Question:

I’m tired. There are some things I used to ignore or tolerate, but I’ve reached my breaking point, and I just can’t take this anymore. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nothing to do with personal issues or economy or family life or health or anything. I’m tired of what I see around me. Maybe it’s time for that little boy who yelled out the fact that the emperor is not wearing any clothes to come back and yell some more. First of all, don’t misunderstand me. I’m not racist or prejudiced or a hatemonger. I’m just tired of seeing what’s happening around me. I also know that times change and the planet evolves, but at some point, I have to yell out the old clich

Question:

Hello all- Can anyone tell me if there is a nationwide or local (Chicago) organization focused on Hispanic or Spanish speaking accountants? Any help is definitely appreciated. Please foward any info to my hotmail address. Happy holidays!

Response:

yes they are PA’s pendeyho accountants meetings are at your local Taco Bell

Response:

Not to my knowledge. Perhaps a couple of us can set up an informal one via Internet Salu2

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello all- Can anyone tell me if there is a nationwide or local (Chicago) organization focused on Hispanic or Spanish speaking accountants? Any help is definitely appreciated. Please foward any info to my hotmail address. Happy holidays!

Response:

I like the one that meets at the Taco Bell.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not to my knowledge. Perhaps a couple of us can set up an informal one via Internet Salu2 Hello all- Can anyone tell me if there is a nationwide or local (Chicago) organization focused on Hispanic or Spanish speaking accountants? Any help is definitely appreciated. Please foward any info to my hotmail address. Happy holidays! You can also set one at MSN– they do have a few professional groups started.  If you need specifics, email me and I will provide it to you.  You then, if you choose, invite various people to join in. Tippy

Response:

Yes, I would like specifics. thank you. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not to my knowledge. Perhaps a couple of us can set up an informal one via Internet Salu2 Hello all- Can anyone tell me if there is a nationwide or local (Chicago) organization focused on Hispanic or Spanish speaking accountants? Any help is definitely appreciated. Please foward any info to my hotmail address. Happy holidays! You can also set one at MSN– they do have a few professional groups started.  If you need specifics, email me and I will provide it to you.  You then, if you choose, invite various people to join in. Tippy

Response:

By all means, feel free to go any time

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I like the one that meets at the Taco Bell. Not to my knowledge. Perhaps a couple of us can set up an informal one via Internet Salu2 Hello all- Can anyone tell me if there is a nationwide or local (Chicago) organization focused on Hispanic or Spanish speaking accountants? Any help is definitely appreciated. Please foward any info to my hotmail address. Happy holidays! You can also set one at MSN– they do have a few professional groups started.  If you need specifics, email me and I will provide it to you.  You then, if you choose, invite various people to join in. Tippy

Response:

Question:

Never said they didn’t have good training for those that responded.  I just question their business ethics.  If you ignore it maybe it will go away doesn’t make for good business. Chris

Response:

I used their finish up instrument program at Pompano Beach a few years back. I thought they were very professional and managed to finish my rating in a week or so within the price they quoted.  Their designated examiner was also an accident investigator for the NTSB.  I felt I got a solid instrument checkride from him and I also learned some informative things regarding his experiences investigating IFR accidents. greg — Rights do not exist in nature. Rights are a concept constructed by humans to protect certain freedoms, but have degenerated into pleas for special privilege by nearly every group and individual in America who want something they do not have.  –M. Shermer – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – They made the terms of the agreement very clear to me when I signed up, and stressed the fact that it would take a while to get a refund. I actually got money back on my $6000 deposit towards Part 141 Instrument Pilot Course without making a noise! It did take some time, but I did end up with a cheque in the mail. I finished the Part 141 training with the minimum requirements and was therefore entitled to something like $300 back. I also flew with multiple instructors although I hade made clear that I was reluctant to do so. However, that turned out great; the instructors were very nice and thourough. They also always managed to pick up where the previous instructor left off. I ended up flying with 5 different instructors. With one of them I only flew once. In the end, I was really impressed about how smoothly everything worked out. I always managed to get scheduled when I had time to fly, and it was a no-bullshit operation where they never attempted to milk more money from me than necessary. The only hickup was that my certificate application was delayed in Chicago so there was a delay in getting my permanent certificate. Once I got hold of the local AF Director, evertything fell into place, and I received a telegraphic message (fax) from Oklahoma City in lieu of a certificate within a couple of days, and the certificate a week later. My guess is that there may be big differences between American Flyers’ locations. The way you get treated, and the service offered highly depends on the individuals that run the local offices. Apparently the Hayward office is very well organized, and everybody there was very friendly and helpful. Before I signed up for the instrument training I took their 3-day ground school, and since I liked the way things looked, I signed up. -ascs The good news is they reserve their special treatment for people that demand a refund.  I was a low-level employee there and also received flight instruction from them.  While there I received thorough training. At the larger locations they really know all the Examiners and can almost tell you minute by minute what will happen on a checkride.  You just have to insist that you not get passed from instructor to instructor. After everything I went through, if I had the time and money, I would probably use them for flight training, although I wouldn’t leave more than $100 on deposit with them.  I never saw them practice creative accounting or pad a bill from a regular customer.  In my opinion they just don’t mind making a customer that demands a refund sorry they ever walked in the front door.  Is the salesman, I mean Director, that signed you up treating you like Typhoid Mary? I’ve seen them cut a check for a "troublesome customer" in a week or less.  It’s hard to say if the hold up on the refund is due to the National Office or the local office.  My opinion is that the National Office causes some of the problem due to inattention.  They leave the dirty work to the local offices. Good luck.

Response:

They made the terms of the agreement very clear to me when I signed up, and stressed the fact that it would take a while to get a refund. I actually got money back on my $6000 deposit towards Part 141 Instrument Pilot Course without making a noise! It did take some time, but I did end up with a cheque in the mail. I finished the Part 141 training with the minimum requirements and was therefore entitled to something like $300 back. I also flew with multiple instructors although I hade made clear that I was reluctant to do so. However, that turned out great; the instructors were very nice and thourough. They also always managed to pick up where the previous instructor left off. I ended up flying with 5 different instructors. With one of them I only flew once. In the end, I was really impressed about how smoothly everything worked out. I always managed to get scheduled when I had time to fly, and it was a no-bullshit operation where they never attempted to milk more money from me than necessary. The only hickup was that my certificate application was delayed in Chicago so there was a delay in getting my permanent certificate. Once I got hold of the local AF Director, evertything fell into place, and I received a telegraphic message (fax) from Oklahoma City in lieu of a certificate within a couple of days, and the certificate a week later. My guess is that there may be big differences between American Flyers’ locations. The way you get treated, and the service offered highly depends on the individuals that run the local offices. Apparently the Hayward office is very well organized, and everybody there was very friendly and helpful. Before I signed up for the instrument training I took their 3-day ground school, and since I liked the way things looked, I signed up. -ascs – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The good news is they reserve their special treatment for people that demand a refund.  I was a low-level employee there and also received flight instruction from them.  While there I received thorough training. At the larger locations they really know all the Examiners and can almost tell you minute by minute what will happen on a checkride.  You just have to insist that you not get passed from instructor to instructor. After everything I went through, if I had the time and money, I would probably use them for flight training, although I wouldn’t leave more than $100 on deposit with them.  I never saw them practice creative accounting or pad a bill from a regular customer.  In my opinion they just don’t mind making a customer that demands a refund sorry they ever walked in the front door.  Is the salesman, I mean Director, that signed you up treating you like Typhoid Mary? I’ve seen them cut a check for a "troublesome customer" in a week or less.  It’s hard to say if the hold up on the refund is due to the National Office or the local office.  My opinion is that the National Office causes some of the problem due to inattention.  They leave the dirty work to the local offices. Good luck.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Has anyone ever tried to get a refund from these people. It is like pulling teeth. They tell me that it takes a couple of months to get the request to the Chicago office and from there it has been three months and they still have not processed the request due to the high amount of refunds they have been asked for and they don’t have the money to refund it to you. Not to mention read all their fine print before signing up with them, they have a discounted course for CFI of 2600.00 for the course, however if you get a refund they take the amount of time and multiply that at their normal instruction rate of 55.00 per hour and that is how they refund the difference.   Nice way of doing business. Unfortunately for me I did not check with the Better Business Bureau or the States Attorney Generals office before doing business with them. My complaint to them is one of many on the company. Has anyone else had these or any other problems with them? Chris

Chris I used to work for the office at Ft Lauderdale, FL (Corp HQ at DuPage, IL).  What you are getting is the standard "refund procedure". You’ll get your refund when you cause enough trouble and not a day before.  They are earning interest on your money and will until the day after you go nuclear.  I’d suggest there is probably plenty of wiggle room in their contract about exactly when a refund will be paid.  If you have an attorney and he finds some way to rush them, he should do it. They repay refunds according to who causes the most trouble.  I’m sure you’ve already done it, but telling them you won’t fly there again and recommend everyone you know do likewise isn’t going to make any difference to them.  When you sign up for CFI Academy, you get a "group discount" on certain items like ground instruction and books.  When you demand a refund they will charge you at the full undiscounted rate, as you discovered.  This is in the fine print of the contract.  They will also charge you for every molecule of air you have consumed while on site.  Have they told you that they use their CFI Academy as a screening process and that if you keep causing trouble they will not consider you for employment as CFI?   I was there when they told this to a 62 year old Veterinarian.  I can’t tell you how many tears he cried over the prospect of not being able to be a CFI for $7/hour in 1994. The good news is they reserve their special treatment for people that demand a refund.  I was a low-level employee there and also received flight instruction from them.  While there I received thorough training. At the larger locations they really know all the Examiners and can almost tell you minute by minute what will happen on a checkride.  You just have to insist that you not get passed from instructor to instructor. After everything I went through, if I had the time and money, I would probably use them for flight training, although I wouldn’t leave more than $100 on deposit with them.  I never saw them practice creative accounting or pad a bill from a regular customer.  In my opinion they just don’t mind making a customer that demands a refund sorry they ever walked in the front door.  Is the salesman, I mean Director, that signed you up treating you like Typhoid Mary? I’ve seen them cut a check for a "troublesome customer" in a week or less.  It’s hard to say if the hold up on the refund is due to the National Office or the local office.  My opinion is that the National Office causes some of the problem due to inattention.  They leave the dirty work to the local offices. Good luck.

Response:

Has anyone else had these or any other problems with them?

They ripped me off for significantly less money when they pulled the plug on their on-line NOS chart system.  They were not overly responsive to my inquiries.

