puchooay

Oh dear. This has been going on for a long-time. Previously our monthly payments were £39 a month. They have been adjusted accordingly. SSE are happy that we are paying enough to cover our bills. That is what they do. Attached is our monthly usage. You are correct that we have not been using £50 a month. That is why out credit is over £200. Given that we are about to start receiving £66 a month from the government scheme awarding £400 to each household, our credit is likely to increase.

OK. Here are the details. As you can see, out DD is £50 per month. You'll also notice the credit we have.

You really do make me laugh. Anything you disagree with or don't understand has to be a lie. Very funny. It may surprise you but this is not a p$#ing competition. There is mo winner or lower. I posted a fact. If you don't believe it then scroll on by. Don't bother with your veiled accusations.

I suggest you accept that posters can speak about personal experiences without lying.

Dress it up as much as you like. My information is first hand. If someone decides to refute that information they are saying it's false and calling me a liar.

To accuse someone of posting false information is basically calling them a liar. I believe that is against forum rules.

It should decrease even when prices go down. It's quite clear that many people are using too much and even wasting energy. The recent price cap capped an "average" household bill at £2500 a year. Our power bill for the past year was a little over £650. We've received correspondence from our provider estimating our bill will increase to a little over £820. If the average is £2500, there are people out there using serious amounts of energy.

Denial. That's funny.

Why not level it up? Post some links about how the NUM paid the rent for Scargill's luxury flat. How about the Court case in 2012 where he lost his battle with the NUM to live there for life, £34000 a month paid by NUM at £20 per member. Even better, the story about him trying to but the flat for £1m, half price, under Thatcher's right to buy scheme.

I don't have to. You have already contradicted yourself.

Really? The tax cust from20 to 19% benefits all tax payers.

That's funny. Now I know you don't know what you are talking about. 555

Indeed. But, at the same time some posters are suggesting my experiences are " Salient and unsupported by confirmable evidence"

No. I've never said that. Once again you are mis quoting. However, had a greater majority embraced the opportunities as the guys I know did, things would have been a lot more prosperous for all. The mines would have closed sooner or later. Maybe a Labour government would gave pumped millions in to keep them open. That would, as we now know, have been futile.

Wakefield, Barnsley and Wales With regards to "no keyboard warriors there", could you provide can link, please? 55555

My point is. I had some perfectly good conversations with people who had true life experiences. Some people seem to think I need to provide a link to conversations I had 30 years ago. Pathetic.

When I was told by my miners friends there were no such thins as internet or links. What we did have were facts by observation and living in communities affected by changes in circumstance. What we didn't have were keyboard warriors with veiled accusations calling us liars just because they'd spent hours trawling the internet to find media posts that may or may not be impartial. Sad state of affairs right now that so many people have to rely on what they read rather than what they have experienced first hand.

I know a few ex miners. They were quite happy with the turn out. Some were offered the chance to buy the mines. Of course they declined as it was money down the drain. Some got jobs with private firms who did buy some of the mines. They got very well paid for the 6 months they worked, until the firms realised they were losing money as the mines were not cost effective. Others took advantage of the free offer of retraining in other jobs. Got good new jobs and never looked back.

And the bosses, top engineers, consultants, IT guys, finance guys, etc were all earning a salary that, in modern times, would be well over 100k a year. What is it about this misconception that nationalisation means there are no high earners? There are. The only difference is the tax payer has to pay for their salaries as the nationalized companies are making losses. By the way, I have never had a salary above 30k. Through good investment, saving when times are good, not over stretching myself financially and thinking ahead, I am well off. Not rich but well off. Certainly not living off dregs. I know a plethora of people in the same boat as me too.

Excellent idea. Let's kerb ambition, drive, vision, and any real feeling of wanting to go onwards and upwards. Let's stagnate business, job creation and exports. Let's limit production, expansion and new technology. Let's depress the housing market, the motor industry and hospitality business.

No. You were not asked that. You asked me for an example of one of my unanswered questions. I gave one.

That is what I said. However, the poster I asked was constantly telling us that the wealthy were benefitting the most from tax cuts. Seeing as the tax cuts in question are based solely on salary, it was a valid question. One that remains unanswered.

What salary bracket would you define as "wealthy"? That one is still unanswered.

Your claim would be valid if that was the first question left unanswered. List all the question I have been involved with, both asking and asked, in order and we'll see who's waiting for answers first and foremost.

Well. It's the only way when others are in denial. Shame really. If some would answer questions the whole conversation could become a lot clearer. Never mind.