Member Info for dflynch

I refute your thrust that I am politically motivated. It is the frustration borne out of the application of common-sense that causes me to act! But thanks for reading the piece, your opposing opinion is as valued as mine, and anyone else, in a free society.

……Continuation.

Given that the virus can be transferred within the population without individuals showing symptoms, it is problematic to determine the extent to which the public has already been exposed to the virus, and the protection from it that they have acquired. If “herd immunity” has been achieved we do not know this. Nevertheless, HMG blindly continues with the dystopia strategy. In doing so they postpone, by many weeks, decisive action to return to normality. It is clear that HMG favours accepting a devastating impact on the UK’s economy, society and previously accepted freedoms – in the forlorn hope that the problem might eventually evaporate.
It is taught that as a society we are “policed by consent” and it follows that we are also governed by consent. Consent which is beginning to wear thin. Clearly, enforcing an unnecessary dystopian strategy on the United Kingdom can no longer be justified. Rather than dithering and prevarication around a decision HMG should accept that the original strategy was correct, and that it should now be implemented. Whilst it is unknown if the effects of the virus could still escalate, the rapid return to normality, and the economic and social benefits accruing from this, far outweigh any perceived benefit in maintaining the status quo.
Notably, in reverting to the original strategy, individuals would be required to remain personally responsible for ensuring that, should they show signs of CV19 symptoms, they should protect others by self-isolation and adopting thorough respiratory and hand hygiene practises. Practises with which everyone should now be familiar.
At last December’s General Election, we were asked to trust the politicians in making our choices in our future governance. The resultant government should now trust the British public to behave responsibly in making their individual choices as the UK is speedily returned to normality.

The HMG strategy in place on realisation of the emerging Chinese virus pandemic accepted, as a base planning assumption, the likelihood of 210,000 to 315,000 additional deaths over a 15-week period. Furthermore, the number of these additional deaths would be insufficient to justify anything other than supporting the continuation of everyday activities, and promoting a return to normality and the restoration of disrupted services at the earliest opportunity. Very much a Churchillian “Keep calm and carry on” strategy that recognised whatever was to come “we could take it,” as had our British forbearers. But more importantly the strategy was based on proper consultation, scientific evidence and research, detailed analysis and subsequent un-rushed considered planning. Planning which was tested in readiness for the expected pandemic.
Despite this extant, tested and considered strategy HMG - pressured by hyped media generated fear - chose to impose as a knee jerk reaction an alternate strategy to deal with the pandemic. A strategy which is dystopian in effect and diametrically opposed to that accepted by previous Tory governments. A strategy that is widely recognised, particularly within the government, as being capable of wrecking the economy of the UK and the fabric of British society within a very short time.
This dystopian strategy has no clear pathway to what must be HMG’s prime objective – the rapid return to normality incorporated in the original strategy. There is “no action this day” leadership focus to justify or adjust the piecemeal instructions emanating from this strategy. Or so it appears from the observed discombobulated wittering and convoluted directions seemingly made at will, emanating from Whitehall and the newly empowered enforcing authorities! There has been no progress in achieving the ultimate objective of returning the UK to normality, just confusion, counter-mands and the bleating of the incompetent, corralled by the self-interests of the media. Concurrently, there is the emerging devastating impact on the UK’s economy, society and previously accepted freedoms – but this problem appears to be a low priority for HMG.
Available information indicates that sadly over 12,000 people have died in the past few weeks with indications of having being exposed to the CV19 virus. More recent information indicates that 90% of these had multiple causes of death on the certificate. Clearly, the number of deaths as a sole consequence of the CV19 virus (1200?) is only a miniscule percentage of those anticipated in the original strategy (median 260,000?), and this comparatively small number cannot possibly be a justification for the maintenance of HMG’s reversal of strategy.

continued ......

He makes sense - I would support him regarding any vote on the matter as I am sure many other shareholders, both employees and non-employees, will!

The documented Department of Health’s UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011 remains extant. Whilst the Strategy title focuses on an always predicted Influenza Pandemic the majority of it can still be readily applied to any viral pandemic including CV19.

The strategy specifically sought to cope with up to 210,000 – 315,000 additional deaths across the UK over a 15 week period, supporting the continuation of everyday activities, and promoting a return to normality and the restoration of disrupted services at the earliest opportunity.