Response:

Has anyone ever tried to get a refund from these people. It is like pulling teeth. They tell me that it takes a couple of months to get the request to the Chicago office and from there it has been three months and they still have not processed the request due to the high amount of refunds they have been asked for and they don’t have the money to refund it to you. Not to mention read all their fine print before signing up with them, they have a discounted course for CFI of 2600.00 for the course, however if you get a refund they take the amount of time and multiply that at their normal instruction rate of 55.00 per hour and that is how they refund the difference.   Nice way of doing business. Unfortunately for me I did not check with the Better Business Bureau or the States Attorney Generals office before doing business with them. My complaint to them is one of many on the company. Has anyone else had these or any other problems with them? Chris

Response:

Question:

I’m trying to fix a problem in an in house General Ledger program. There is a problem when taking a discount for an invoice in Accounts Payable.   For example if the invoice was for $400.00 and I take a $50.00 discount for paying the invoice early the system is only taking $350.00 from Accounts payable and $350.00 from cash.  The $50.00 is being ignored and Accounts Payable is off by $50.00.  What kind of General Journal entry and General Ledger entries do I need to do to make up for the $50.00. I’m thinking I need to create some sort of Discount account and make an entry for the $50.00 to Discounts and another $50.00 post to Accounts Payable.  I’m not sure what type of account the Discount would be, I’m thinking a 400 range account for revenues. As you can probably tell I’m don’t know much about accounting.  Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Scott

Response:

I’m trying to fix a problem in an in house General Ledger program. There is a problem when taking a discount for an invoice in Accounts Payable.   For example if the invoice was for $400.00 and I take a $50.00 discount for paying the invoice early the system is only taking $350.00 from Accounts payable and $350.00 from cash.  The $50.00 is being ignored and Accounts Payable is off by $50.00.  What kind of General Journal entry and General Ledger entries do I need to do

You need a  reduction (Debit) in accounts payable and an increase (Credit) to Purchase Discounts. At the end of the year, Purchase Discounts is subtracted from Purchases to get cost of goods sold. If you’re purchasing something besides inventory, Purchase Discounts, or part of it, is subtracted from the appropriate expense. Inventories, by the way, should be valued at their discounted acquisition cost. to make up for the $50.00. I’m thinking I need to create some sort of Discount account and make an entry for the $50.00 to Discounts and another $50.00 post to Accounts Payable.  I’m not sure what type of account the Discount would be, I’m thinking a 400 range account for revenues.

Like I said above, except this is *not* a revenue generating function. The existence of the discount is reducing your expenses, not increasing your cost of goods sold. Regards, Bill #*#*# Associate Professor of Accounting School of Business & Economics Longwood College http://web.lwc.edu/staff/wpbrown/wpbrown.htm Opinions expressed by me are mine alone and not that of my employer.

Response:

I would set it up as a contra-account under the accounts payable.  Debit 350 from A/P, Credit 350 Cash, Debit 50 A/P, credit 50 "Discounts Taken".  If you set it up as a revenue account, you could end up showing money not spent, as additional revenue.  Not good!  This way, you track the discounts taken, but do not affect your income or balance sheets adversely.  - Chris Anton (Not yet a CPA)

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m trying to fix a problem in an in house General Ledger program. There is a problem when taking a discount for an invoice in Accounts Payable.   For example if the invoice was for $400.00 and I take a $50.00 discount for paying the invoice early the system is only taking $350.00 from Accounts payable and $350.00 from cash.  The $50.00 is being ignored and Accounts Payable is off by $50.00.  What kind of General Journal entry and General Ledger entries do I need to do to make up for the $50.00. I’m thinking I need to create some sort of Discount account and make an entry for the $50.00 to Discounts and another $50.00 post to Accounts Payable.  I’m not sure what type of account the Discount would be,

Response:

Chris I hope for your sake that this question does not show up on the exam. The discount account is a contra expense account, not a contra current liabilities account. Allan Martin, CPA

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would set it up as a contra-account under the accounts payable.  Debit 350 from A/P, Credit 350 Cash, Debit 50 A/P, credit 50 "Discounts Taken".  If you set it up as a revenue account, you could end up showing money not spent, as additional revenue.  Not good!  This way, you track the discounts taken, but do not affect your income or balance sheets adversely.  - Chris Anton (Not yet a CPA) I’m trying to fix a problem in an in house General Ledger program. There is a problem when taking a discount for an invoice in Accounts Payable.   For example if the invoice was for $400.00 and I take a $50.00 discount for paying the invoice early the system is only taking $350.00 from Accounts payable and $350.00 from cash.  The $50.00 is being ignored and Accounts Payable is off by $50.00.  What kind of General Journal entry and General Ledger entries do I need to do to make up for the $50.00. I’m thinking I need to create some sort of Discount account and make an entry for the $50.00 to Discounts and another $50.00 post to Accounts Payable.  I’m not sure what type of account the Discount would be,

Response:

Thanks for the correction.  Time for me to go back to the books some more!!  - Chris

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Chris I hope for your sake that this question does not show up on the exam. The discount account is a contra expense account, not a contra current liabilities account. Allan Martin, CPA I would set it up as a contra-account under the accounts payable.  Debit 350 from A/P, Credit 350 Cash, Debit 50 A/P, credit 50 "Discounts Taken".  If you set it up as a revenue account, you could end up showing money not spent, as additional revenue.  Not good!  This way, you track the discounts taken, but do not affect your income or balance sheets adversely.  - Chris Anton (Not yet a CPA) I’m trying to fix a problem in an in house General Ledger program. There is a problem when taking a discount for an invoice in Accounts Payable.   For example if the invoice was for $400.00 and I take a $50.00 discount for paying the invoice early the system is only taking $350.00 from Accounts payable and $350.00 from cash.  The $50.00 is being ignored and Accounts Payable is off by $50.00.  What kind of General Journal entry and General Ledger entries do I need to do to make up for the $50.00. I’m thinking I need to create some sort of Discount account and make an entry for the $50.00 to Discounts and another $50.00 post to Accounts Payable.  I’m not sure what type of account the Discount would be,

Response:

Question:

  Would someone please tell me where can I get a list of ODBC complaint accounting softwares?  I’ve read there several of them, but it seems they are hidden somewhere!  I’m unable to find any!   btw… why is it so difficult to find a GOOD accounting program????

Response:

Visual AccountMate data files can be assessed via ODBC. — Myron Joy CPA       Joy & Associates P.C.       Phoenix Az Accountants and Information Technology Consultants.  Developers of ClientLink E-Accounting Software. Visual AccountMate Business Partner.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   Would someone please tell me where can I get a list of ODBC complaint accounting softwares?  I’ve read there several of them, but it seems they are hidden somewhere!  I’m unable to find any!   btw… why is it so difficult to find a GOOD accounting program????

Response:

Nearly all systems, from Accpac to Great Plains, offer ODBC.   A few go the next step, providing open source code.  One of the market anomolies is that open source code systems, such as UA Corporate Accounting, actually cost less than comparable systems.  Would someone please tell me where can I get a list of ODBC complaint accounting softwares?  I’ve read there several of them, but it seems they are hidden somewhere!  I’m unable to find any!  btw… why is it so difficult to find a GOOD accounting program????

I actually think most programs are "good".  Obviously, there are trade-offs of price and features.   If you can specify what you want that is generally unavailable, I can probably help you find it. Respectfully,  - Carl Dick www.cpaccess.com Respectfully,   – Carl Dick www.cpaccess.com 800-997-7944 949-261-2694  California, USA

Response:

Question:

I’ve seen this kind of thread before.  Equipment is expensive. Especially for those who are just beginning and are not sure they want to shell out $100 to try all grain and then possible not be happy with it.

$100???? I happen to work in a specialized food shipping industry and I am working on developing an inexpensive mash tun for the beginning all grainer. I think that I can make it an be able to sell it for between 30 and 40 US Dollars.  It is an insulated cooler with a manifold and it will be able to mash a ten gallon batch, (single infusion).

OK, this covers a 48 quart cooler and an ez masher.  But we can buy those at this price over the counter. I would equip it with materials to be able to do 10 mashes. It holds 45L (11.8 Gal) After that you would either toss it in the trash or order more ‘liners’ and keep using it. Yes I said ‘liners’, food-grade, the main part of the construction is EPS (Expandable polystyrene)  It is quite strong.  The liner holds the grist in the box.  There is a matching lid. The Tun includes a hose for filling your kettle and a hose clip to adjust flow from the tun. The only thing the brewer needs to supply other that the regular extract brewing tools would be sparge water tank and a hose to sprinkle water on the grainbed for sparging.

We can get liners about this size for $8 or so from most vendors.  And why would we want to line it? I’m not trying to put you down here; I simply fail to see what you’re offering beyond what we can get anywhere else.  Come to think of it, I don’t know anyone who used a liner more than a time or two; all they’ve ever done for me is create vapor lock hawk — Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.   (319) 266-7114                        http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer.

Response:

I am working my up to all grain. I am currently converting a keg to a kettle and searching for something to mash in. I have been dreading that first batch but after reading your message I now look forward to it. Now if I can only come up with the $$ for a 10 gal cooler….

A 48 quart cooler should be about $13-20.  If you want to saw them yourself, about $5 for copper tubes.  Or you can go for about $20 for an EZmasher, or buy a false bottom from someone. You recover the coooler/copper version in about 2 batches in ingredient costs, and 3 or 4 batches for the cooler/ez. Then all you need is somehting big enough to boil it all. I find it’s about 1/2 as much cost to do all grain, even after accounting for the propane–with everything, I’m at about $2/gallon. hawk — Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.   (319) 266-7114                        http://eyry.econ.iastate.edu/hawk These opinions will not be those of UNI until it pays my retainer.

