Your Questions About Money Making Schemes Uk

Donna asks…

Pay per mile proposed schemes? Your views…..?

It has just been on the news that pay per mile will probably happen. They stopped several people in a town centre to tell them how much money they would need to pay for their current journey and it was extorinate – one family driving from Bristol to York would have to pay £46!!! I live in the midlands, the public transport is awful – my 15 minute drive to work takes over an hour on the bus!
I am sure some people will say we need to do this to save the environment – but we only live on a tiny island – can you see Mr Bush introducing a similar scheme to America – or China stopping their output of C02. Even if there wasn’t a single person in the UK, global warming would still happen at practically the same rate. It is clearly just another tax to line the politicians pockets. Why don’t they just ban 4x4s and high emitting cars instead. Make there a limit on how much a car can emit on all new models released. Eventually older cars would be phased out.

Nagesh answers:

I think it is a really awful idea invented by a ‘seat polisher’ with nothing better to do than to think of another way to get money out of the great British public. I’m not surprised at anything any more. Yesterday I heard that we all should be MADE to sing and read stories to our children! We even have a Social Exclusion minister for ***** sake. (four letter word in plural beginning with eff). The trouble is that we take everything that’s thrown at us without protest. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the issue of ration books soon where we will only be allowed a certain type and quantity of food each week (BECAUSE WE ARE ALL TOO FAT)! ’nuff said.

Ruth asks…

What do the classical contributors make of the parlous state of orchestras around the world?

I am surprised that this hasn’t been asked yet on this board (or perhaps it has and I missed it?), but I have been reading with increasing dismay about many leading orchestras going to the wall or in serious trouble.

In the USA, the Honolulu, New Mexico and Syracuse orchestras are no more, the Philadelphia Orchestra has filed for bankruptcy protection, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra has been almost ruined by strikes and many other leading orchestras are in deep financial trouble. In the USA there is no state subsidy for the arts.

In Europe, many smaller German orchestras have disappeared or have merged and in the Netherlands, some of the most prestigious musical organisations are in danger of going bust without their traditional state subsidies (or huge cuts in them). In Europe, state subsidy is normal (to varying degrees) for orchestras.

It seems neither system is working right now, so what’s the answer? Of course, many orchestras would survive on playing the classical pops time after time with freelance players drafted in as necessary (some very major orchestras in the UK have always used freelance rather than contracted musicians), but what service does that give to music? How would living composers get their new works played? How would we get to hear fine music that didn’t draw-in the crowds? Not very ‘creative’, is it?

When times get tough, the arts are always the first target for cuts. Yet orchestras’ budgets are TINY in the great scheme of things. The annual bonus awarded to a top banking executive in the City of London would keep a chamber orchestra in the UK going for about 2 years. How can this be right (don’t think that the money-grabbing banker is going to part with any of his wad to support music – he won’t!)? So, in reality, these swingeing and crippling cuts make very little difference to the national debt whatsoever, yet politicians always focus on orchestras and opera companies first. Could it be that the cynical politicians are relying on the (erroneous) public perception that the arts are a huge drain on the economy? And don’t forget that orchestras put BACK a lot of money into the coffers through taxes and tourism.

So, good people, what’s the way forward?

Nagesh answers:

In Germany, and by extension, to most of the other major continental european countries, this has a definite starting point: Arts and Culture policies after the Great War ( WWI). Music somehow held on during the brief respite until WWII, but afterwards the re-building of cities took precedence over art of any kind. My older colleagues ( now retired or dead) told stories of how the whole city of Aachen contributed to rebuilding the opera house after it too was damaged severely in bombing raids. Visitors often paid in coal or foodstuffs.
With the re-establishment of a more-or-less normal standard of living in the late 50s and 60s, Government started neglecting the educational aspects of music and culture. Perhaps because they had grown up without? Perhaps it just didn’t seem relevant enough to the business world.
With the reunion in 1989 to East Germany,( which even most conservative economists say was chivvied along too quickly and unrealistically) many of the “New” german communities found their cultural establishments strapped for the subsidized funds no longer available, and were forced into mergers. From about 150 opera houses and orchestras throughout the country, we are down to about 100 to date, an our nation-wide orchestral union regularly sends out messages to rally around one or another opera theater/orchestra at the edge of existence.
The last couple of years’ economic disaster has taken its toll here as well. Wages are frozen, many perks have been cut, never to return ( dry cleaning for your tuxedo!, string money for the whole string section, fender-bender repairs for brass, reeds for the winds).
Our orchestra just last night taped a piece for the benefit for the colleagues in Holland ( within spitting distance for us)to help out their desperate situation.
More and more orchestras are fishing for sponsors and other private measures. That means more work, mind you, as these groups expect their very own set of concerts for no extra pay, of course.
I think, until music and arts are firmly re-established in a country’s/culture’s educational concept, the whole idea of participation and support will continue to languish. If one thing positive can be said about our global links through the net, it can be this: classical music is also being broadcast more than before. Granted, YouTube doesn’t include some of the treasures that many of you may have at home, but more than the Top 10 is available!
Don’t despair, friends, but continue to make music.