The strategy recognised, amongst other things, that there was very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings would have any significant effect on virus transmission and in any event crowded public gatherings where an important indicator of ‘normality’ and would help maintain public morale. Furthermore, there was also a lack of scientific evidence to support internal travel restrictions and attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business and welfare. For those reasons, the working presumption would be that the Government would not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis was instead to be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness.

Regrettably over 12,000 people have died in the past few weeks with indications of having being exposed to the CV19 virus. Many of these will have died as a direct and sole consequence of the CV19 virus. However, this number of deaths is only a small percentage of those anticipated in the 2011 strategy.

In view of this small percentage HMG need to be brought to account for the change and imposition of their current dystopian strategy. A strategy that is now beginning to cause a devastating impact on the UK’s economy, society and previously accepted freedoms. But more importantly, the British people need to know of HMG’s coherent plans and dates to return the Union back to accustomed normality as soon as possible.

The documented Department of Health’s UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011 remains extant. Whilst the Strategy title focuses on an always predicted Influenza Pandemic the majority of it can still be readily applied to any viral pandemic including CV19.

The strategy specifically sought to cope with up to 210,000 – 315,000 additional deaths across the UK over a 15 week period, supporting the continuation of everyday activities, and promoting a return to normality and the restoration of disrupted services at the earliest opportunity.

The strategy recognised, amongst other things, that there was very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings would have any significant effect on virus transmission and in any event crowded public gatherings where an important indicator of ‘normality’ and would help maintain public morale. Furthermore, there was also a lack of scientific evidence to support internal travel restrictions and attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business and welfare. For those reasons, the working presumption would be that the Government would not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis was instead to be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness.

Regrettably over 12,000 people have died in the past few weeks with indications of having being exposed to the CV19 virus. Many of these will have died as a direct and sole consequence of the CV19 virus. However, this number of deaths is only a small percentage of those anticipated in the 2011 strategy.

In view of this small percentage HMG need to be brought to account for the change and imposition of their current dystopian strategy. A strategy that is now beginning to cause a devastating impact on the UK’s economy, society and previously accepted freedoms. But more importantly, the British people need to know of HMG’s coherent plans and dates to return the Union back to accustomed normality as soon as possible.

The documented Department of Health’s UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011 remains extant. Whilst the Strategy title focuses on an always predicted Influenza Pandemic the majority of it can still be readily applied to any viral pandemic including CV19.

The strategy specifically sought to cope with up to 210,000 – 315,000 additional deaths across the UK over a 15 week period, supporting the continuation of everyday activities, and promoting a return to normality and the restoration of disrupted services at the earliest opportunity.

The strategy recognised, amongst other things, that there was very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings would have any significant effect on virus transmission and in any event crowded public gatherings where an important indicator of ‘normality’ and would help maintain public morale. Furthermore, there was also a lack of scientific evidence to support internal travel restrictions and attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business and welfare. For those reasons, the working presumption would be that the Government would not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis was instead to be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness.

Regrettably over 12,000 people have died in the past few weeks with indications of having being exposed to the CV19 virus. Many of these will have died as a direct and sole consequence of the CV19 virus. However, this number of deaths is only a small percentage of those anticipated in the 2011 strategy.

In view of this small percentage HMG need to be brought to account for the change and imposition of their current dystopian strategy. A strategy that is now beginning to cause a devastating impact on the UK’s economy, society and previously accepted freedoms. But more importantly, the British people need to know of HMG’s coherent plans and dates to return the Union back to accustomed normality as soon as possible.

The documented Department of Health’s UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011 remains extant. Whilst the Strategy title focuses on an always predicted Influenza Pandemic the majority of it can still be readily applied to any viral pandemic including CV19.

The strategy specifically sought to cope with up to 210,000 – 315,000 additional deaths across the UK over a 15 week period, supporting the continuation of everyday activities, and promoting a return to normality and the restoration of disrupted services at the earliest opportunity.

The strategy recognised, amongst other things, that there was very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings would have any significant effect on virus transmission and in any event crowded public gatherings where an important indicator of ‘normality’ and would help maintain public morale. Furthermore, there was also a lack of scientific evidence to support internal travel restrictions and attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business and welfare. For those reasons, the working presumption would be that the Government would not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis was instead to be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness.

Regrettably over 12,000 people have died in the past few weeks with indications of having being exposed to the CV19 virus. Many of these will have died as a direct and sole consequence of the CV19 virus. However, this number of deaths is only a small percentage of those anticipated in the 2011 strategy.