Response:

Totally cool… At first I had only regrets after investing in all grain.  I was brewing every 5 days and suddenly I found myself engulfed.  Then my wife made me "Get a job" and now I brew once a month.  At that rate I can appreciate that full day of brewing. Chuck —

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – S’up everyone?  I just finished my first all grain session.  Whew!  I’m exhausted.  I would like to invite anyone who feels the advice given here (well, most of the advice) is wrong, to line up and kiss my ass!!! After lurking around here, following the threads, and giving advice from my limited experience, I just had a ass kicking brewing session.  My first time efficiency is 78%, I have fermentation activity after,…… 1 HOUR!! I had no stuck mash (thanks to surescreen), enough water, which was treated to MATCH Burton on Trent (thanks Jeff Donovan), and a perfect crush (I’m not going there!!!!).  If there are any extract brewers out there waiting to take the plunge, DO IT!!!  I did my homework and had a text book brewing session.  Again, thanks for the great advice, either given to me or that I read from other peeps postings.  Incidentally, I brewed a ESB.  Thanks Joe

Response:

I started off with the ol’ zappap system..  It does work but keeping the temp up was a drag and It used a lot of foundation water in the bottom under the false bottom

I too started with a Zapap and the foundation water and temp comments are correct.   Cost – $0.50.  Buckets from a bakery were free but I’m assuming electricity costs from drilling the holes.   That was 7 years ago.  I then constructed a plastic bucket/copper manifold system back in late ‘95.  Wrapped it with the foil-coated bubble insulation and still use it to this day when I do 5 gallon batches.  It can’t hold more than about 10# of grains and the corresponding mash water.   No foundation water required and temp loss only about 4 deg over 30 minutes (which corresponds to normal step-mash times)  Single infusion may require better insulation. Cost – $5.00 MAX.  Again, free bucket,  leftover 3/8" copper tubing from my wort chiller, 3/8" copper tee, bubble insulation, vinyl tubing running thru hole drilled in the side of bucket, plastic hose clamp to control flow. When I brew larger batches, I use my converted keg system which is also wrapped in the foil bubble-wrap. Costs:     Keg – $17.50 (junk yard special, cost of stainless steel by weight)     Cut the top out myself with grinder and cutoff disks (borrowed from friend)     Stainless 1/2" coupling – $3-$4     Bubble wrap – $3-4     Homemade 1/2" dual Easymasher – $6-8 for copper, copper tee, 1/2" compression – 1/2" pipe thread fitting.     1/2" threaded ball valve (brass) – $4.50     Miscellaneous connecting hardware – $5 Total costs around $38. I was in the Air Force when I modified 2 kegs and was able to have the guys at the sheet metal shop on base use Greely punches for the holes and then TIG weld the couplings for exchange of 2 six packs of homebrew ( a stout and a Scottish 80/ export).  The work was worth much more but they only wanted a little to sample.  Obviously, the conversion would have cost about $30-$50 more for a stainless welder depending on your area and the quality of work done. My point in all this is, it doesn’t have to cost much to get into all-grain if you’re a little creative and don’t mind doing some of the work yourself.  Sure, it may take some forethought, time, and a willingness to scrounge for parts (junk yards are great), but you can start small with very little monetary or time cost and make a system that will enable you to make the best beer possible. Layne, I feel your system (if it works properly) may be ok for those who feel they really can’t afford to spend 30 minutes to an hour’s time to make the bucket/manifold system described earlier.  But if that’s the case, IMO they don’t have the time to even be brewing extract beers because in the time it takes them to do one last extract boil, they could construct this system and have it ready for their next batch. Get out there folks and do some all-grain brewing.  You won’t be sorry. John Heubel

Response:

I happen to work in a specialized food shipping industry and I am working on developing an inexpensive mash tun for the beginning all grainer. I am currently working on a prototype.  Actually it’s done but I want to test it first and then find others to test it as well to get feedback. Hope it works.  Maybe you are interested in being a first time user?

Hey, if you’re looking for a "beta tester" I’m game! Patrick

Response:

How about two 5 gal ale pales, ala zappap?  Can’t get much cheaper than 15 dollars.  :)

Response:

I started off with the ol’ zappap system..  It does work but keeping the temp up was a drag and It used a lot of foundation water in the bottom under the false bottom. I tossed it after the second batch.  Actually it holds magazines better. Layne – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How about two 5 gal ale pales, ala zappap?  Can’t get much cheaper than 15 dollars.  :)

Response:

I’ve seen this kind of thread before.  Equipment is expensive. Especially for those who are just beginning and are not sure they want to shell out $100 to try all grain and then possible not be happy with it. I happen to work in a specialized food shipping industry and I am working on developing an inexpensive mash tun for the beginning all grainer. I think that I can make it an be able to sell it for between 30 and 40 US Dollars.  It is an insulated cooler with a manifold and it will be able to mash a ten gallon batch, (single infusion).  I would equip it with materials to be able to do 10 mashes. It holds 45L (11.8 Gal) After that you would either toss it in the trash or order more ‘liners’ and keep using it. Yes I said ‘liners’, food-grade, the main part of the construction is EPS (Expandable polystyrene)  It is quite strong.  The liner holds the grist in the box.  There is a matching lid. The Tun includes a hose for filling your kettle and a hose clip to adjust flow from the tun. The only thing the brewer needs to supply other that the regular extract brewing tools would be sparge water tank and a hose to sprinkle water on the grainbed for sparging. I would love some comments on this plan.  I originally had hoped that it would retail below $30 but I just can’t get the materials at a better price because I wouldn’t be making thousands of them like the "Beer Machine" people.  It’s not a huge market. I am currently working on a prototype.  Actually it’s done but I want to test it first and then find others to test it as well to get feedback. Hope it works.  Maybe you are interested in being a first time user? Layne Rossi Campbell River, BC – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am working my up to all grain. I am currently converting a keg to a kettle and searching for something to mash in. I have been dreading that first batch but after reading your message I now look forward to it. Now if I can only come up with the $$ for a 10 gal cooler…. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

I am working my up to all grain. I am currently converting a keg to a kettle and searching for something to mash in. I have been dreading that first batch but after reading your message I now look forward to it. Now if I can only come up with the $$ for a 10 gal cooler…. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

I chose to go with a converted keg for my mash tun as opposed to a Gott because I wanted the option of direct heat.  I got a Sabco turkey frier (www.sabco.com) and insulated it with hot water heater insulation.  It did pay off.  I ran the mash with simple infusion, but I noticed that my temps would take longer to bring to mash out (the RIMS isn’t hooked up yet) so I put it on my burner on a low flame and had mash out in a couple of minutes.  It’s all about options.  There’s nothing wrong with a cooler, I just felt this was better for my setup.  Good Luck. Joe

Response:

S’up everyone?  I just finished my first all grain session.  Whew!  I’m exhausted.  I would like to invite anyone who feels the advice given here (well, most of the advice) is wrong, to line up and kiss my ass!!! After lurking around here, following the threads, and giving advice from my limited experience, I just had a ass kicking brewing session.  My first time efficiency is 78%, I have fermentation activity after,…… 1 HOUR!! I had no stuck mash (thanks to surescreen), enough water, which was treated to MATCH Burton on Trent (thanks Jeff Donovan), and a perfect crush (I’m not going there!!!!).  If there are any extract brewers out there waiting to take the plunge, DO IT!!!  I did my homework and had a text book brewing session.  Again, thanks for the great advice, either given to me or that I read from other peeps postings.  Incidentally, I brewed a ESB.  Thanks Joe

Response:

Joe, Way to go! There is something to be said for the satisfaction felt after doing something worthwhile! And I’ll say – ALRIGHT!!! I was somewhat apprehensive my first all grain batch, but like you, read a lot and thought the game plan through a couple of hundred times. Time well spent, for my batch went well too. I’ll have to say though the thrill of crafting a well balanced beer with your own hands (and with some help from hungry yeasties) has not diminished by much. Keep up the good work!! — Kevin Eddy Life is to short to drink bad Beer!

| S’up everyone?  I just finished my first all grain session.  Whew!  I’m | exhausted.  I would like to invite anyone who feels the advice given | here (well, most of the advice) is wrong, to line up and kiss my ass!!! | After lurking around here, following the threads, and giving advice from | my limited experience, I just had a ass kicking brewing session.  My | first time efficiency is 78%, I have fermentation activity after,…… | 1 HOUR!! | I had no stuck mash (thanks to surescreen), enough water, which was | treated to MATCH Burton on Trent (thanks Jeff Donovan), and a perfect | crush (I’m not going there!!!!).  If there are any extract brewers out | there waiting to take the plunge, DO IT!!!  I did my homework and had a | text book brewing session.  Again, thanks for the great advice, either | given to me or that I read from other peeps postings.  Incidentally, I | brewed a ESB.  Thanks | | Joe

Response:

Question:

