Monday 25th September 2017

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 2:51 pm

Sir Keir Starmer, Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, has told a Labour fringe meeting he believes a Brexit deal can be achieved which would be as good or better than being in the EU. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Oh.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 2:54 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/09 ... art-12-675

Decoding Labour's Brexit position part 12,675
Touches on what I was discussing with howsillyofme recently of how, regardless of what you call it, we would have to accept the four freedoms if we want to retain the benefits of the single market.
No we wouldn't.

The economic benefits of the single market are derived from the four freedoms of movement - this is the reality of the economics not a political point. If we only accepted some of the freedoms we would only derive some of the benefit. Barnier has made it clear the four freedoms are indivisible, anyway, for very good reason - because the four freedoms are what make it a single market. There are peripherals that can vary, that the article goes into and howsillyofme keeps referring to as nuances, but ultimately you either accept the four freedoms and enjoy the benefits like Norway, Switzerland etc or you don't at which point we're talking more a trade deal like Canada. There is a lot to be said for the Customs Union as well, but that's a separate thing.

I don't know what's wrong with accepting the four freedoms anyway. You could make free movement of people more strictly free movement of labour, just people with jobs, to satisfy the anti-immigration types, but that's what I mean by peripherals or nuance. It's not central, just tweaking. I'm not against tweaking, but you need a basic position to tweak from. Are we going to accept the four freedoms or are we not? This is a choice that at some point must be made. And this is what I am talking about when I refer to "staying in" or "membership of" the single market.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 2:56 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Sir Keir Starmer, Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, has told a Labour fringe meeting he believes a Brexit deal can be achieved which would be as good or better than being in the EU. (Politics Live, Guardian)
Oh.

If he really believes that he is an idiot.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 2:59 pm

Willow904 wrote:The economic benefits of the single market are derived from the four freedoms of movement - this is the reality of the economics not a political point. If we only accepted some of the freedoms we would only derive some of the benefit. Barnier has made it clear the four freedoms are indivisible, anyway, for very good reason - because the four freedoms are what make it a single market. There are peripherals that can vary, that the article goes into and howsillyofme keeps referring to as nuances, but ultimately you either accept the four freedoms and enjoy the benefits like Norway, Switzerland etc or you don't at which point we're talking more a trade deal like Canada. There is a lot to be said for the Customs Union as well, but that's a separate thing.

I don't know what's wrong with accepting the four freedoms anyway. You could make free movement of people more strictly free movement of labour, just people with jobs, to satisfy the anti-immigration types, but that's what I mean by peripherals or nuance. It's not central, just tweaking. I'm not against tweaking, but you need a basic position to tweak from. Are we going to accept the four freedoms or are we not? This is a choice that at some point must be made. And this is what I am talking about when I refer to "staying in" or "membership of" the single market.

I agree with all this.

And if you chose not, for the time being, for political reasons to call it a "single market" or refer to the "four freedoms" that could be helpful.

Remember I'm as pro-EU as anyone here

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:00 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:The economic benefits of the single market are derived from the four freedoms of movement - this is the reality of the economics not a political point. If we only accepted some of the freedoms we would only derive some of the benefit. Barnier has made it clear the four freedoms are indivisible, anyway, for very good reason - because the four freedoms are what make it a single market. There are peripherals that can vary, that the article goes into and howsillyofme keeps referring to as nuances, but ultimately you either accept the four freedoms and enjoy the benefits like Norway, Switzerland etc or you don't at which point we're talking more a trade deal like Canada. There is a lot to be said for the Customs Union as well, but that's a separate thing.

I don't know what's wrong with accepting the four freedoms anyway. You could make free movement of people more strictly free movement of labour, just people with jobs, to satisfy the anti-immigration types, but that's what I mean by peripherals or nuance. It's not central, just tweaking. I'm not against tweaking, but you need a basic position to tweak from. Are we going to accept the four freedoms or are we not? This is a choice that at some point must be made. And this is what I am talking about when I refer to "staying in" or "membership of" the single market.
I agree with all this.

And if you chose not, for the time being, for political reasons to call it a "single market" or refer to the "four freedoms" that could be helpful.