In view of this small percentage HMG need to be brought to account for the change and imposition of their current dystopian strategy. A strategy that is now beginning to cause a devastating impact on the UK’s economy, society and previously accepted freedoms. But more importantly, the British people need to know of HMG’s coherent plans and dates to return the Union back to accustomed normality as soon as possible.

The documented Department of Health’s UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011 remains extant. Whilst the Strategy title focuses on an always predicted Influenza Pandemic the majority of it can still be readily applied to any viral pandemic including CV19.

The strategy specifically sought to cope with up to 210,000 – 315,000 additional deaths across the UK over a 15 week period, supporting the continuation of everyday activities, and promoting a return to normality and the restoration of disrupted services at the earliest opportunity.

The strategy recognised, amongst other things, that there was very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings would have any significant effect on virus transmission and in any event crowded public gatherings where an important indicator of ‘normality’ and would help maintain public morale. Furthermore, there was also a lack of scientific evidence to support internal travel restrictions and attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business and welfare. For those reasons, the working presumption would be that the Government would not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis was instead to be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness.

Regrettably over 12,000 people have died in the past few weeks with indications of having being exposed to the CV19 virus. Many of these will have died as a direct and sole consequence of the CV19 virus. However, this number of deaths is only a small percentage of those anticipated in the 2011 strategy.

In view of this small percentage HMG need to be brought to account for the change and imposition of their current dystopian strategy. A strategy that is now beginning to cause a devastating impact on the UK’s economy, society and previously accepted freedoms. But more importantly, the British people need to know of HMG’s coherent plans and dates to return the Union back to accustomed normality as soon as possible.

Ahhh yes Lithium!

Storing large amounts of energy, whether it's in larger rechargeable batteries, or smaller disposable batteries, can be inherently dangerous. The causes of lithium battery failure can include puncture, overcharge, overheating, short circuit, internal cell failure and manufacturing deficiencies.

Demand for lithium is increasing exponentially, and it doubled in price between 2016 and 2018. As the world scrambles to replace fossil fuels with clean energy, the environmental impact of finding all the lithium required to enable that transformation could become a serious issue in its own right.

In South America, the biggest problem is water. to extract lithium, miners start by drilling a hole in the salt flats and pumping salty, mineral-rich brine to the surface. Then they leave it to evaporate for months at a time, first creating a mixture of manganese, potassium, borax and lithium salts which is then filtered and placed into another evaporation pool, and so on. After between 12 and 18 months, the mixture has been filtered enough that lithium carbonate – white gold – can be extracted. It’s a relatively cheap and effective process, but it uses a lot of water – approximately 500,000 gallons per tonne of lithium. Furthermore, as occurred in Tibet, toxic chemicals can leak from the evaporation pools into the water supply.

According to a report by Friends of the Earth, lithium extraction inevitably harms the soil and causes air contamination. contaminated streams used by humans and livestock, and for crop irrigation. clashes between mining companies and local communities, who say that lithium mining is leaving the landscape marred by mountains of discarded salt and canals . Like any mining process, it is invasive, it scars the landscape, it destroys the water table and it pollutes the earth and the local wells,

Batteries are not the future - the black stuff will be around for a while yet!

Advice is just that – Advice. Some say it shouldn’t be given and others that it should be ignored. How much has been lost or gained by individuals on bulletin boards following the “advice” of the content therein.

Advice, at best, is information that should be considered in the decision process.

Currently the advice to prevent exposure to the Chinese virus is to avoid close contact – social distancing and personal cleanliness – particularly if showing any of the symptoms of having the virus.

Taking a hypothetical case of an individual transiting from one location to another then the risk is in potential contact with a fellow traveller of unknown Chinese virus status. If the transit is conducted in a private vehicle then the transit is not a risk factor. If it is on public transport then the risk increases – significantly.

If the transit is to a location where contact will be minimal then the risk is very much reduced – possibly to zero. It would seem to follow that the risk of sunbathing in a park, walking in the country-side, or visiting another home is far less than shopping or contact whilst taking walking exercise in an urban setting.

I cannot, from the limited information available, see any reason to “troll” the actions of the Scot who provided the Chinese virus advice to the Scottish First Minister. An intelligent individual who later used their own advice to make a decision. That others take a different view of that decision is one of the treasured freedoms of our united nation – or at least it was until it was recently removed!

From the BARC board. Did it appear here?

Fri, 3rd Apr 2020 16:49

RNS Number : 8004I
Legal & General Group Plc
03 April 2020

Legal & General confirms its current intention to pay final 2019 dividend

The Board of Legal & General plc has given careful consideration to the PRA's letter of 31 March.

