BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Well this can't be right.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/05/britain-drifting-towards-brussels-thames-heading-back-soggy/1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
...
not surprised, the brexiters were never conservativesrjsterry said:
they were a bunch of nutbags, reactionaries and extremists, supported by non-dom tax dodgers, global tax dodgers, and other nutbags, reactionaries and extremists, who didn't like their misdeeds being subject to regulation
getting what they wanted meant stripping the rights of the british people and exiting the most lucrative free trade deal the uk ever had (or is likely to get again barring rejoining the eu)
that's not a good basis for sound decision making
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No, agreed. Would I be right in thinking that the extra costs that skyblueamateur mentioned haven't made much difference to your firm because either they don't apply or they were already factored in? I remember you had a team working on the adjustments post Brexit quite a while back.Stevo_666 said:
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.
Presumably you have some form of performance monitoring even if not timesheets.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Mogg, simultaneously promoted & demoted, is the new Minister for Brexit Opportunities
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Welcome to the thread Jacob
We've 'foie gras' to add to the whiteboard......though it may be a bit wokey-dokey“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
At least you will have a standardised pint mark...wait, you already did.0
-
Ha!
"Promoted to the Department of Get Him of the TV"“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I mean, it is very obvious but if you need a minister specifically to find the opportunities of a government policy, there is a problem.0
-
human shield to deflect suggestions Brexit is not being done properlyrick_chasey said:I mean, it is very obvious but if you need a minister specifically to find the opportunities of a government policy, there is a problem.
0 -
It is the classic populist governance by constant campaigning. Hard to point to actual victories, which is often the populist demise, so they go on a constant campaign to focus attention on the future and the bogeyman alternative rather than their own successes.0
-
DM has noticed that lorry queues outside Dover can be seen from space
But this is not bad news
Asked if the overall picture of freight moving through Dover was positive, he said: 'Yes, I think it is.
'A negative picture would be if the borders were not working and there was total chaos.0 -
Is there also a ministry of bullshiit job titles or is that just within the PMs remit.tailwindhome said:Mogg, simultaneously promoted & demoted, is the new Minister for Brexit Opportunities
0 -
SkyBlue hasn't responded on this, so I'll pass on my experience of UKCA which he has hinted at.surrey_commuter said:@skyblueamateur I think many of us service based desk jockeys would be very interested to hear your story on the impact of Brexit for you and your customers
We have products that are covered by standards that are included in the EU Building Products Regulations. This means that by law they have to be tested by an approved test house, of which there are several based around the EU. The cost of the testing is a few thousand pounds, our products are relatively simple and low cost. This permits us to put the CE mark on our products and sell them anywhere within the EU.
Following Brexit all such products need to carry the UKCA mark in order to be sold in the UK. This means that they have to be tested by one of a limited number of UKCA approved test houses. As it happens the test house that approved our produts is now UKCA approved, but at the same time they gave up their CE approval. As a result our old CE certificate is not valid and we can't continue to put the CE mark on our products and sell them in the EU. The test house is offering to test our products again, for the payment of another few thousand pounds, so that we can put UKCA on them and sell them in the UK. The testing is to the same EN standard as the original tests and the testing is exactly the same. But this testing will not allow us to put the CE mark on our product so we will have to get it tested by another EU approved test house. Fortunately
our test house has a work around, they have an office in the EU which is EU approved and they can do a bureaucratic exercise to port our UKCA test results over to a CE test certificate. For the payment of yet another 4 figure sum.
It has been 2 years since Brexit, I have not seen a single instance of reduced bureaucratic load on our business and there has been plenty of extra bureaucracy as a result of Brexit. We were told it would be easy, there was an "oven ready Brexit". Either our government has lied to us, or they are completely incompetent, or lazy, or a combination of all three.0 -
Thank you.davebradswmb said:
SkyBlue hasn't responded on this, so I'll pass on my experience of UKCA which he has hinted at.surrey_commuter said:@skyblueamateur I think many of us service based desk jockeys would be very interested to hear your story on the impact of Brexit for you and your customers
We have products that are covered by standards that are included in the EU Building Products Regulations. This means that by law they have to be tested by an approved test house, of which there are several based around the EU. The cost of the testing is a few thousand pounds, our products are relatively simple and low cost. This permits us to put the CE mark on our products and sell them anywhere within the EU.