Remember I'm as pro-EU as anyone here

No you're not.

Plenty on the left value Labour over the EU. You do.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:06 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:The economic benefits of the single market are derived from the four freedoms of movement - this is the reality of the economics not a political point. If we only accepted some of the freedoms we would only derive some of the benefit. Barnier has made it clear the four freedoms are indivisible, anyway, for very good reason - because the four freedoms are what make it a single market. There are peripherals that can vary, that the article goes into and howsillyofme keeps referring to as nuances, but ultimately you either accept the four freedoms and enjoy the benefits like Norway, Switzerland etc or you don't at which point we're talking more a trade deal like Canada. There is a lot to be said for the Customs Union as well, but that's a separate thing.

I don't know what's wrong with accepting the four freedoms anyway. You could make free movement of people more strictly free movement of labour, just people with jobs, to satisfy the anti-immigration types, but that's what I mean by peripherals or nuance. It's not central, just tweaking. I'm not against tweaking, but you need a basic position to tweak from. Are we going to accept the four freedoms or are we not? This is a choice that at some point must be made. And this is what I am talking about when I refer to "staying in" or "membership of" the single market.
I agree with all this.

And if you chose not, for the time being, for political reasons to call it a "single market" or refer to the "four freedoms" that could be helpful.

Remember I'm as pro-EU as anyone here
No you're not.

Plenty on the left value Labour over the EU. You do.

You are quite vile. And quite wrong. Please go away. I'm not coming back until you do. You were gently warned this morning about politeness. Bye.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:07 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Sir Keir Starmer, Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, has told a Labour fringe meeting he believes a Brexit deal can be achieved which would be as good or better than being in the EU. (Politics Live, Guardian)
Oh.

http://press.labour.org.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
the information from Labour at the source over the last twenty-four hours

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:09 pm

SH, unless you can be polite don't bother posting here.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:09 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:The economic benefits of the single market are derived from the four freedoms of movement - this is the reality of the economics not a political point. If we only accepted some of the freedoms we would only derive some of the benefit. Barnier has made it clear the four freedoms are indivisible, anyway, for very good reason - because the four freedoms are what make it a single market. There are peripherals that can vary, that the article goes into and howsillyofme keeps referring to as nuances, but ultimately you either accept the four freedoms and enjoy the benefits like Norway, Switzerland etc or you don't at which point we're talking more a trade deal like Canada. There is a lot to be said for the Customs Union as well, but that's a separate thing.

I don't know what's wrong with accepting the four freedoms anyway. You could make free movement of people more strictly free movement of labour, just people with jobs, to satisfy the anti-immigration types, but that's what I mean by peripherals or nuance. It's not central, just tweaking. I'm not against tweaking, but you need a basic position to tweak from. Are we going to accept the four freedoms or are we not? This is a choice that at some point must be made. And this is what I am talking about when I refer to "staying in" or "membership of" the single market.
I agree with all this.

And if you chose not, for the time being, for political reasons to call it a "single market" or refer to the "four freedoms" that could be helpful.

Remember I'm as pro-EU as anyone here

It's not really possible to discuss the economics of the situation without using the common economic terms.
And understanding the economics is about understanding and evaluating what the Tories are proposing as much as Labour.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:10 pm

@Paul.Would suggest you don't send yourself off.I semi joke about the booking thing but he follows the same pattern,ever pushing.Clearly he should go.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:13 pm

Googled Fucking Tosser,guess what came up.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:36 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ration-nhs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nurses who failed English test aimed at curbing immigration set for a reprieve
Hurdle that included correct use of tenses and essay structure led to dramatic fall in skilled staff registering

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:40 pm

Corbyn now more trusted than May on fairness, education, pensioners, NHS and public services, poll suggests

There is a new Guardian/ICM poll out today and it confirms that, since the general election campaign, Theresa May’s standing on a range of issues has collapsed, while Jeremy Corbyn’s has improved markedly.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:41 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH, unless you can be polite don't bother posting here.

I am afraid I think it is a fair observation. There was much, much more excitement, here and elsewhere, about the 2017 General Election than about the
2016 referendum, although the latter mattered far, far more.