Burglary one of many thought to be linked to Lloyd’s lawsuit    Daily Press    October 12, 1998    By Patti Rosenberg    JAMES CITY    Burglaries seldom make headlines even in the quietest towns.    But news of a peculiar burglary last month in James City has traveled hundreds    and thousands of miles by word of mouth – causing some folks in London and    New York to look over their shoulders and add locks to their doors.    It’s probably all just a bizarre coincidence, they say, but the pattern that’s    emerging is more than a little disturbing. Indeed, the tale sounds like a lot    element in a Charles Dickens novel, but something that might happen in real life.    Litigants in a huge, high-stakes battle with the famous Lloyd’s of London    insurance institution keep falling victim to thefts and break-ins – during which    little is tampered with except information relating to their cases.    The burglary at the law office of Hale & Hall on McLaws Circle in the Busch    Corporate Center is the latest example.    "This was definitely not a typical burglary," said Investigator Steve Rubino of the    James City County Police Department.    The office was ransacked, but almost nothing stolen.    Just documents in the case of David, Deborah and Susan West vs. Lloyd’s of    London.    Days earlier, the case had gone the farthest of any case filed in the U.S. to make    the prestigious corporation stand trial for allegedly suckering thousands of people    out of hundreds of millions of dollars.    Camera equipment, several Mont Blanc pens, an expensive Browning 9 mm    semi-automatic pistol and almost $50 in cash were removed from a drawer but    left behind, said attorney Earle Hale.    "We have been able to determine that the burglars spent an extensive amount of    time reviewing files," Hale said.    "Despite the fact that there were literally tens of thousands of dollars worth of    valuables in the office, the only materials which were taken were files relating to    that case."    To backtrack briefly, the story begins more than 25 years ago, when Lloyd’s    liberalized its requirements for investors, known as "Names."    Becoming a Lloyd’s Name was traditionally a privilege extended only to members    of the British elite who pledged to pay "down to their last cufflink," according to    legend, but who routinely earned generous profits.    Unlike stock investors, who losses are limited to the capital they invested, Names    function like partners in an insurance company, with unlimited liability.    The rules were loosened in the 1970s and 1980s. For the first time,    upper-middle-class British citizens, foreigners, and women were allowed to join.    The number of Names ballooned from about 6,000 to more than 30,000 – just in    time to assume massive debts.    Billions of dollars in asbestos-related claims were being made on policies taken    out decades earlier. Millions more were owed in the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the    Lockerbee air crash and Hurricane Hugo.    The losses were steep enough to wipe out many Names’ entire fortunes. Thirty    were thought to have committed suicide by 1995, the Times of London reported.    Not that suicide absolved them. Their obligations to Lloyd’s transferred to their    estates after death.    While Lloyd’s tried to collect, some Names began filing lawsuits alleging fraud.    They charged that insiders knew of the looming crisis and launched a worldwide    campaign to recruit new Names for the express purpose of absorbing the losses.    Lloyd’s denies that accusation.    Hale filed one of those lawsuits in Los Angeles Superior Court in 1994 on behalf    of a California man and his daughters.    A graduate of the College of William and Mary’s law school, Hale moved back    here several years ago after practicing in California for most of his career.    Like all the suits filed in the U.S. so far, the case was dismissed because of a clause    in the Lloyd’s agreements requiring all legal disputes to be tried in English courts.    At the end of a long appeals process, however, Hale won a significant victory    Sept. 1. A judge ruled that the case could, in fact, go forward in the United States.    Days later, during the Labor Day weekend, Hale’s office was broken into.    "It does seem rather strange," Nick Doak, a spokesman for Lloyd’s, conceded.    But is has "nothing to do with us," he emphasized. "We don’t go around    burglarizing people."    Hale also stressed that he’s not accusing anyone of the crime. "We have    absolutely no idea who was involved," he said.    Police haven’t ruled out the possibility of some Lloyd’s-related connection,    however, said Investigator Rubino.    In any case, "professionals were involved," he said, a conclusion he bases on the    method of entry and the type and volume of items stolen.    At least six other offices in the building were burglarized the same night. But    there were few signs of forced entry, Rubino said, as though the burglars had keys    or were experts at picking locks.    Mainly, computer equipment was stolen from the other offices, a couple of dozen    pieces – but only the CPU’s, or central processing units, which include the hard    drives that store most of a computer’s files. No monitors or keyboards.    "A common thief would steal things easily exchanged on the streets for drugs,"    Rubino said. "People don’t steal that number of CPU’s to go pawn them or sell    them on the street."    This is at least the sixth incident in two years in which Names or their    representatives suffered thefts or burglaries, and in which information apparently    was intended to be the main thing sought or taken.    Reporters who heard about the burglary at the office of Catherine Mackenzie    Smith in July 1996 tried to get her to say she suspected Lloyd’s was involved,    recalled Mackenzie Smith, a Name and also an English attorney representing    hundreds of other Names at the time.    A fax machine, computer server and hard disk drive containing all of her Lloyd’s    correspondence for the last year were stolen, she said.    "But I’m a lawyer. I’m a serious person," not someone who jumps to hasty    conclusions, Mackenzie Smith said.    She said there wasn’t a "shred of real evidence" linking the crime to Lloyd’s.    But the other incidents she has learned about since then seem to add up to "a bit    of odd coincidence," Mackenzie Smith said, admitting that it’s also a bit scary.    Tom Seifert, a Manhattan attorney who represents several Names, said he would    find it shocking if Lloyd’s was mixed up in any of the crimes.    Nevertheless, he admitted, he has installed more locks on his office doors since    learning about Hale’s burglary.                         Cases of Note    The theft of files from the office of Williamsburg lawyer Earle Hale is one of    several incidents involving Lloyd’s-related material. Here’s a rundown:    Burglary of Earle Hale’s law office:    Earle Hale’s law office in James City County was burglarized over the Labor Day    weekend, according to police, who said nothing was taken from his office except    legal papers. Hale said the papers all related to one of his cases: David, Deborah    and Susan West vs. Lloyd’s of London.    Burglary of Dona Evans’ home:    Dona Evans is a Lloyd’s investor and co-chair of the Norwich Union Action    Group, which represents about 200 investors. A burglar scaled an 8-foot-high    wall to gain entry to her house in London early June7. She said only her laptop    computer, with evidence against Lloyd’s stored in it, was stolen. A printer, CD    player and other items were left behind.    An officer at the Hammersmith police station in England confirmed that the    burglary was reported to police and that nothing was taken except the computer.    Disappearance of Christopher Thomas-Everard’s briefcase:    Lloyd’s investor and anti-Lloyd’s activist Christopher Thomas-Everard said his    briefcase was taken from the Royal Courts of Justice in London while he was    there watching a case involving Lloyd’s in July 1997. Inside the briefcase was a    $3,000 laptop computer with data about Lloyd’s stored in it. In the following days,    Everard said, he checked to see if security or cleaning people had found it. They    hadn’t. But about a week later it mysteriously turned up near where he left it.    Nothing was missing. Thomas-Everard said he reported the theft to the Courts    of Justice security office, but the security office said there was no record of it.    Burglary of Sally Noel’s apartment:    The London apartment of outspoken Lloyd’s opponent Sally Noel was    burglarized Dec. 6, 1996. A video recorder, a tape recorder and a few pieces of    jewelry were stolen, but more valuable pieces of jewelry were left behind, she said.    What struck her as odder: file cabinets were ransacked and papers strewn    everywhere. None were missing, however. Noel believes that was because she    kept her Lloyd’s paperwork elsewhere. The documents in the apartment belonged    to a friend who had just moved in with her.    An officer at the Kensington police station confirmed that the burglary was    reported, but said he was not allowed to provide any more information over the    phone.    Burglary of Las Vegas man’s home:    A box of documents relating to Lloyd’s litigation was stolen from a cabinet in the    garage of an elderly Las Vegas man in later summer 1996. The man’s daughter    asked that he not be identified because of his age and fragile condition and the    family’s fear of possible retaliation. Nothing except the documents was taken, she    said.    Tools, camping and fishing gear, appliances, a golf cart with the keys in it and a    Lincoln Continental were left behind.    The victim’s daughter said the crime was not reported to police. She said her    family didn’t know when it actually

… read more »

Response:

The Guardian Newspaper – Tuesday, January 11, 2000 Some time over the millennium holiday someone hacked into the Lloyd’s of London website, which had to be closed down for a few hours.  That was embarrassing.  Far worse, however, may be to come for Lloyd’s over the next few months. Although Lloyd’s lawyers have five times asked for and received postponements, by the end of February an action called Jaffray v Lloyd’s will either come to court, or be settled by Lloyd’s on more or less humiliating terms.  It would not be appropriate to go into the claims and counter-claims in any detail.  It is enough to say that, if Lloyd’s is unsuccessful, the consequences would be catastrophic for the 300-year-old insurance market.  Win, lose or settle, the plaintiffs have triggered an historic crisis not just for Lloyd’s but also quite possibly for the reputation of the City of London as a whole. Ever since the 1980’s a series of groups of Names – individual investors in the market who have made heavy losses and blame the market professionals they had entrusted with managing their underwriting activities – have sued either their agents or Lloyd’s.  Always in the past, however, they sued for negligence: 17,000 of them in the past few years, leading to many settlements.  What is new about the Jaffray action is that for the first time a group of Names are suing for fraud. The background is asbestos. The essence of the complaint is that Lloyd’s insiders knew for years that huge claims arising out of damage to life, health and property from asbestos were hanging over the market. They say that Lloyd’s failed to set aside adequate reserves to meet this avalanche of claims and, more important, failed to tell members of the insurance market, let alone the general public, about impending losses on a scale that could bankrupt many individual Names, and indeed have done just that. Lloyd’s have filed two defences: that the knowledge of the underwriters who may have been aware of the approaching crisis was not the knowledge of Lloyd’s as an institution, and that Lloyd’s relied on figures supplied by others. Without trying to anticipate the result of Jaffray, it is easy to see that these lines of defence may be fragile.  Lloyd’s has always proudly made a point of the fact that its Committee and Council benefited from the rich knowledge and expertise of active working underwriters. The Lloyd’s market works in a highly complex way to spread risks as widely as possible. For example, it uses a complicated accounting system in which accounts are held open for three years.  That was enough for marine insurance a hundred years ago; it is hopelessly inadequate for "long tail" risks like those that arise from reinsuring American insurance companies against asbestosis claims that may not be reported for years or even decades. The whole fortunes "down to the last collar stud" of non-working Names were at risk under the Lloyd’s principle of unlimited liability. There were intimations of massive losses as early as the 1960’s. By 1980 the Committee of Lloyd’s knew that a disaster was on the way.  It set up a working party to help decide how large the claims would grow.  US attorneys appointed by Lloyd’s wrote reports about how much should be reserved to meet claims filed to date.  Syndicates then had to add large multiples for the claims that would inevitably arrive but had not been notified. Auditors Neville Russell warned Lloyd’s of the scale of the problem in February 1982.  The committee drafted a reply sent by the deputy-chairman, Murray Lawrence, on March 17 that year.  It can easily be calculated that the loss even then would come to $3bn. But the committee did nothing.  When external members were brought into the new council after parliament passed new legislation regulating Lloyd’s, they were not told about the scale of the problem.  External members never knew the risk they were running. "So what?" many would ask.  So a few thousand very rich people, some of them landed gentry with inherited estates, hoped to make a second income on their money without risking the first. Tough. There is, however, more to it than that.  Lloyd’s is a parable of several of the things that have gone wrong in British life over the last century. The most obvious point, and it has been made over and over again, i s that the Lloyd’s debacle is about class privilege.  No doubt public schoolboys were more trusted at Lloyd’s than state school boys.  Until recently, graduates were few and far between. Skills were learned by sitting next to old Tim, and too often among the skills old Tim imparted were cronyism, long lunches, tax avoidance and skimming off the Names’s money into offshore reinsurance companies secretly owned by old Tim and his mates. No doubt, too, apart from the genuine services it provided for the international insurance market and the shipping industry, Lloyd’s was also a machine for protecting the fortunes of some very rich people. It may be a lot less true than it was, but it is still too true. Less obvious, Lloyd’s was an example of how heavily dependent many British businessmen had become on a country they hardly understood.  Fatally, Lloyd’s failed to understand, not only that asbestos fibre is lethal, and that the illness may not show for 20 years, but also that the US courts’ attitude to environmental danger and to the value of individual lives had changed, so that damages in tort litigation had gone through the roof. Most fatal of all, though, was the instinct for secrecy. Again, Lloyd’s did try to be more open in the 1990’s, but too little, and far too late.  By then, too many things that could not be admitted were going on – as past litigation has revealed.  Transparency was not an option. No doubt those responsible for running Lloyd’s honestly believed they were acting in the best interests, not just of Lloyd’s but of the City and of Britain itself.  Indeed, in a confused sort of way they came close to identifying themselves with the country. By trying to hang on to an Edwardian dream of national greatness, they ended up not only losing their friends an awful lot of money, but also bringing the country and its institutions into considerable disrepute.  Anyone who doubts that might take a look at an American website called "Lliars of London", now renamed "The Truth about Lloyd’s".  This presents a harshly unfriendly view, not only of Lloyd’s, but also of British institutions generally. Its contributors are particularly cross that Lloyd’s insists that its Names must agree to litigate in Britain.  What US citizens find in English courts, it says, for example, is that "they have been reduced to being British colonial subjects again". The British courts, these American litigants baldly state, "are there to carry out the will of the establishment, protecting the interests of the British social and financial oligarchy". Whether or not you buy that, Lloyd’s is on the rocks. The number of individual Names has fallen from over 32,000 to under 4,000. Corporate capital now supplies more than 70% of the market’s financial capacity.  At best, Lloyd’s will soon be utterly changed.  At worst, it is quite possible that it will simply disappear, or become one of those vestigial institutions whose "greatness" we go on about for decades after they have ceased to be great by any objective standard. The Lloyd’s debacle simply could not have happened if business partners, investors, clients, the media, regulators, journalists and the general public had been allowed to know more, and to know it in good time.  A society that insists on blundering around in the dark is always going to stub its toes on the sharp corners of the bedroom furniture. Godfrey Hodgson is the author of Lloyd’s of London: a Reputation at Risk, published in 1984 Godfrey Hodgson A scandal-hit British institution faces fresh litigation that could well destroy it. Lloyd’s on the rocks – A fatal instinct for secrecy is bringing the country into disrepute The Guardian Newspaper – Tuesday, January 11, 2000 Before you buy.