Following Brexit all such products need to carry the UKCA mark in order to be sold in the UK. This means that they have to be tested by one of a limited number of UKCA approved test houses. As it happens the test house that approved our produts is now UKCA approved, but at the same time they gave up their CE approval. As a result our old CE certificate is not valid and we can't continue to put the CE mark on our products and sell them in the EU. The test house is offering to test our products again, for the payment of another few thousand pounds, so that we can put UKCA on them and sell them in the UK. The testing is to the same EN standard as the original tests and the testing is exactly the same. But this testing will not allow us to put the CE mark on our product so we will have to get it tested by another EU approved test house. Fortunately our test house has a work around, they have an office in the EU which is EU approved and they can do a bureaucratic exercise to port our UKCA test results over to a CE test certificate. For the payment of yet another 4 figure sum.
It has been 2 years since Brexit, I have not seen a single instance of reduced bureaucratic load on our business and there has been plenty of extra bureaucracy as a result of Brexit. We were told it would be easy, there was an "oven ready Brexit". Either our government has lied to us, or they are completely incompetent, or lazy, or a combination of all three.
It could be argued that the act of Brexit necessitates increased bureaucracy so that was an obvious lie.
There is no reason why an oven ready deal would be a good one0 -
Must be the easiest job in history as Brexit is done.surrey_commuter said:
human shield to deflect suggestions Brexit is not being done properlyrick_chasey said:I mean, it is very obvious but if you need a minister specifically to find the opportunities of a government policy, there is a problem.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
We have performance monitoring but not in a way that picks that up. In any event, if tried to quantify the benefits it would probably take up so much time that it would stop the team doing stuff that needs to be done and/or adds value. Also we would get into the realms of how do you quantify the benefit when it frees up people to do other things rather than enables costs to be cut, which is tricky.rjsterry said:
No, agreed. Would I be right in thinking that the extra costs that skyblueamateur mentioned haven't made much difference to your firm because either they don't apply or they were already factored in? I remember you had a team working on the adjustments post Brexit quite a while back.Stevo_666 said:
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.
Presumably you have some form of performance monitoring even if not timesheets.
What I talked about in terms of factoring in impacts (or not) of Brexit was based on stuff that we could estimate reasonable easily with the info available to us - such as import duties, customs clearance costs etc."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Oh joy. It was hard enough getting contractors to ensure steelwork was CE marked. Now straight back to square one. I wonder how many small fabricators are set up for UKCA marking.davebradswmb said:
SkyBlue hasn't responded on this, so I'll pass on my experience of UKCA which he has hinted at.surrey_commuter said:@skyblueamateur I think many of us service based desk jockeys would be very interested to hear your story on the impact of Brexit for you and your customers
We have products that are covered by standards that are included in the EU Building Products Regulations. This means that by law they have to be tested by an approved test house, of which there are several based around the EU. The cost of the testing is a few thousand pounds, our products are relatively simple and low cost. This permits us to put the CE mark on our products and sell them anywhere within the EU.
Following Brexit all such products need to carry the UKCA mark in order to be sold in the UK. This means that they have to be tested by one of a limited number of UKCA approved test houses. As it happens the test house that approved our produts is now UKCA approved, but at the same time they gave up their CE approval. As a result our old CE certificate is not valid and we can't continue to put the CE mark on our products and sell them in the EU. The test house is offering to test our products again, for the payment of another few thousand pounds, so that we can put UKCA on them and sell them in the UK. The testing is to the same EN standard as the original tests and the testing is exactly the same. But this testing will not allow us to put the CE mark on our product so we will have to get it tested by another EU approved test house. Fortunately our test house has a work around, they have an office in the EU which is EU approved and they can do a bureaucratic exercise to port our UKCA test results over to a CE test certificate. For the payment of yet another 4 figure sum.
It has been 2 years since Brexit, I have not seen a single instance of reduced bureaucratic load on our business and there has been plenty of extra bureaucracy as a result of Brexit. We were told it would be easy, there was an "oven ready Brexit". Either our government has lied to us, or they are completely incompetent, or lazy, or a combination of all three.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Ah, OK. Thanks for the detailed reply. It's always a balance to monitor enough to be able to see what's really going on without it sucking too time and money. As an aside I have noticed that people in some sectors seem to utterly not get time-based charging for services. I guess that reflects their business models.Stevo_666 said:
We have performance monitoring but not in a way that picks that up. In any event, if tried to quantify the benefits it would probably take up so much time that it would stop the team doing stuff that needs to be done and/or adds value. Also we would get into the realms of how do you quantify the benefit when it frees up people to do other things rather than enables costs to be cut, which is tricky.rjsterry said:
No, agreed. Would I be right in thinking that the extra costs that skyblueamateur mentioned haven't made much difference to your firm because either they don't apply or they were already factored in? I remember you had a team working on the adjustments post Brexit quite a while back.Stevo_666 said:
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.