The Board continues to pay close attention to the need to protect its customers and employees at this difficult time. The Board has carefully considered the need to act prudently in maintaining safety and soundness, and in so doing ensure that Legal & General plays its full part in supporting the real economy. It also recognises the importance of dividend income to many institutional and retail shareholders, particularly in the current environment.

The Board observes that, notwithstanding significant market volatility, the Group's Solvency position remains robust.

Whilst the Board will continue to monitor events, its current intention is to confirm its previous recommendation for a final dividend of 12.64p (2018: 11.82p) giving a full year dividend of 17.57p (2018: 16.42p), 7% higher than 2018.

Redial - as taxpayers, it's still our money! You do contribute and pay your taxes don't you?

Heads they win - tails you loose!

Here are the four measures being proposed by the Financial Conduct Authority:
• Set out the FCA's expectations on firms to offer a temporary payment freeze on loans and credit cards where consumers face difficulties with their finances as a result of coronavirus, for up to three months.
• Ensure that for customers who have been hit financially by the coronavirus and already have an arranged overdraft on their main personal current account, up to £500 will be charged at zero interest for up to three months.
• Require firms to make sure that all overdraft customers are no worse off on price when compared to the prices they were charged before the recent overdraft changes came into force.
• Ensure consumers using any of these temporary measures should not have their credit rating affected because of this.

Freezing interest payments for loans and credit cards for up to three months is acceptable, provided that the individual to whom the concession is granted is NOT receiving the HMG (Taxpayer financed) grants such as SSP, UC or SEISS. This exception is required because the individual is already receiving support from HMG at 80% of earnings. They therefore should not require to be further supported by shareholders or savers. Individuals who have already contributed to this support as Taxpayers, albeit the Tax yield, on current shareholder dividend payments which have been forfeited and saver interest decimated; will have been reduced.

Extending an interest free period of up to 3 months for an amount of £500 in an arranged overdraft is acceptable providing HMG guarantee repayment in cases of default. As HMG will be guaranteeing this portion of the overdraft it can be without further security, but in future the providers of the underlying finance should receive concessions from HMG in recognition of their sacrifice.

Maintaining the same level of interest rates against an increased risk profile of the individual concerned is acceptable providing HMG assumes the increased risk and compensates the lender should the borrower default.

No problem with the effect on credit rating save in the case of default where HMG, as opposed to the lender, will, having guaranteed repayment, be expected to apply normal credit sanctions against the defaulter.

Discuss.

Here are the four measures being proposed by the Financial Conduct Authority:
• Set out the FCA's expectations on firms to offer a temporary payment freeze on loans and credit cards where consumers face difficulties with their finances as a result of coronavirus, for up to three months.
• Ensure that for customers who have been hit financially by the coronavirus and already have an arranged overdraft on their main personal current account, up to £500 will be charged at zero interest for up to three months.
• Require firms to make sure that all overdraft customers are no worse off on price when compared to the prices they were charged before the recent overdraft changes came into force.
• Ensure consumers using any of these temporary measures should not have their credit rating affected because of this.

Freezing interest payments for loans and credit cards for up to three months is acceptable, provided that the individual to whom the concession is granted is NOT receiving the HMG (Taxpayer financed) grants such as SSP, UC or SEISS. This exception is required because the individual is already receiving support from HMG at 80% of earnings. They therefore should not require to be further supported by shareholders or savers. Individuals who have already contributed to this support as Taxpayers, albeit the Tax yield, on current shareholder dividend payments which have been forfeited and saver interest decimated; will have been reduced.

Extending an interest free period of up to 3 months for an amount of £500 in an arranged overdraft is acceptable providing HMG guarantee repayment in cases of default. As HMG will be guaranteeing this portion of the overdraft it can be without further security, but in future the providers of the underlying finance should receive concessions from HMG in recognition of their sacrifice.

Maintaining the same level of interest rates against an increased risk profile of the individual concerned is acceptable providing HMG assumes the increased risk and compensates the lender should the borrower default.

No problem with the effect on credit rating save in the case of default where HMG, as opposed to the lender, will, having guaranteed repayment, be expected to apply normal credit sanctions against the defaulter.

Discuss.

Here are the four measures being proposed by the Financial Conduct Authority:
• Set out the FCA's expectations on firms to offer a temporary payment freeze on loans and credit cards where consumers face difficulties with their finances as a result of coronavirus, for up to three months.
• Ensure that for customers who have been hit financially by the coronavirus and already have an arranged overdraft on their main personal current account, up to £500 will be charged at zero interest for up to three months.
• Require firms to make sure that all overdraft customers are no worse off on price when compared to the prices they were charged before the recent overdraft changes came into force.
• Ensure consumers using any of these temporary measures should not have their credit rating affected because of this.

Freezing interest payments for loans and credit cards for up to three months is acceptable, provided that the individual to whom the concession is granted is NOT receiving the HMG (Taxpayer financed) grants such as SSP, UC or SEISS. This exception is required because the individual is already receiving support from HMG at 80% of earnings. They therefore should not require to be further supported by shareholders or savers. Individuals who have already contributed to this support as Taxpayers, albeit the Tax yield, on current shareholder dividend payments which have been forfeited and saver interest decimated; will have been reduced.

Extending an interest free period of up to 3 months for an amount of £500 in an arranged overdraft is acceptable providing HMG guarantee repayment in cases of default. As HMG will be guaranteeing this portion of the overdraft it can be without further security, but in future the providers of the underlying finance should receive concessions from HMG in recognition of their sacrifice.

Maintaining the same level of interest rates against an increased risk profile of the individual concerned is acceptable providing HMG assumes the increased risk and compensates the lender should the borrower default.

No problem with the effect on credit rating save in the case of default where HMG, as opposed to the lender, will, having guaranteed repayment, be expected to apply normal credit sanctions against the defaulter.

Discuss.

Ooops! as not has.

Having read this document I would support Stelios in the action he is taking and vote my shareholding with his - though I doubt he needs it!

Furthermore, I would suggest that all Easyjet employees read the document and those who own shares in the company, through various schemes, also consider supporting Stelios. Naturally this suggestion also applies to other shareholders, both institutional and private.

Slightly off-track, I do hope that this will be a start of a wider movement to properly hold to account the Board of Directors of listed UK companies. Directors who have forgotten, or neglected, to perform their duties of stewardship in protecting the interests of shareholders. Non-executive directors in particular take note as your "easymoney" can evaporate has quickly as the share price!

This can be sorted out at the AGM - just make sure that you instruct the organisation that has custody of your shares to vote the way you wish. Concentrated action by PI will go some way to getting the Board back under control. Trustees of pension funds should also have some influence, particularly with the pension funds who, surprisingly, do not appear to vote in the interests of ordainary shareholders. Hopefully the Board's non-executive directors will already be telling the Chairman of the disatisfaction and dis[pleasure that abounds - and the action he needs to take! Particulary with regard to the current CEO who has failed miserably since he appeared on the scene - PPI surrender monkey; if only had the guts to stand-up against that initial onslaught, instead of creating a whole new industry for the sharks!

Indeed! The government needs to be held to account - but who will do this?

The whole episode of this Chinese flu virus has been incompetently handled from the very outset. Time will tell who handled the matter correctly - hysteria or the Swedes!

Those gainfully employed are to be protected from the economic ravages of this incompetence, but those relying on past investments, savings and earned pensions are abandoned as share prices collapse and dividends are curtailed. Faced with the prospect of hyper-inflation, social disruption, food shortages, wide-spread mental health issues and a failed over-managed NHS - a dystopic future is the prospect!

UK leadership in the world has caused other nations to follow suite in dealing with this Chinese flu virus resulting in a magnified result of world-wide hysteria that has ignored the critical thinking necessary to deal with the problem. Compare with South Korea and other like-minded societies, in addition to Sweden!

Social media and press sensationalism have destroyed the British stoicism that has got this nation through crisis in the past, replacing it with the hysteria of the mob demanding unconsidered immediate action.

Others will agree with these sentiments but their reasoned voices are howled down by the weight of social media mob rule and the “new journalism” that seeks to create sensational news and hysteria on the basis of speculation rather than investigative established facts!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-outbreak-uk-hysteria-lord-sumption-supreme-court-a9435981.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8163587/PETER-HITCHENS-Great-Panic-foolish-freedom-broken-economy-crippled.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/the-risk-of-contracting-mass-hysteria-is-much-higher-than-coronavirus-1.4157570

Writing to your MP might help your mental health in dealing with the frustration of this incompetent governments action but it will achieve little! Perhaps - except draw attention to the “political necessity” of covering up the mistakes they have made should a future enquiry ensue.