Response:

John Pascoe has gone public in  Daily Telegraph, of January 22nd. page 31. Headlined under  "EC STARTS INQUIRY INTO RUNNING OF LLOYD’S MARKET", it reports that "The EC has launched an investigation into the British Government’s alleged failure to oversee the Lloyd’s insurance market, the first step in a process that could ultimately lead to legal action to bolster the claims of injured Names in civil disputes.  Spokesman for Fritz Bolkenstein explained "They (the British Government) have got until the end of the month.  If we are not satisfied with the response we will have to think in terms of formal infringement procedures, and if that doesn’t do it, we’ll go to court." The EC is examining whether the UK authorities are complying with the requirements of the 1973 insurance directive, incorporated into British law in the 1982 Insurance Act, that requires a proper audit to determine whether insurers have sufficient reserves to cover claims. Well, we know that they didn’t and they hadn’t ! Before you buy.

Response:

Question:

Visit my web at http://isonguyo.home.pipeline.com/ and click on non-profit tip.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’m looking for a reporting method for non-profits. My synagogue uses a p&l type format, but this doesn’t really show the correct information. After the first couple of months in the year, everything looks like a loss. If anyone out there does non-profit accounting I’d like to talk about these issues, balance sheets etc.

Response:

I’m looking for a reporting method for non-profits. My synagogue uses a p&l type format, but this doesn’t really show the correct information. After the first couple of months in the year, everything looks like a loss. If anyone out there does non-profit accounting I’d like to talk about these issues, balance sheets etc.

Response:

Question:

As I stated in my previous post, it’s not the lab techs, but those who administer the lab who need to answer to this.  Sevenoaks is a government run forensics lab.  As such, those who run the lab are government officials, not technicians.    Market forces are becoming increasingly important in forensic science.[....]

I’m sure wiser words were never typed, but I didn’t write any of what you attributed to me above. jon.

Response:

As I stated in my previous post, it’s not the lab techs, but those who administer the lab who need to answer to this.  Sevenoaks is a government run forensics lab.  As such, those who run the lab are government officials, not technicians.

        Market forces are becoming increasingly important in forensic science. The importation of american style drug-testing into the UK along with the National DNA database is all parts of a ‘hi-tech with bells and whistles’ campaign to make the government look good on fighting crime, and simultaneously make healthy profits for some drug pushers aka pharmaceutical companies.         There is much more money in mass forensic science than in protecting a few innnocent individuals when bombs go off. We can be thankful for those police and security services who are able to disarm or anticipate bombs by the normal intelligence methods of paying informers, but there is a huge rivalry for getting budgets because of the workings of capitalism and the corporate elites who are the real rulers of our country.         It is hardly surprising that government laboratories make mistakes. As ‘civil service’ it is pretty sure that all the workers are afraid of losing their jobs to privatisation. The only workers left will be accountants who go and pay the subcontractors who do the tests.         The real cutting edge of forensic science is in drug testing for the military, and people in jail. That is where the big bucks are. It would be nice if the irish could be persuaded to follow the lead of the UK in this. It is much better if forensic science can also be applied where there is no crime at all in order to make it a profitable industry.         In the case of explosives testing the bulk commodity is airline and other transportation security checks. After the Lockerbie bomb an enormous amount of money was spent on luggage screening.         The airlines are powerful organisations in their own right, and have enough money and expertise to fight corporate interests, and demand a viable technology that works, at a reasonable price. They are also able to demand other methods, which maybe cheaper and just as effective: personal luggage reconciliation. The passenger takes their own baggage into the plane.         When the level of violence gets too high, forensic science cannot contribute anything at all to the solution of the problem. Other methods need to be tried.                                 tony goddard Tony Goddard (London & Belfast) http://www.webstrand.org/tony/tony.htm

Response:

As I stated in my previous post, it’s not the lab techs, but those who administer the lab who need to answer to this.  Sevenoaks is a government run forensics lab.  As such, those who run the lab are government officials, not technicians. I asked for evidence, and all I get is supposition.  Your reasoning could apply equally to any such mishap.  

After so many high profile ‘miscarrages of justice’ (read police frame ups) of Irish people in England it would be naive in the extreme to imagine that the ‘high ups’ in the British government either did not know about this latest scandel _or_ had given clear indications that they did not want to know.  No dougbt though whatever inquiry occurs will scap-goat some technican for 25 years of British government policy and no dougbt many naive people in Britian will continue to belive in the ‘few rotton apples’ theory.  Lets not forget its not just the Irish the British state has been framing but just about anyone in Britain who dares to fight back also. Andrew Andrew For a pretty complete introduction to anarchism check out <a href= "http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419"  All about anarchism </a Articles on authoritarian socialism and the <A  href= "http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/leftindx.html" Russian revolution </a 1921 – 1996 Remember revolutionary Kronstadt <A  href= "http://www.cs.utah.edu/~galt/kronstadt.html"  Kronstadt </a

Response:

;No, Jon.  The problem does not lie with the lab technicians here.  This ;fish is rotting from the head down and as much as the government would ;like to bury it, it won’t stop reeking to high heaven until they find out ;truth of the matter.

Congrats Lyn. Very well put. The problem is that they *will* bury it along with all the other blatant past examples of HMG misconduct in recent years. Who is to stop them, especially with someone like Jon fighting their corner? Take my advice, conform and live on your knees, it is much easier, especially on s.c.b. I see from a recent survey that 57%  of "surfers" are aged 31 – 50, 59% earn more than 25k and 29% earn more than 40k (compared with 7% of the general population). 23% are professionals (against 10% of the population) and 10% are company directors (against 2%). So what can you expect?  BTW the gender distribution is 69% male 31% female. We on s.c.b love the establishment and are among its most devoted acolytes. It is only the losers who protest and kick up a fuss because the underclasses can’t hack it in a real, competitive, capitalist, free market economy like your average "surfer". The Irish should knuckle down and get well paid jobs like the rest of us, or fuck of somewhere else and opine endlessly from a safe and cosy distance like Jon, instead of carping on all the time about injustice in the UK. Doug. — London, England, UK, EU.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As I stated in my previous post, it’s not the lab techs, but those who administer the lab who need to answer to this.  Sevenoaks is a government run forensics lab.  As such, those who run the lab are government officials, not technicians. I asked for evidence, and all I get is supposition.  Your reasoning could apply equally to any such mishap.   After so many high profile ‘miscarrages of justice’ (read police frame ups) of Irish people in England it would be naive in the extreme to imagine that the ‘high ups’ in the British government either did not know about this latest scandel _or_ had given clear indications that they did not want to know.  No dougbt though whatever inquiry occurs will scap-goat some technican for 25 years of British government policy and no dougbt many naive people in Britian will continue to belive in the ‘few rotton apples’ theory.  Lets not forget its not just the Irish the British state has been framing but just about anyone in Britain who dares to fight back also.

So you also want to indulge in elaborate supposition instead of evidence. Let’s see where *your* reasoning leads.    People have been framed in the US, and minorities have been persecuted.   So we can confidently assume that every screw-up in a US lab involves an elaborate high-level cover up in the US Administration. Brilliant. jon.

Response:

: You are being very confused here, either deliberately or in error. Sorry, Jon.  I’ll try to outline it so you can understand. As I stated in my previous post, it’s not the lab techs, but those who administer the lab who need to answer to this.  Sevenoaks is a government run forensics lab.  As such, those who run the lab are government officials, not technicians.  Any forensics lab would have a QC program in which known standards and blanks should have been run on the contaminated centrifuge equipment, but it doesn’t stop there.  The lab would also have a quality assurance (QA) program in place as well- particularly since the lawyers of those convicted have been rebuked by the courts for the mere suggestion that there could have been a lab error which showed a false positive for the presence of explosives.  Please see the case of the Maguire family.  They were convicted soley on the basis of forensics showing explosives on their clothing, hands and household items.  We know now that evidence was either planted, falsified, or in error.  Annie Maguire and her children were not guilty in the bombings, but they were convicted and confined on the basis of the lab evidence. The judges cited impeccable lab results in denying the aquittals based on documentation that QA was in tact at the government forensic labs.  Yet any QA program includes independent auditing of lab practices and QC documentation.  If that ‘independent’ review and the documentation is in place for the time involved during the use of the contaminated centrifuge at the Sevenoaks, then clearly somebody at a fairly high up administrative level is not being honest about the incident. No, Jon.  The problem does not lie with the lab technicians here.  This fish is rotting from the head down and as much as the government would like to bury it, it won’t stop reeking to high heaven until they find out truth of the matter. Lynette

Response:

You are being very confused here, either deliberately or in error. The posting I replied to talked about the "authorities" and I really doubt if Britain is run by lab assistants.    It may well be that the lab assistants who ran this equipment were incompetent, or even that they convered up their error, but it’s misleading to say that lab assistants are the "they" in question. jon.

jon What a bloody cop out.  Ever hear of the expression the buck stops here.  The Crown prosecutors, the police and other agencies involved in the cover up including the not so high and mighty Lords of the Crown are as culpable and guilty as the lab assistant.  One does NOT take cases to court without evidence that is supposedly investigated, supported by other evidence, even circumstantial and guaranteed to be trustworthy.  Thankfully we are not talking about death sentences here, otherwise we wouldn’t exactly have much to celebrate now would we?  These corrupt, morally bankrupt law enforcement officials from the lab assistants to the judges have seen to it that many (debate the number…or just wait for the appellate rulings from Oh bejaysus the same corrupt Lords of the Crown) innocent people have been imprisoned for crimes they never commited.  The excuse that so many seem to be parrotting right now "that we stopped them from carrying out their dirty deeds" is sickening.  In a democracy one is considered innocent until proven guilty, not guilty anyway we can make it stick.  For that reason we don’t lock up all males because they could possibly commit rape, or child molestation/abuse. Safety checks, double checks, blind runs are SOP (standard operating procedures) for any organization that involves machinary of any kind….that is why the navy, the army etc etc run tests on their equipment regularly in anticipation of readiness.  These checks and balances are *supposed* to be for everyone’s benefit so that "accidents" i.e. false imprisonment, illegal convictions and falsely obtained "confessions" don’t get through to imprison innocent people. Like the plastic coverings on paying cards leaving "evidence" of bomb making, or beaten "confessions", altered police logs, and "shoot to kill" policies.  The British judicial system is a farce, that isn’t justice and old Bailey needs a make-over…like yeah the Balcombe Street gang really did plant the bombs and not poor Guiseppe and his family and relatives.   Cop on and start realising that what is being done in the Crown’s name is criminal and those that falsely obtained convictions should themselves be imprisoned…preferrably in the Republic…or better yet in the H Blocks with their falsely imprisoned victims. Cait

Response:

A stupid question, probably, but what are "the Lords of the Crown" ? PeterG in Toulouse

Response:

: A stupid question, probably, but what are "the Lords of the Crown" ? I kinda wondered about that – but I was also wondering how much of this story has been stretched and pounded to make it the "outrage" it is being painted.  Get many messages from test servers, by the way?  