Presumably you have some form of performance monitoring even if not timesheets.
What I talked about in terms of factoring in impacts (or not) of Brexit was based on stuff that we could estimate reasonable easily with the info available to us - such as import duties, customs clearance costs etc.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I definitely get time based charging having worked for one of the 'Big 4' accounting firms when starting out and now being a client of a few. But yep, some people don't get it.rjsterry said:
Ah, OK. Thanks for the detailed reply. It's always a balance to monitor enough to be able to see what's really going on without it sucking too time and money. As an aside I have noticed that people in some sectors seem to utterly not get time-based charging for services. I guess that reflects their business models.Stevo_666 said:
We have performance monitoring but not in a way that picks that up. In any event, if tried to quantify the benefits it would probably take up so much time that it would stop the team doing stuff that needs to be done and/or adds value. Also we would get into the realms of how do you quantify the benefit when it frees up people to do other things rather than enables costs to be cut, which is tricky.rjsterry said:
No, agreed. Would I be right in thinking that the extra costs that skyblueamateur mentioned haven't made much difference to your firm because either they don't apply or they were already factored in? I remember you had a team working on the adjustments post Brexit quite a while back.Stevo_666 said:
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.
Presumably you have some form of performance monitoring even if not timesheets.
What I talked about in terms of factoring in impacts (or not) of Brexit was based on stuff that we could estimate reasonable easily with the info available to us - such as import duties, customs clearance costs etc."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I don't get it. People want jobs doing, they don't care how long it takes.rjsterry said:
Ah, OK. Thanks for the detailed reply. It's always a balance to monitor enough to be able to see what's really going on without it sucking too time and money. As an aside I have noticed that people in some sectors seem to utterly not get time-based charging for services. I guess that reflects their business models.Stevo_666 said:
We have performance monitoring but not in a way that picks that up. In any event, if tried to quantify the benefits it would probably take up so much time that it would stop the team doing stuff that needs to be done and/or adds value. Also we would get into the realms of how do you quantify the benefit when it frees up people to do other things rather than enables costs to be cut, which is tricky.rjsterry said:
No, agreed. Would I be right in thinking that the extra costs that skyblueamateur mentioned haven't made much difference to your firm because either they don't apply or they were already factored in? I remember you had a team working on the adjustments post Brexit quite a while back.Stevo_666 said:
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.
Presumably you have some form of performance monitoring even if not timesheets.
What I talked about in terms of factoring in impacts (or not) of Brexit was based on stuff that we could estimate reasonable easily with the info available to us - such as import duties, customs clearance costs etc.0 -
Hmmm.TheBigBean said:
I don't get it. People want jobs doing, they don't care how long it takes.rjsterry said:
Ah, OK. Thanks for the detailed reply. It's always a balance to monitor enough to be able to see what's really going on without it sucking too time and money. As an aside I have noticed that people in some sectors seem to utterly not get time-based charging for services. I guess that reflects their business models.Stevo_666 said:
We have performance monitoring but not in a way that picks that up. In any event, if tried to quantify the benefits it would probably take up so much time that it would stop the team doing stuff that needs to be done and/or adds value. Also we would get into the realms of how do you quantify the benefit when it frees up people to do other things rather than enables costs to be cut, which is tricky.rjsterry said:
No, agreed. Would I be right in thinking that the extra costs that skyblueamateur mentioned haven't made much difference to your firm because either they don't apply or they were already factored in? I remember you had a team working on the adjustments post Brexit quite a while back.Stevo_666 said:
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.
Presumably you have some form of performance monitoring even if not timesheets.
What I talked about in terms of factoring in impacts (or not) of Brexit was based on stuff that we could estimate reasonable easily with the info available to us - such as import duties, customs clearance costs etc.