William asks…

Could UK lawyers comment on the legality of a law?

Since April 2008 it has been necessary for shorthold tenancy landlords to either take out an insurance policy to protect a tenants deposit or to send the deposit to the Deposit Protection Service. It is the landlord, not the tenant, who has the right to choose one of these methods.

The Deposit Protection Service is free, financed by interest from the deposits. One of the 2 insurance options is expensive and the other is very expensive so most small lanlords will opt for the free service.

Until this law the landlord and tenant had the right to agree thet the deposit would be retained by the landlord as a bond to cover repairs or non payment of rent so if no such expenses occurred the tenant could have the rent back on the day he moved out and it was immediately available to be used for his next home.

Now the tenant has to wait 10 days and a request for the deposit has to be sent by the landlord and tenant to the DPS if there is no dispute. In the meantime some tenants will have to borrow for their next deposit.

Is it not the case that the deposit is at all times the property of the tenant and so the government and the law have no right to interfere with how he wishes to use it and who he wants to hold it as long as the purpose is not illegal?

If this is the case then could making the use of the scheme compulsory be overturned by appeal to a High Court or a European Court as the law deprives the tenant of the right to do what he wants with his own money?

I am aware that the intention is to protect tenants money but I question whether it is legal to force tenants to accept the scheme when it should be the tenants right to decide.

Nagesh answers:

I had not heard of this law, but I agree that I don’t like it. I doubt that the High court would strike it down, though. It seems to me to be a legal – if ill-advised – regulation of a business transaction.

Richard

John asks…

Will Kentucky make the NCAA tourney in 09?

Me and my boss have a bet going that Kentucky will not make the tourney in 2009 but he (being from Kentucky {obviously}) swears that they will on his mother’s life. So the question is posed will they make the tournament this year. Will they make it just on collegiate prestige or will the NCAA see that this would be looked upon with frowns as the people know their bid was just a money scheme? Or do you honestly think UK has a real chance at winning? I don’t think it is possible and he continues to say they will make it just because they are Kentucky “We are KENTUCKY and you are not!” is his continous statement, he thinks they will get in on prestige. You decide and give me more ammo or bust on this hot debate

Nagesh answers:

I am a huge KY fan myself and an ex-college player in the state of KY, so I have a bit of knowledge.

Unless they go to the finals of the SEC tourney they will not make it in. It really depends on which team shows up for the SEC tourney. If they are clicking with Patterson and Meeks, they can get to the finals.

Final predicition: They are to inconsistent under the helm of the worst hire in KY coaching history. No tourney this year, and this deeply hurts as a fan. Until they get rid of Gillispie, they will continue to fall. He’s a great recruiter but a horrible general of coaching. Why would one of the most historic teams in the country hire a coach who had absolutely no resume!!! The guy went to one sweet sixteen in his life. Seriously?

Betty asks…

Will Kentucky make the NCAA Tourney in 2009?

Me and my boss have a bet going that Kentucky will not make the tourney in 2009 but he (being from Kentucky {obviously}) swears that they will on his mother’s life. So the question is posed will they make the tournament this year. Will they make it just on collegiate prestige or will the NCAA see that this would be looked upon with frowns as the people know their bid was just a money scheme? Or do you honestly think UK has a real chance at winning? You decide and give me more ammo or bust on this hot debate>>!

Money Making Schemes