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are being very confused here, either deliberately or in error. The posting I replied to talked about the "authorities" and I really doubt if Britain is run by lab assistants.    It may well be that the lab assistants who ran this equipment were incompetent, or even that they convered up their error, but it’s misleading to say that lab assistants are the "they" in question. jon. jon What a bloody cop out.  Ever hear of the expression the buck stops here.  The Crown prosecutors, the police and other agencies involved in the cover up including the not so high and mighty Lords of the Crown are as culpable and guilty as the lab assistant.

Hold it.   What cover up?    Do you have evidence at all that when the State reported the recent problems with centrifuge contamination, a cover-up was in progress? Please produce your evidence or stop making accusations. jon.

Response:

: You are being very confused here, either deliberately or in error. Sorry, Jon.  I’ll try to outline it so you can understand. As I stated in my previous post, it’s not the lab techs, but those who administer the lab who need to answer to this.  Sevenoaks is a government run forensics lab.  As such, those who run the lab are government officials, not technicians.  Any forensics lab would have a QC program in which known standards and blanks should have been run on the contaminated centrifuge equipment, but it doesn’t stop there.  The lab would also have a quality assurance (QA) program in place as well- [etc, etc...]

It is very kind of you to explain it so that someone as stupid as I can understand it, but you seem to have forgotten one thing. I asked for evidence, and all I get is supposition.  Your reasoning could apply equally to any such mishap.   You could reason this way and conclude that someone "high up" must have concealed the bug that brought down the Ariane-5 the other day. After all, they have careful and independent testing, too, and they were proclaiming high reliability as well.   And yet:                     ***   BOOM   *** Where is your evidence?    You know, evidence is what we are talking about. jon.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : What would you recommend?   Keeping the results of the new test secret? That’s precisely what they seem to have done- sat on the information until they could no longer get away with it.  Either because someone in the lab or higher up in the chain of command threatened to go public on their own about it. There has been plenty of opportunity to identify a contamination problem. At best the Crown prosecuters are criminally negligent.  At worse they covered up and ignored evidence indicating that the equipment at Sevenoaks was contaminated. I work in a lab at a nuclear power plant.  *Any* analysis that we do is done in conjunction with quality control checks.  These checks are mostly done on a daily basis.  We run them under the assumption that errors in our analyses will have serious implications on the plant’s capacity to run or on public safety.

You are being very confused here, either deliberately or in error. The posting I replied to talked about the "authorities" and I really doubt if Britain is run by lab assistants.    It may well be that the lab assistants who ran this equipment were incompetent, or even that they convered up their error, but it’s misleading to say that lab assistants are the "they" in question. jon.

Response:

: What would you recommend?   Keeping the results of the new test secret? That’s precisely what they seem to have done- sat on the information until they could no longer get away with it.  Either because someone in the lab or higher up in the chain of command threatened to go public on their own about it. There has been plenty of opportunity to identify a contamination problem. At best the Crown prosecuters are criminally negligent.  At worse they covered up and ignored evidence indicating that the equipment at Sevenoaks was contaminated. I work in a lab at a nuclear power plant.  *Any* analysis that we do is done in conjunction with quality control checks.  These checks are mostly done on a daily basis.  We run them under the assumption that errors in our analyses will have serious implications on the plant’s capacity to run or on public safety. I must ask you, don’t the people who administer the forensics lab at Sevenoaks even acknowledge that the analyses they do have serious consequences one, to the public safety and two, to the lives of those who have been wrongly convicted and implicated?  Don’t you think running an occasional QC or a blank on the contaminated equipment might have been in order? It’s very suspicious to me that in seven years there was never a blank run on the carrier in the centrifuge that was contaminated. Lynette

Response:

Why are you sending this bollocks to a newsgroup that is populated by people quite able to read Newspapers for themselves. It is not at all in keeping with the character of the group. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn’t Fit INTELLIGENCE                                     ISSN 1245-2122 N. 38 New Series, 27 May 1996 Publishing since 1980 Editor Olivier Schmidt web http://www.blythe.org/Intelligence tel/fax 33 1 40 51 85 19; post ADI, 16 rue des Ecoles, 75005 Paris, France) British, Irish "Justice" Systems — Embarrassing Lapses Intelligence, N. 38, 27 May 1996, p. 3 ANOTHER BRITISH FORENSIC TECHNOLOGY ERROR FAVORS IRA British forensic technology is among the best in the world but seems to be applied in such a manner as to discredit authorities engaged in the fight against the IRA The famous Birmingham Six were released after a new forensic technique showed that police officers had rewritten their original notes to produce evidence for conviction.  On 14 May, Home Secretary, Michael Howard, in reply to a written question in the House of Commons, recognized that the centrifuge, used to analyze the chemical composition of minute samples taken from suspects’ skin, hair, clothes, furniture and living quarters, was contaminated with 30 micrograms of RDX, one of the main chemical components of the plastic explosive Semtex. The ultra-centrifuge belongs to the Ministry of Defence’s Forensic Explosives Laboratory at Fort Halstead in Kent and had been used for seven years without being verified, despite routine weekly contamination checks of the laboratory room.  Only two months ago a rubber pad was apparently replaced after an accident and, during the resulting test, the machine was found to be contaminated.  The ultra-centrifuge has been used in 500 court cases since 1989 and heavy reliance on its results could put into question a dozen sentences involving 38 persons. Sinn Fein has advised all IRA prisoners indicted in Britain on explosive charges to appeal their convictions.  It is now believed the centrifuge was contaminated before it arrived in the Fort Halstead laboratory.  After the accidental spill of a strong, clean solvent from a test tube on the rubber pad at the bottom of the test-tube holder in the centrifuge, tests were run and found that the rubber pad contained traces of RDX, perhaps since its delivery to Fort Halstead.                                 * Intelligence, N. 38, 27 May 1996, p. 39 IRELAND – Extradition Embarrassment.  Business in the Irish Parliament — the Dail — was suspended twice on 22 May after Prime Minister, John Bruton, confirmed that a mistake in Dublin, not London, led to failure to extradite IRA suspect, Anthony Duncan, to Britain last month (INT, N. 36/16).  It has now emerged that the original extradition warrant, sent to Dublin by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), was mistakenly shredded while photocopies were being made for the Garda.  Mr. Bruton offered no explanation as to how this happened (presumably at the Department of Justice) or who authorized a misleading statement claiming the extradition request was rejected because the CPS failed to verify a signature on one of the British documents.  The Irish police now want London to send original extradition documentation on colored paper to distinguish it from photocopies.  According to a Garda spokesperson, it’s very hard "to make out the difference between an original and a good photocopy".  In Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist leader, Dr. Ian Paisley, never one to miss an opportunity under such circumstances, said Dublin should offer a public apology to the CPS.                                      * CHOICE BITS: Intelligence, N. 38, 27 May 1996, p. 7 RECONVERSION – Military to Civilian Simulation.  The British Defence Research Agency Fort Halstead branch, the Centre for Defence Analysis, developed the Close Action Environment (CAEN) to simulate, by computer, urban war zones complete with trees, hedges, roads, fences and buildings. The Centre subsequently "reconverted" CAEN for the Surrey Police in Guildford for use in training police officers in handling angry crowds (INT, N. 22/7).  This "reconversion" was considered a great success, and perhaps the U.S. Army learned from that when it decided to convert military simulation technology to civilian use.   On 23 August 1995, the Army’s Project Plowshares simulation system "ran" a Category 3 hurricane over Orlando, Florida, to help civilian rescuers improve their disaster response.  During the simulation, the fire department "forgot" to tell the sheriff’s office that a chlorine gas railroad tanker had derailed and leaked.  The leak "disabled the police station", or more likely wiped it out.  The authorities have supposedly learned from the exercise.                                 * Intelligence, N. 38, 27 May 1996, p. 38 GREAT BRITAIN: REANALYZING CRIMINAL HISTORY The biggest murder hunt in British legal history began on 20 May when police reopened the files on the deaths and disappearances of up to 220 women.  The police believe some of the murders — solved and unsolved — could be the work of five serial killers who have gone undetected since 1985.   The hunt, codenamed Enigma, will be carried out by an "elite team of homicide detectives" headed by the Assistant Chief Constable of Essex, Jim Dickenson, and was proposed following the investigation into the killing of French student, Celine Figard, last December.  It will be conducted along the guidelines, laid down in a confidential handbook recently issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to senior Criminal Investigation Division (CID) officers in England and Wales, and will involve the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and the recently-established Crime Faculty, which can provide "offender profiling" (INT, N. 35/4). [NOTE: Since the investigation of Figard's disappearance has included the British-occupied north of Ireland, "Enigma" would make a great cover for all manner of enhanced electronic information-gathering and covert operations there. -- NY Transfer]                                 * Intelligence, N. 38, 27 May 1996, p. 37 LIMPING HOME FROM THE WAR GAMES The Labour Party is to question the Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo, and is seeking an inquiry into the American Port Authority decision to impound a 20,000-ton Ukrainian roll-on, roll-off ferry, the "Kapitan Mezentsev", chartered by the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) to carry supplies for British forces taking part in NATO’s Purple Star exercise, the largest joint U.S./British operation since the D-Day Normandy landing in 1944.  The Americans declared the Ukrainian vessel unsafe after five major faults were found on inspection, including dilapidated fire-fighting equipment, cracks in fiberglass lifeboat hulls and inoperable watertight doors. The MoD confirmed that the ship had been hired for "a short term charter" but claimed it had been surveyed for the Royal Navy by a marine supervisor who found all the certificates and documentation in order "and no serious defects".  Dr. David Clark, shadow defence spokesman, has suggested the MoD explanation is "untrue" — that is, a lie — since for a ship to be impounded "it has to be basically unseaworthy".  He also argued that Britain’s defense budget had been cut to such an extent that the MoD has to go "to the bottom of the market" to charter vessels which put the lives of servicemen at risk. Some Tory backbenchers have also questioned the number of casualties suffered by British forces during Purple Star, in particular the 16 May night jump over Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  Hyped by military strategists as the biggest Allied air drop since operation Market Garden over the Netherlands during World War II, the exercise injured 41 British paratroopers as compared to 38 U.S. casualties.  Although this was fewer than the four percent casualties the planners had expected, the Tories are annoyed by reports that the landing ground for the U.S. Airborne was "flat terrain" while the British Paras were allocated an "uneven, shrub-covered area". A total of 38,200 U.S. and 15,600 British servicemen took part in Purple Star which ended on 19 May.  The U.S. Air Force provided 171 aircraft and the RAF 56, the U.S. Navy 26 ships and the Royal Navy 27, including "HMS Fearless".  The latter is the Royal Navy’s only control and communications command ship for amphibious operations, and managed to pass inspection after reports that NATO’s war games could be cancelled when workers discovered that large parts of the ship’s bulkhead had been eaten away by rust (INT, N. 30/43).                                 * Copyright ADI 1996, reproduction in any form forbidden without explicit authorization from the ADI. A one year subscription (23 issues) is US $315. or point your browser to: http://www.blythe.org/Intelligence/ Also in this Issue: N. 38 New Series, 27 May 1996 FRONTPAGE BELGIUM – LOG OF AN INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT SHIPWRECK p.1 TECHNOLOGY & TECHNIQUES NEW TECHNIQUES ON BOTH SIDES OF DRUG BATTLE p.2 ANOTHER BRITISH FORENSIC TECHNOLOGY ERROR FAVORS IRA p.3 BOSNIA BECOMES INTELLIGENCE HIGH-TECH BAZAAR p.4 CURRENCY – Magnetic "Bar-Code" on New $100 Bills. p.5 IMAGERY – CIA "Dumps" Declassified Photos at USGS. p.6 RECONVERSION – Military to Civilian Simulation. p.7 GYPSIES – Open