Take your car to garage. How long will it take? A day, a week, a month? I think you'd care.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
Different meaning.pblakeney said:
Hmmm.TheBigBean said:
I don't get it. People want jobs doing, they don't care how long it takes.rjsterry said:
Ah, OK. Thanks for the detailed reply. It's always a balance to monitor enough to be able to see what's really going on without it sucking too time and money. As an aside I have noticed that people in some sectors seem to utterly not get time-based charging for services. I guess that reflects their business models.Stevo_666 said:
We have performance monitoring but not in a way that picks that up. In any event, if tried to quantify the benefits it would probably take up so much time that it would stop the team doing stuff that needs to be done and/or adds value. Also we would get into the realms of how do you quantify the benefit when it frees up people to do other things rather than enables costs to be cut, which is tricky.rjsterry said:
No, agreed. Would I be right in thinking that the extra costs that skyblueamateur mentioned haven't made much difference to your firm because either they don't apply or they were already factored in? I remember you had a team working on the adjustments post Brexit quite a while back.Stevo_666 said:
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.
Presumably you have some form of performance monitoring even if not timesheets.
What I talked about in terms of factoring in impacts (or not) of Brexit was based on stuff that we could estimate reasonable easily with the info available to us - such as import duties, customs clearance costs etc.
Take your car to garage. How long will it take? A day, a week, a month? I think you'd care.0 -
Say what you mean, mean what you say. 😉TheBigBean said:
Different meaning.pblakeney said:
Hmmm.TheBigBean said:
I don't get it. People want jobs doing, they don't care how long it takes.rjsterry said:
Ah, OK. Thanks for the detailed reply. It's always a balance to monitor enough to be able to see what's really going on without it sucking too time and money. As an aside I have noticed that people in some sectors seem to utterly not get time-based charging for services. I guess that reflects their business models.Stevo_666 said:
We have performance monitoring but not in a way that picks that up. In any event, if tried to quantify the benefits it would probably take up so much time that it would stop the team doing stuff that needs to be done and/or adds value. Also we would get into the realms of how do you quantify the benefit when it frees up people to do other things rather than enables costs to be cut, which is tricky.rjsterry said:
No, agreed. Would I be right in thinking that the extra costs that skyblueamateur mentioned haven't made much difference to your firm because either they don't apply or they were already factored in? I remember you had a team working on the adjustments post Brexit quite a while back.Stevo_666 said:
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.
Presumably you have some form of performance monitoring even if not timesheets.
What I talked about in terms of factoring in impacts (or not) of Brexit was based on stuff that we could estimate reasonable easily with the info available to us - such as import duties, customs clearance costs etc.
Take your car to garage. How long will it take? A day, a week, a month? I think you'd care.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It was a response to time based billing not whether people like to wait for stuff.pblakeney said:
Say what you mean, mean what you say. 😉TheBigBean said:
Different meaning.pblakeney said:
Hmmm.TheBigBean said:
I don't get it. People want jobs doing, they don't care how long it takes.rjsterry said:
Ah, OK. Thanks for the detailed reply. It's always a balance to monitor enough to be able to see what's really going on without it sucking too time and money. As an aside I have noticed that people in some sectors seem to utterly not get time-based charging for services. I guess that reflects their business models.Stevo_666 said:
We have performance monitoring but not in a way that picks that up. In any event, if tried to quantify the benefits it would probably take up so much time that it would stop the team doing stuff that needs to be done and/or adds value. Also we would get into the realms of how do you quantify the benefit when it frees up people to do other things rather than enables costs to be cut, which is tricky.rjsterry said:
No, agreed. Would I be right in thinking that the extra costs that skyblueamateur mentioned haven't made much difference to your firm because either they don't apply or they were already factored in? I remember you had a team working on the adjustments post Brexit quite a while back.Stevo_666 said:
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.
Presumably you have some form of performance monitoring even if not timesheets.
What I talked about in terms of factoring in impacts (or not) of Brexit was based on stuff that we could estimate reasonable easily with the info available to us - such as import duties, customs clearance costs etc.
Take your car to garage. How long will it take? A day, a week, a month? I think you'd care.0 -
Half the time people don't understand what job they want doing or what it entails.TheBigBean said:
I don't get it. People want jobs doing, they don't care how long it takes.rjsterry said:
Ah, OK. Thanks for the detailed reply. It's always a balance to monitor enough to be able to see what's really going on without it sucking too time and money. As an aside I have noticed that people in some sectors seem to utterly not get time-based charging for services. I guess that reflects their business models.Stevo_666 said:
We have performance monitoring but not in a way that picks that up. In any event, if tried to quantify the benefits it would probably take up so much time that it would stop the team doing stuff that needs to be done and/or adds value. Also we would get into the realms of how do you quantify the benefit when it frees up people to do other things rather than enables costs to be cut, which is tricky.rjsterry said:
No, agreed. Would I be right in thinking that the extra costs that skyblueamateur mentioned haven't made much difference to your firm because either they don't apply or they were already factored in? I remember you had a team working on the adjustments post Brexit quite a while back.Stevo_666 said:
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.
