
October 19, 2022
Strikes at France's nuclear power plants have affected about a third of its reactors, in many cases delaying maintenance work and complicating operator EDF's (EDF.PA) efforts to boost production ahead of winter.
Currently 20 out of 56 reactors have been impacted, a union official said on Wednesday. Of these, maintenance plans of 17 have been disrupted, with some seeing their restart schedule delayed by a few days and some by up to three weeks.
Purely anecdotal (and no doubt I'll be accused of making it up anyway) but a professional acquaintance is senior in EDF, he told me that budgets have been 'reviewed' and they've shifted somewhat from a fairly aggressive policy of having lots of irons in lots of fires, to "blimey, where is the money going to come from to manage all this?".
Still, I'd rather be skint and have assets to sell off, than be skint and have no assets on my balance sheet.
I'm glad I'm out of the energy game, I wouldn't want to be sat as a budget holder today.
It's as if they went back to March 2021 on this forum and read my posts about what to do to sort out inflation.
"If we want to get on top of inflation we need to get on top of this. It's not the whole part of the equation, there is interest rates, there is fiscal policy [government tax and spending decisions], as well as reversing QE - they are all pushing in the same direction."
Which is a good thing, because even as recently as six weeks ago their position was this...
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 creates offences of sending, or causing to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.
Next!
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
Presumably its always been potentially illegal (well not always) to send hate mail for example, so it makes sense that the law now extends to electronic communication.
When you're sending it to someone who actually wants to receive it though? Bit more dubious.
In the context of this case; Not sure where I stand really.
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 5:37 pm
Presumably its always been potentially illegal (well not always) to send hate mail for example, so it makes sense that the law now extends to electronic communication.
When you're sending it to someone who actually wants to receive it though? Bit more dubious.
In the context of this case; Not sure where I stand really.
Clearly someone saw it who wasn't a direct recipient.
If you catch someone with offensive material like that, then I assume most of us would happily dob them in to the plod. If I recall correctly, the offending "message" contained pictures of some murder victims. I seem to recall they had also made some joke about it or messed about with the bodies...
There is a line of course but that sort of behaviour is well over it imho.
It's as if they went back to March 2021 on this forum and read my posts about what to do to sort out inflation.
"If we want to get on top of inflation we need to get on top of this. It's not the whole part of the equation, there is interest rates, there is fiscal policy [government tax and spending decisions], as well as reversing QE - they are all pushing in the same direction."
Which is a good thing, because even as recently as six weeks ago their position was this...
No no no, it's Liz Truss's fault (ignore that her policies never came into affect).
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 creates offences of sending, or causing to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.
Next!
Fucking hell, that's most forums, social media closed then....
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 creates offences of sending, or causing to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.
Next!
Fucking hell, that's most forums, social media closed then....
Why? WhatsApp wasn't in the dock, just the senders.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 creates offences of sending, or causing to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.
Next!
Fucking hell, that's most forums, social media closed then....
Why? WhatsApp wasn't in the dock, just the senders.
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 5:37 pm
Presumably its always been potentially illegal (well not always) to send hate mail for example, so it makes sense that the law now extends to electronic communication.
When you're sending it to someone who actually wants to receive it though? Bit more dubious.
In the context of this case; Not sure where I stand really.
Clearly someone saw it who wasn't a direct recipient.
If you catch someone with offensive material like that, then I assume most of us would happily dob them in to the plod. If I recall correctly, the offending "message" contained pictures of some murder victims. I seem to recall they had also made some joke about it or messed about with the bodies...
There is a line of course but that sort of behaviour is well over it imho.
I might be mistaken, but I think you're referring to the behaviour of some plod who took photos of those two dead sisters murdered by the fruit loop who wanted a lottery win.
These two were in a group with Sarah Everard's killer. As far as I can see, they were clearly horrible little cnuts, but I wondered if they were being made an example of for something we could, in theory all be charged with or whether it was a 'misconduct in a public office' type thing. Reporting seems a little vague.
gremlin wrote: ↑Wed Nov 02, 2022 8:13 pm
I might be mistaken, but I think you're referring to the behaviour of some plod who took photos of those two dead sisters murdered by the fruit loop who wanted a lottery win.
Yes, I think I am. Hey ho. I try to steer clear of those sorts of things and I assumed it was the above you refer to. Normally I fact check myself on Google but I really didn't want to go there...