… read more »

Response:

British forensic technology is among the best in the world but seems to be applied in such a manner as to discredit authorities engaged in the fight against the IRA The famous Birmingham Six were released after a new forensic technique showed that police officers had rewritten their original notes to produce evidence for conviction.

Pardon me?  The state correctly reporting that a new forensic test reveals that police falsified evidence discredits the *authorities*? What would you recommend?   Keeping the results of the new test secret? On 14 May, Home Secretary, Michael Howard, in reply to a written question in the House of Commons, recognized that the centrifuge, used to analyze the chemical composition of minute samples taken from suspects’ skin, hair, clothes, furniture and living quarters, was contaminated with 30 micrograms of RDX, one of the main chemical components of the plastic explosive Semtex.

And he reported it entirely properly, since it casts doubts on previous results obtained with this particular set of equipment. It does not discredit the aurthorities who reported these new results.   It would be if they did *not* report it that they would be discredited.  It might be a secret that they were discredited, but they would still be discredited. There seems to be a superstition among the US Left the reporting a problem that makes a conviction unsafe discredits the justice system that reports it.  It does not. The justice systems to be wary of are those which never report such unsafe convictions. jon.

Response:

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn’t Fit INTELLIGENCE                                     ISSN 1245-2122 N. 38 New Series, 27 May 1996 Publishing since 1980 Editor Olivier Schmidt web http://www.blythe.org/Intelligence tel/fax 33 1 40 51 85 19; post ADI, 16 rue des Ecoles, 75005 Paris, France) British, Irish "Justice" Systems — Embarrassing Lapses Intelligence, N. 38, 27 May 1996, p. 3 ANOTHER BRITISH FORENSIC TECHNOLOGY ERROR FAVORS IRA British forensic technology is among the best in the world but seems to be applied in such a manner as to discredit authorities engaged in the fight against the IRA The famous Birmingham Six were released after a new forensic technique showed that police officers had rewritten their original notes to produce evidence for conviction.  On 14 May, Home Secretary, Michael Howard, in reply to a written question in the House of Commons, recognized that the centrifuge, used to analyze the chemical composition of minute samples taken from suspects’ skin, hair, clothes, furniture and living quarters, was contaminated with 30 micrograms of RDX, one of the main chemical components of the plastic explosive Semtex. The ultra-centrifuge belongs to the Ministry of Defence’s Forensic Explosives Laboratory at Fort Halstead in Kent and had been used for seven years without being verified, despite routine weekly contamination checks of the laboratory room.  Only two months ago a rubber pad was apparently replaced after an accident and, during the resulting test, the machine was found to be contaminated.  The ultra-centrifuge has been used in 500 court cases since 1989 and heavy reliance on its results could put into question a dozen sentences involving 38 persons. Sinn Fein has advised all IRA prisoners indicted in Britain on explosive charges to appeal their convictions.  It is now believed the centrifuge was contaminated before it arrived in the Fort Halstead laboratory.  After the accidental spill of a strong, clean solvent from a test tube on the rubber pad at the bottom of the test-tube holder in the centrifuge, tests were run and found that the rubber pad contained traces of RDX, perhaps since its delivery to Fort Halstead.                                 * Intelligence, N. 38, 27 May 1996, p. 39 IRELAND – Extradition Embarrassment.  Business in the Irish Parliament — the Dail — was suspended twice on 22 May after Prime Minister, John Bruton, confirmed that a mistake in Dublin, not London, led to failure to extradite IRA suspect, Anthony Duncan, to Britain last month (INT, N. 36/16).  It has now emerged that the original extradition warrant, sent to Dublin by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), was mistakenly shredded while photocopies were being made for the Garda.  Mr. Bruton offered no explanation as to how this happened (presumably at the Department of Justice) or who authorized a misleading statement claiming the extradition request was rejected because the CPS failed to verify a signature on one of the British documents.  The Irish police now want London to send original extradition documentation on colored paper to distinguish it from photocopies.  According to a Garda spokesperson, it’s very hard "to make out the difference between an original and a good photocopy".  In Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist leader, Dr. Ian Paisley, never one to miss an opportunity under such circumstances, said Dublin should offer a public apology to the CPS.                                      * CHOICE BITS: Intelligence, N. 38, 27 May 1996, p. 7 RECONVERSION – Military to Civilian Simulation.  The British Defence Research Agency Fort Halstead branch, the Centre for Defence Analysis, developed the Close Action Environment (CAEN) to simulate, by computer, urban war zones complete with trees, hedges, roads, fences and buildings. The Centre subsequently "reconverted" CAEN for the Surrey Police in Guildford for use in training police officers in handling angry crowds (INT, N. 22/7).  This "reconversion" was considered a great success, and perhaps the U.S. Army learned from that when it decided to convert military simulation technology to civilian use.   On 23 August 1995, the Army’s Project Plowshares simulation system "ran" a Category 3 hurricane over Orlando, Florida, to help civilian rescuers improve their disaster response.  During the simulation, the fire department "forgot" to tell the sheriff’s office that a chlorine gas railroad tanker had derailed and leaked.  The leak "disabled the police station", or more likely wiped it out.  The authorities have supposedly learned from the exercise.                                 * Intelligence, N. 38, 27 May 1996, p. 38 GREAT BRITAIN: REANALYZING CRIMINAL HISTORY The biggest murder hunt in British legal history began on 20 May when police reopened the files on the deaths and disappearances of up to 220 women.  The police believe some of the murders — solved and unsolved — could be the work of five serial killers who have gone undetected since 1985.   The hunt, codenamed Enigma, will be carried out by an "elite team of homicide detectives" headed by the Assistant Chief Constable of Essex, Jim Dickenson, and was proposed following the investigation into the killing of French student, Celine Figard, last December.  It will be conducted along the guidelines, laid down in a confidential handbook recently issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to senior Criminal Investigation Division (CID) officers in England and Wales, and will involve the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and the recently-established Crime Faculty, which can provide "offender profiling" (INT, N. 35/4). [NOTE: Since the investigation of Figard's disappearance has included the British-occupied north of Ireland, "Enigma" would make a great cover for all manner of enhanced electronic information-gathering and covert operations there. -- NY Transfer]                                 * Intelligence, N. 38, 27 May 1996, p. 37 LIMPING HOME FROM THE WAR GAMES The Labour Party is to question the Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo, and is seeking an inquiry into the American Port Authority decision to impound a 20,000-ton Ukrainian roll-on, roll-off ferry, the "Kapitan Mezentsev", chartered by the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) to carry supplies for British forces taking part in NATO’s Purple Star exercise, the largest joint U.S./British operation since the D-Day Normandy landing in 1944.  The Americans declared the Ukrainian vessel unsafe after five major faults were found on inspection, including dilapidated fire-fighting equipment, cracks in fiberglass lifeboat hulls and inoperable watertight doors. The MoD confirmed that the ship had been hired for "a short term charter" but claimed it had been surveyed for the Royal Navy by a marine supervisor who found all the certificates and documentation in order "and no serious defects".  Dr. David Clark, shadow defence spokesman, has suggested the MoD explanation is "untrue" — that is, a lie — since for a ship to be impounded "it has to be basically unseaworthy".  He also argued that Britain’s defense budget had been cut to such an extent that the MoD has to go "to the bottom of the market" to charter vessels which put the lives of servicemen at risk. Some Tory backbenchers have also questioned the number of casualties suffered by British forces during Purple Star, in particular the 16 May night jump over Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  Hyped by military strategists as the biggest Allied air drop since operation Market Garden over the Netherlands during World War II, the exercise injured 41 British paratroopers as compared to 38 U.S. casualties.  Although this was fewer than the four percent casualties the planners had expected, the Tories are annoyed by reports that the landing ground for the U.S. Airborne was "flat terrain" while the British Paras were allocated an "uneven, shrub-covered area". A total of 38,200 U.S. and 15,600 British servicemen took part in Purple Star which ended on 19 May.  The U.S. Air Force provided 171 aircraft and the RAF 56, the U.S. Navy 26 ships and the Royal Navy 27, including "HMS Fearless".  The latter is the Royal Navy’s only control and communications command ship for amphibious operations, and managed to pass inspection after reports that NATO’s war games could be cancelled when workers discovered that large parts of the ship’s bulkhead had been eaten away by rust (INT, N. 30/43).                                 * Copyright ADI 1996, reproduction in any form forbidden without explicit authorization from the ADI. A one year subscription (23 issues) is US $315. or point your browser to: http://www.blythe.org/Intelligence/ Also in this Issue: N. 38 New Series, 27 May 1996 FRONTPAGE BELGIUM – LOG OF AN INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT SHIPWRECK p.1 TECHNOLOGY & TECHNIQUES NEW TECHNIQUES ON BOTH SIDES OF DRUG BATTLE p.2 ANOTHER BRITISH FORENSIC TECHNOLOGY ERROR FAVORS IRA p.3 BOSNIA BECOMES INTELLIGENCE HIGH-TECH BAZAAR p.4 CURRENCY – Magnetic "Bar-Code" on New $100 Bills. p.5 IMAGERY – CIA "Dumps" Declassified Photos at USGS. p.6 RECONVERSION – Military to Civilian Simulation. p.7 GYPSIES – Open Source Law Enforcement Study. p.8 RADAR – U.S. Navy Gets Its Own SAR. p.9 COMPUTER CRIME – Another "Honest" Survey. p.10 STEALTH – "Baby Beluga" Takes a Curtain Call. p.11 INTERNET – Java Just a Little Too Hot. p.12 COMPUTERS – A 50th Birthday for "Baby". p.13 PEOPLE MELVIN A. GOODMAN – U.S.A. p.14 NICOLAS BLAZIANU – FRANCE/SWITZERLAND p.15 LEON GIET – BELGIUM p.16 HASSAN SALAMEH – PALESTINE p.17 U.S.A. – Intelligence Internships. p.18 CANADA/SRI LANKA – Kumaravelu Vignarajah. p.19 GREAT BRITAIN – "Mr. X". p.20 NORTHERN IRELAND – Dessie Mccleary. p.21 FRANCE – Philippe Rondot. p.22 ESTONIA/RUSSIA – Sergei Andreev. p.23 BULGARIA – … read more »