Presumably you have some form of performance monitoring even if not timesheets.
What I talked about in terms of factoring in impacts (or not) of Brexit was based on stuff that we could estimate reasonable easily with the info available to us - such as import duties, customs clearance costs etc.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yeahbut much like the garage analogy man-hours = cost.TheBigBean said:
It was a response to time based billing not whether people like to wait for stuff.pblakeney said:
Say what you mean, mean what you say. 😉TheBigBean said:
Different meaning.pblakeney said:
Hmmm.TheBigBean said:
I don't get it. People want jobs doing, they don't care how long it takes.rjsterry said:
Ah, OK. Thanks for the detailed reply. It's always a balance to monitor enough to be able to see what's really going on without it sucking too time and money. As an aside I have noticed that people in some sectors seem to utterly not get time-based charging for services. I guess that reflects their business models.Stevo_666 said:
We have performance monitoring but not in a way that picks that up. In any event, if tried to quantify the benefits it would probably take up so much time that it would stop the team doing stuff that needs to be done and/or adds value. Also we would get into the realms of how do you quantify the benefit when it frees up people to do other things rather than enables costs to be cut, which is tricky.rjsterry said:
No, agreed. Would I be right in thinking that the extra costs that skyblueamateur mentioned haven't made much difference to your firm because either they don't apply or they were already factored in? I remember you had a team working on the adjustments post Brexit quite a while back.Stevo_666 said:
We know it's a saving but tbh it's not my job to crunch detail like that and were not a timesheet business anyway - we'll just take the saving. Just because we haven't quantified it doesn't mean it's not there.rjsterry said:
How is it hard to quantify? You know how much you pay people per hour, no? I appreciate it's stating the obvious, but if they spend less time complying with those regs - non-productive work - then they can spend more of their time doing something that earns money. You presumably track what employees spend their time on?Stevo_666 said:
Hard to quantify as much of these are savings of internal time. Just a few examples from my corner of work, I'm sure there will be many others.rjsterry said:
Roughly what savings are you seeing from those and how do they compare with added costs elsewhere?Stevo_666 said:
No intrastats reporting, no EU mandatory disclosure regs, elimination of various EU import tariffs, EU ATAD 3 doesn't impact UK entities, etc. Those are the ones I can see in my area.rjsterry said:
No, which is why I was asking. EU regulation wasn't something that impinged on our business to any great degree in the first place, so there is little to save.Stevo_666 said:
Gut feeling. Do you have any info?rjsterry said:
Is that 'gut feeling' or something more detailed?Stevo_666 said:
Now - probably not a lot of difference overall. Long term - there will be less of a burden I think.skyblueamateur said:
Both.Stevo_666 said:
Now, or longer term? The long term result is the more important one.skyblueamateur said:Stevo, do you believe there is more red tape and paperwork for business before or after Brexit?
Are there particular areas where you see scope for reduction in regulations? In my field the push is very much in the opposite direction, particularly in building regulation, both of products and services. This is independent of Brexit and more to do with the obvious failings of the current Building Regulations system.
I wondered if you had any examples where there was a significant burden and a probable reduction in that burden from diverging UK regulation.
Point is more the that we can set rules to suit our own needs rather than have to adopt a compromise set of rules.
The freedom to set our own rules is not a benefit in itself. Only if we can identify specific areas of regulation where a divergence can produce a net saving is it a benefit.
Freedom to set our own rules is not just about savings. It is also about rules that are more appropriate to our specific needs and there may well be other benefits that flow from that.
If a change in regulations doesn't result in a net saving, it's not a benefit to the business.
Presumably you have some form of performance monitoring even if not timesheets.
What I talked about in terms of factoring in impacts (or not) of Brexit was based on stuff that we could estimate reasonable easily with the info available to us - such as import duties, customs clearance costs etc.
Take your car to garage. How long will it take? A day, a week, a month? I think you'd care.
How do you cost without knowing man-hours? Everyone cares about cost.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