Afterwards, those on the left who said they were pro-EU were then prepared to make excuse after excuse for Corbyn and McDonnell. PfY being typical in that regard. You too fall into that category, though your loyalty is to party not the leader.

That is because you put Party over everything else. In other contexts that might be right. The way the party system works is that you have to swallow some things you don't like, no party has exactly the policies on everything each of us would choose. So, loyalty to the group is more likely to get more of want you want, even if you don't like particular aspects.

But, Brexit dwarfs everything else. Oppose austerity? Then you've got to oppose Brexit. Want more spent on the NHS? Then you've got to oppose Brexit. Want to help the poorest? Then you've got to oppose Brexit. etc etc. It trumps party.

So, saying you're as pro-EU as anyone, whilst continuing to make excuses for Corbyn and McDonnell, is just a contradiction.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:43 pm

He gnaws away at perceived/known sensitivities.Not just impolite.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:45 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... arah-sands" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Today programme needs more than a harrumphing John Humphrys
Fiona Sturges

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:47 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41384499" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Uber: London mayor Sadiq Khan backs talks after firm's apology

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:52 pm

John Harrumphrys.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 3:55 pm

I stopped listening some time ago when(it maybe still is)it became the "Wake up with Farage farting Show"

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 4:03 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:It can't be a coincidence that whenever things are going well, we end up arguing with and/or about the same 'thing' (at the same time also I suspect not coincidentally, rendering the place less attractive).

I started with this this morning - and the following scores are:

starters from Windup Merchant 23 (of which 12 are overtly unpleasant)
responses from people engaging with said WuM 33 (of which 19 are at least offputting)

Result = most of board not worth reading and tone generally a turn-off.

I refer back to my point in red above. Perhaps we can get this right next time.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 4:06 pm

[youtube]4HEwUwNRnlo[/youtube]

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 4:10 pm

We've had letters today from NHS England telling us that our GP is retiring and that as he owns the building and there are no suitable properties in the area to by, we're having to transfer over to another GP.

When I was doing my local history research I found out that this has been a surgery since 1900...almost certainly since it was built only a year or so before.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 4:20 pm

There is no necessary reason why PFI is a bad deal.

If the cost of the contract is the same as the cost of government borrowing plus the cost of the service bought in, then it is cost neutral. The problem was, and this was mainly under Labour sadly, was that it was just being used as a way of keeping borrowing off balance sheet, and was more expensive.

I'd have to look at the details of the terms of your example. The mere fact the trust can't pay it is not a proof however, as it may not be able to pay even a "good" deal.

I don't think we should use PFI. Not do I think that governments should refuse to honour contracts (save in situations of bankruptcy).

Yes companies often choose to break contracts and pay damages: they can't just walk away. Here the damaged are fixed by the penalty terms. They're nssty: which is why no government has not refused to honour the terms.

There is a big difference between Renault opting to pay damages,and the government opting not to be bound by its own law.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 4:26 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:We've had letters today from NHS England telling us that our GP is retiring and that as he owns the building and there are no suitable properties in the area to by, we're having to transfer over to another GP.

When I was doing my local history research I found out that this has been a surgery since 1900...almost certainly since it was built only a year or so before.

You're making me feel a teeny bit old with that story. My village GP when I was growing up used to run his surgery from the house where he lived. And my dentist! Hope your new GP isn't too far away.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 4:26 pm

@tc2 I apologise for the horses head imagery and with respect sometimes to stand aside is to take sides.In full knowledge of Paul's sensitivities I don't classify it as a wind up but deliberate bullying.Equally, dishonest despite the flailing about attempt at justification.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 4:30 pm

The sooner the Clangers return the better.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 4:39 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH, unless you can be polite don't bother posting here.
I am afraid I think it is a fair observation. There was much, much more excitement, here and elsewhere, about the 2017 General Election than about the
2016 referendum, although the latter mattered far, far more.

Afterwards, those on the left who said they were pro-EU were then prepared to make excuse after excuse for Corbyn and McDonnell. PfY being typical in that regard. You too fall into that category, though your loyalty is to party not the leader.