Response:

Question:

Does anyone have information which has been verified by surviving an audit or otherwise about what items can be depreciated vs deducted by professional woodworkers and if depreciated, over what useful life time? To my mind there should be differences between stationary power tool(longer life), portable power tools(shorter life),cutting items like saw blades/ router bits(deduct outright?),supplies like abrasives/adhesives/ fasteners/wood stock(surely deductable outright).Any publications going into this? I am a one man shop with occasional help. Any help very much appreciated.

Response:

Regarding depreciation of tools: You CAN "elect to expense" up to $10,000 of depreciable property in the year it was purchased! That amount may have gone up in the last few years. Some items, like buildings and autos cannot be expensed, and must be depreciated. IRS has pamphlets that tell what IS and what ISN’T depreciable, and for how many years.  Good luck! —        "We may use wood with intelligence only if we understand wood"                         —–Frank Lloyd Wright

Response:

: Does anyone have information which has been verified by : surviving an audit or otherwise about what items can be : depreciated vs deducted by professional woodworkers and if : depreciated, over what useful life time? To my mind there : should be differences between stationary power tool(longer life), : portable power tools(shorter life),cutting items like saw blades/ : router bits(deduct outright?),supplies like abrasives/adhesives/ : fasteners/wood stock(surely deductable outright).Any publications : going into this? I am a one man shop with occasional help. Any help : very much appreciated. — My Schedule C sole proprietorship (my wife’s actually) has been audited twice.  In both cases, no additional tax was assessed, all items on the form were accepted.  I depreciate only major items that are used solely by the business (i.e. lathe, knitting machine, not car, house, computer).  Things like hand tools, saw blades, yarn, wood, etc I consider supplies.  Supplies I deduct as business expenses.  since the accounting is cash-basis, I don’t need an inventory (glory hallelujah!). Take this as indicative, not definitive.  Though I work for that organization you all love to hate each April 15th, I’m not a tax law or accounting expert.  (One of the wonderful side benefits of working for IRS is annual audits!  And no, there’s no employee’s discount.  Au contraire!)         (Fax)

Response:

Does anyone have information which has been verified by surviving an audit or otherwise about what items can be depreciated vs deducted by professional woodworkers and if depreciated, over what useful life time? To my mind there should be differences between stationary power tool(longer life), portable power tools(shorter life),cutting items like saw blades/ router bits(deduct outright?),supplies like abrasives/adhesives/ fasteners/wood stock(surely deductible outright).Any publications going into this? I am a one man shop with occasional help. Any help very much appreciated.

Get a copy of IRS publication # 534 "Depreciation" and read up on the section 179 deductions.  I think you can deduct up to $17.5k worth of the items you described per year.  The depreciation form you use for your tax return is #4562, if memory serves.  Basically the section 179 deduction allows you to fully depreciate a large class of non-real property expenses in the year they were incurred. I use these type of deductions to deduct certain expenses on my rental property business that would otherwise be depreciated over several years. For gosh sakes, spend $50 and go talk to a local tax accountant before you do anything with your taxes. Andrew Sexton "Not a tax accountant by any far stretch of my or anyone else’s imagination"

Response:

: Does anyone have information which has been verified by : surviving an audit or otherwise about what items can be : depreciated vs deducted by professional woodworkers and if : depreciated, over what useful life time? To my mind there : should be differences between stationary power tool(longer life), : portable power tools(shorter life),cutting items like saw blades/ : router bits(deduct outright?),supplies like abrasives/adhesives/ : fasteners/wood stock(surely deductable outright).Any publications : going into this? I am a one man shop with occasional help. Any help : very much appreciated. Nacio, I have survived two IRS audits on my business in the last two years.   Mistakes made in the first audit turned out in my favor.  No mistakes found in the second audit. In general, all of your machinery and tools are seven year items.  It does not matter if they are hand tools or stationary tools (what we think is logical has nothing to do with the IRS).  The letter of the law states that all durable goods (ones that last for more than a year) must be depreciated.  The section 179 rule allows you to expense up to $17,500 worth of depreciated items in one year (raised from $10,000 last year). You still must list that property as depreciated and "elect" to expense the amount under section 179. "Listed property" is stuff like computers and cellular phones.  They are depreciated over five years and can also be included in your section 179 expense. That’s the letter of the law.  However, the IRS is really concerned with your reporting and how consistant it is.  For example, all the agents that I have talked to about depreciation vs. expense have told me that I should set a dollar limit ($100, $200, etc.) and expense all items under that limit.  Any item over my limit should be depreciated.  The limit is arbitrary so long as you apply it consistantly.  For example, I know that some large companies set the limit at $1000 just because it would be impossible to keep depreciation records on the zillions of items under $1000. Often, items over the limit are called "capital goods" and those under the limit are called "expensed items". Any consumables, like sandpaper, glue, fasteners, blades, bits, etc. are always expensed under "Cost of goods sold" as "materials and supplies". Hope this helps!  – Ed Bennett                 Inventor of TS-Aligner (Not an advertisement, just a fact)

Response:

Right, but there’s a very important distinction: the 179 deduction cannot be used to create or increase a loss. In other words, the 179 deduction is also limited to a maximum of your profit (if your profit is less than — I believe — 17.5k). For this reason, it’s best not to tool up one year and produce the second. ;D _Deirdre – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Get a copy of IRS publication # 534 "Depreciation" and read up on the section 179 deductions.  I think you can deduct up to $17.5k worth of the items you described per year.  The depreciation form you use for your tax return is #4562, if memory serves.  Basically the section 179 deduction allows you to fully depreciate a large class of non-real property expenses in the year they were incurred.

Response:

: In general, all of your machinery and tools are seven year items.  It does : not matter if they are hand tools or stationary tools (what we think is : logical has nothing to do with the IRS).  The letter of the law states : that all durable goods (ones that last for more than a year) must be : depreciated.  The section 179 rule allows you to expense up to $17,500 : worth of depreciated items in one year (raised from $10,000 last year). : You still must list that property as depreciated and "elect" to expense : the amount under section 179. The above is correct.  I would add that your 179 deduction for any given year is limited to your profit from the business.  It’s a little more complicated than that if you have more than one ’self-employed’ business, or if your spouse is also self-employed.  Or if you also own a Subchapter S corporation.  Also note that many small businesses don’t show a profit, especially in the first few years of operation.  There is no section 179 deduction for any year with a loss. : "Listed property" is stuff like computers and cellular phones.  They are : depreciated over five years and can also be included in your section 179 : expense. Also true, also you’ve left out the big item in listed property, which is cars and trucks.  More specifically, four-wheeled vehicles.  The big issue here is that cars and trucks that are listed property have had their depreciation deductions severely curtailed.  To avoid this you either convert the vehicle to be ‘not suitable for personal use.’  ie, gut the interior, put racks and bins in the back, a rack on top, remove all but the front seats, and put a hideous sign on the side.  Or, alternatively, buy a pickup with a dual rear axle, which gets you away from listed property altogether for that vehicle.  Be aware that the IRS likes to audit the living **it out of vehicles in self-employed situations, esp. if it’s your only transportation. : That’s the letter of the law.  However, the IRS is really concerned with : your reporting and how consistant it is.  For example, all the agents : that I have talked to about depreciation vs. expense have told me that I : should set a dollar limit ($100, $200, etc.) and expense all items under : that limit.  Any item over my limit should be depreciated.  The limit is : arbitrary so long as you apply it consistantly.  For example, I know that : some large companies set the limit at $1000 just because it would be : impossible to keep depreciation records on the zillions of items under $1000. : Often, items over the limit are called "capital goods" and those under : the limit are called "expensed items". Correct.  Highly suggest your limit be at least $250, unless you want to compute depreciation for a 10 page list every year. : Any consumables, like sandpaper, glue, fasteners, blades, bits, etc. are : always expensed under "Cost of goods sold" as "materials and supplies". Unless of course, you decide to buy a 5 year supply of these items.  Your general rule is you can deduct what you used, provided you paid for it or put it on a charge card.  (Assuming you’re on the cash basis.)  If you’re a cash basis taxpayer and you bought *supplies* on account in December and paid for it in January, your deduction is in January.  This same situation applied to inventory (wood) could end up with a different answer, depending on what happened to the wood (that was bought on account) before the end of the year. Always look at your completed tax return and say to yourself, ‘would this make sense to someone else.’ If you have $1000 in revenues, and $10,000 in deductions, you need to be able to explain that if you’re ever asked. And the explanation needs to be suitable to the IRS.  Do not ever represent yourself before the IRS. Don’t anybody take this personal, but most people that are self-employed that do their own tax returns are in water way over their heads, and don’t know it.  Get professional help, and get it before you start the business.  (No, I am not soliciting your business.) Glenn Ponder, CPA and tax geek  

Response:

=Don’t anybody take this personal, but most people that are self-employed =that do their own tax returns are in water way over their heads, and =don’t know it.  Get professional help, and get it before you start the =business.  (No, I am not soliciting your business.) He’s right. And our tax system in inherently unjust.  No honest man should require professional help to comply with the law.

Response: