bridge too far

Well, I'm old(ish) and my sciatica has never come back since that treatment :smt102 Other things go wrong, but that's another story

Eighty Crew? :confused:

Some think so

It does sound like sciatica. Probably the nerve is trapped between the 3rd and 4th vertebrae (sp?). See a sports physio and they'll do something called PNF IIRC. Basically you're flat on your back on the treatment couch and they lift the affected leg (straightened) as close to your shoulder as possible with you resisting the lift. Obviously, in my case, my leg can go flat against my body so that my knee actually touches my shoulder but you probably won't get anywhere near that. This manoeuvre opens up the two vertebrae, thus releasing the nerve. HTH

Aww thanks R x

No-one to go with (more difficult for a woman I think you'd agree :smt102 )

What?????? Not even when he was at SMS a couple of years ago? Shame on you!

The Tories' lead has been halved over the last week and that's before Cameron makes his keynote speech today. But bringing us back on topic, I was interested to see this headline just now: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7646383.stm We rarely fly, preferring train every time, so I don't have views one way or the other on the 3rd runway / or not.

No 2 - I'm no advocate of PFI, especially after having worked on such schemes. I'm certainly no apologist for PFI either - it goes against my socialist principles FFS But you talk about renting MRIs. They're leased, of course, and within that lease comes consumables, maintenance and repair, staff training and, usually, state of the art upgrades. Business Cases usually demonstrate that this is a cheaper option long-term than forking out capital now. With regard to PFI buildings - this is how it works. The private developer rents the building back to the NHS / Education, whatever, usually for 30 years. At the end of that 30 year period, the NHS / blah blah can just walk away. There are also break clauses built in, after usually 15 years when again the NHS /... can walk (although for a consideration, I imagine). The pro PFI lot will say that most of the risk is transferring to the private sector because, in 30 years time, they'll be left with a lot of redundant buildings. And that's not as daft as it sounds actually. Think of the developments in health that there've been in the past 30 years. We actually need fewer big hospitals NOW (let alone in 30 years time) because a large percentage of procedures are done using day surgery - no need for lengthy in-patient stays. And community hospitals are being developed (using NHS money or via LIFT - Local Infrastructure Finance Trust but won't bore you with what that's about right now) to provide 'step-down' care where, again, people can be cared for in local low-tech hospitals. Where PFI has been particularly evil is in the way the private sector has refinanced the loans they needed to develop PFI. In simple terms, they negotiated loans based on 'plans' and risk was factored into to the cost of these loans. Once the hospitals were up and running, the private sector renegotiated the loans at more favourable rates because the risk was less, given that a tangible assett had been constructed. This was how PFI was first structured before 1997. After that, with the realisation that the private sector was making sh*tloads out of the public sector, the new deals were structured so that any 'gain' by the private sector from renegotiating the finance would be shared with the public sector.

I was saying only last weekend that Premier League football is a microcosm of the wider economy. How smart am I?

Nick - the PFI question is a difficult one. I've worked on two major hospital PFI schemes so know a tad about it, although I'm no accountant. The first thing to remember is that PFI was brought in by the Major government. I know this because we were about to sign on Financial Close on the first scheme when the election was called in 97. There has to be a moratorium on all government deals when an election is called and we had to wait until the new (Labour) government was installed before we could finally close the deal. The advice from Treasury is this. As the buildings (i.e. assetts) belong to the private sector developer, they cannot be shown on a public sector balance sheet. The public sector merely 'rents' the buildings (and pays for services such as hard and soft FM). The public sector rents many buildings and other assetts (e.g. MRI scanners); you wouldn't expect to see them on the books either.

Is it that easy though? Surely, by removing granny from the deeds, she is, in effect, gifting her share to the aunt and the bf and she'd still have to survive 7 years before that gift is free of reckoning for IHT. Also, and we went into this when my dad was ill, social services also take the 7 year rule into account, I think and therefore will apply the charge if granny dies before the 7 years is up?

I_N_S I think you're slightly misleading on the Inheritance Tax thingy. IHT is due on the value of the property (over £300K or £600K for a widow / widower's property) and not on the share to each beneficiary. So, if the bf and the aunt are named beneficiaries, they are jointly responsible for paying the IHT - if any is due, that is. Again, it might be different in Scotland :smt102

Poshie, I think ALL care is free in Scotland whereas it's only nursing care in England. If the house deeds have both the grandmother's and aunt's names then I believe no-one can force the sale of the house (although if care is indeed free it shouldn't be an issue anyway). If the social services there do need to charge for her care then, if it's like England, I think they take a charge on the house i.e. they become first in line for payment once the house is sold and then what's left is shared between the beneficiaries in the will. But since Scottish law is often very different from English law, it might be worth your bf talking to a solicitor up there? Poor lady - I hope she's ok

Au contraire! Listening to 5Live this morning, I was struck by the number of callers who consider Brown to be the safe pair of hands. Until this week, I would say that well over 80% of the callers were favouring the Tories. But that's all turning round now. As they say, a week's a long time in politics

Quite right and in fact the ratio of public borrowing has fallen from something like 46% in 1997 to 37% now. So we're less indebted now than we were under Major. Oh, and remind me, who was Norman Lamont's advisor?

His was better TBH

We've gateaux hang in there now and not concede.

Have we torte them a lesson?

Did the skate BUNdle Adam over?

Maybe we'll soak up their attacks like a sponge? Coat

We'll batter 'em

I'm old enough to remember Muffin the Mule :shock:

Anyone know the attendance?

Golly!