That is because you put Party over everything else. In other contexts that might be right. The way the party system works is that you have to swallow some things you don't like, no party has exactly the policies on everything each of us would choose. So, loyalty to the group is more likely to get more of want you want, even if you don't like particular aspects.

But, Brexit dwarfs everything else. Oppose austerity? Then you've got to oppose Brexit. Want more spent on the NHS? Then you've got to oppose Brexit. Want to help the poorest? Then you've got to oppose Brexit. etc etc. It trumps party.

So, saying you're as pro-EU as anyone, whilst continuing to make excuses for Corbyn and McDonnell, is just a contradiction.

It isn't.

You don't have the right to tell me and Anatoly what we believe in. There are no moderators here and the board cannot function with posts like this.

Disagree with me yes. But tell me I'm not pro-European when I absolutely am is completely off limits for me. It's not OK. It's impolite.

HindleA asks me to stay around so I shall.

Thankfully I have a Nick Cave gig to go to so won't be around this evening in any case

Have a good one.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 4:41 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:It can't be a coincidence that whenever things are going well, we end up arguing with and/or about the same 'thing' (at the same time also I suspect not coincidentally, rendering the place less attractive).
I started with this this morning - and the following scores are:

starters from Windup Merchant 23 (of which 12 are overtly unpleasant)
responses from people engaging with said WuM 33 (of which 19 are at least offputting)

Result = most of board not worth reading and tone generally a turn-off.

I refer back to my point in red above. Perhaps we can get this right next time.

Apologies for anything offputting

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 4:42 pm

Still continuing naked ironing,despite obvious dangerous and being a bit colder today.As long as I don't get the right wrinkles.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 4:54 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
You don't have the right to tell me and Anatoly what we believe in. There are no moderators here and the board cannot function with posts like this.

Disagree with me yes. But tell me I'm not pro-European when I absolutely am is completely off limits for me. It's not OK. It's impolite.

HindleA asks me to stay around so I shall.

Thankfully I have a Nick Cave gig to go to so won't be around this evening in any case

Have a good one.

I do not claim that you're not pro-European (do you mean EU? not really the same thing). I do claim that to claim, as you do, that you're "as pro-EU as anyone here" when you voted for Corbyn, and repeatedly defend him and McDonnell with their anti-EU stuff, when they clearly hold the same anti-EU views they've held all their political lives, is inconsistent.

If you were as pro-EU as, say, me (or others here) you wouldn't have voted for him, and wouldn't consistently apologise for him. You'd put, as I do, your opposition to Brexit above loyalty to party and leader. But you don't.

So, to be clear, I don't doubt that you're honest in thinking that you're pro-EU. Just that you're wrong in thinking that you're as pro-EU as, say, Willow. You're not.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 5:08 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41366274" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Panda's habitat 'shrinking and becoming more fragmented'

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 5:14 pm

Labour's proposals on PFI are here

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... b286a9aed5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't really get them.

The idea seems to be to nationalise the SPVs that hold the PFI contracts. They intend to do that through a share for bonds exchange.

But if you do that at market value, the net saving is exactly zero.

The threat to do it at a lower (presumably below market) rate for foreign domiciled SPVs is particularly odd as the UK has no power to force them to exchange. It would have to be coupled with a threat of non-performance.

but, as I said, that is not a good idea. There is a big difference between a company saying "we repudiate this contract, and will pay the damages required by law" and a country saying "we repudiate this contract, and won't pay anything as required under our own contract law." If a country won't respect its own laws, why should anybody else? Yes, we have the power to do that, PFI companies lack tanks, but it would not be a great idea.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 5:15 pm

Dear Nesters,

You appear to be suffering from an infestation of European Green Toad. And not for the first time.

Such toads are most definitely Green, and are found all over (pro) Europe.

They squat, emanating toxic substances from their warts.

Apparently the easiest way to get rid of them is to freeze them. Out.

Yours helpfully,

Ephie.

x

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 5:17 pm

[youtube]lEUgORVsECs[/youtube]

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 5:32 pm

My brother refers to me as toad.He wrote a letter once when I was in Halls of Residence and the pigoen hole thing.I thought it had gone missing,I didn't expect it to be in T for Mr.Toad,perhaps I should have done,it made sense.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 5:36 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Labour's proposals on PFI are here

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... b286a9aed5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't really get them.

The idea seems to be to nationalise the SPVs that hold the PFI contracts. They intend to do that through a share for bonds exchange.

But if you do that at market value, the net saving is exactly zero.

The threat to do it at a lower (presumably below market) rate for foreign domiciled SPVs is particularly odd as the UK has no power to force them to exchange. It would have to be coupled with a threat of non-performance.

but, as I said, that is not a good idea. There is a big difference between a company saying "we repudiate this contract, and will pay the damages required by law" and a country saying "we repudiate this contract, and won't pay anything as required under our own contract law." If a country won't respect its own laws, why should anybody else? Yes, we have the power to do that, PFI companies lack tanks, but it would not be a great idea.

There's an odd bit on pension funds maybe being compensated more favourably. How on earth does that work, differential compensation for the same thing depending on whether the government likes your ownership model?

There have been PFIs bought already, in Northumberland and Herefordshire, and everybody seems happy with the result. So I assume there's some scope to do that more widely.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 5:40 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... initiative" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don’t fall for the scaremongering: McDonnell’s PFI pledge isn’t that radical
Declan Gaffney

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 5:43 pm

Tends to be the reaction to anything ie.overplayed by both amplified by distortion.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 5:58 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-41361491" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

£1.4m mental health project to help school pupils

(Wales)

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 6:02 pm

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-graha ... acare-aca/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Poll: Most disapprove of Graham-Cassidy health care bill

Vote expected Wednesday

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 6:12 pm

https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-20 ... unal-finds" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Victory for Addison Lee drivers as Tribunal finds they are entitled to basic workers’ rights
The Central London Employment Tribunal has today found that a group of Addison Lee drivers were workers and were entitled to receive the National Minimum Wage and holiday pay.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 6:25 pm

(Felt left out)

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 6:33 pm

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ry-schools" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Decision
All Hounslow community and voluntary-controlled primary schools

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 6:34 pm

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... tions-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Policy paper
Health Service Safety Investigations Bill

(Updated)

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 6:47 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Labour's proposals on PFI are here

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... b286a9aed5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't really get them.

The idea seems to be to nationalise the SPVs that hold the PFI contracts. They intend to do that through a share for bonds exchange.

But if you do that at market value, the net saving is exactly zero.

The threat to do it at a lower (presumably below market) rate for foreign domiciled SPVs is particularly odd as the UK has no power to force them to exchange. It would have to be coupled with a threat of non-performance.

but, as I said, that is not a good idea. There is a big difference between a company saying "we repudiate this contract, and will pay the damages required by law" and a country saying "we repudiate this contract, and won't pay anything as required under our own contract law." If a country won't respect its own laws, why should anybody else? Yes, we have the power to do that, PFI companies lack tanks, but it would not be a great idea.
There's an odd bit on pension funds maybe being compensated more favourably. How on earth does that work, differential compensation for the same thing depending on whether the government likes your ownership model?

There have been PFIs bought already, in Northumberland and Herefordshire, and everybody seems happy with the result. So I assume there's some scope to do that more widely.

I think there is a major issue with the government paying anyone less than full market value. Expropriating assets is not great.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 6:48 pm

Deep Purple's ex-accountant banned as director for 'misappropriating £2m'

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/ ... s-director" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 7:08 pm

[youtube]ov1B5s8xM8s[/youtube]

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 7:10 pm

Postcards on the edge as Britain’s oldest publishers signs off

With the demise of the country’s oldest postcard publisher, is the industry now a write-off – or are reports of its death premature? (Guardian)

I've got boxes full of received and other assorted postcards. I can't bear to throw them away.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... stry-death

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 7:13 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Postcards on the edge as Britain’s oldest publishers signs off

With the demise of the country’s oldest postcard publisher, is the industry now a write-off – or are reports of its death premature? (Guardian)
I've got boxes full of received and other assorted postcards. I can't bear to throw them away.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... stry-death

I do too

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 25 Sep, 2017 7:21 pm

Goodnight, everyone
I'm going to read a book
love,
cJA