If you are decorating your home, one of the most important decisions is how you dress you window. You may be struggling to decide whether you should choose blinds, shutters or curtains. This article covers the practical advantages and disadvantages of these three options.
Blinds come in many different materials, such as wood, bamboo, plastic and metal. Blinds are opened and closed by moving them up and down using string. They have slats (also called louvers) that can be opened and closed accordingly to let light and air through. This is operated be using a rod. Blinds will give a beach house feel to your home and are useful if you want air coming through the window, but at the same time want shade. The louvers can be opened and closed to control this.
Shutters are essentially interior blinds that are mounted in a solid frame. The most popular variety are Plantation Shutters. They are not moved up and down like shutters though, but are opened and closed by swinging them in and out. They are thought to have been around since the middle ages, and originate from the Caribbean and South America. There were originally used in these places for buildings with window spaces but no glass. Shutters have most of the advantages of blinds. They are, however, much more durable.
The louvers on shutters are wider than those on blinds. This means there is a better view when looking out through the opened louvers. Shutters can be very long lasting, often lasting a lifetime. They are though, more expansive.
Many feel that curtains give a house more of a homely feel. There is more variety in design with curtains than blinds or shutters. They come in all different colours and patterns. It is much easier to find curtains that fit in with the interior design of your home. Blinds and shutters will fit certain types of homes and interiors, while curtains can be designed to fit any design you choose. The disadvantage is if you redecorate. Although curtains can be made to fit the interior of any room, the same curtain is less likely to fit many different designs. One type of blind is more likely to fit different interiors.
As they are made of cloth, curtains can be washed by removing them and either hand washing them or using a washing machine. Blinds and shutters gather much more dust than curtains so are harder to keep clean. Curtains are longer lasting than blinds as there is less to go wrong.
Curtains keep all of the day light out, as they can be closed completely. Due to the louvers, this is not the case with blinds or shutters. If you have a bright lamp post, for example, right outside your window, it is likely that you will be able to see it even with closed blinds. This is not the case with curtains.
Andrew Marshall ©
Shutters
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
An overview of VoIP
VoIP stands for Voice Over IP. VoIP is the communication of people between IP addresses over the Internet. It was first used in 1995 as an alternative to the telephone. It works by converting a voice signal into a digital signal, and then travelling over the Internet as data. It then converts back into a voice signal through to the person on the other end. There are three main method of using VoIP. The first, and the original way, is to use a microphone plugged into the computer. There others are using a phone adapter or VoIP phone. The phone adapter is a device that converts your telephone signal so that you can use it for VoIP calls, while VoIP phones are similar to telephones, but are purpose built for VoIP calls. As well as calling between two computers, it is possible to phone a regular telephone using VoIP
VoIP can be significantly cheaper than using a regular telephone. As it uses computers and the IP addresses, there is no need to have a telephone line installed. This saves time, but also money. It is much cheaper to run from the provider’s point of view because of this, and this saving is passed onto the customer. The cost savings is the main plus point for VoIP over regular telephones. There are particular savings on long distance calls. Due to the technology used, a long distance call costs the same as a local call. Businesses can save vast amounts by using VoIP.
Due to the fact that VoIP calls have to be converted into a digital signal and then back into a voice signal, there is sometimes a time delay between something being said and it being heard on the other end. Another disadvantage is that the voice quality is not as clear as with a regular telephone. The technology is improving though, and both these downsides are becoming less significant.
The future looks bright for VoIP. More and more people are using it (both individuals and businesses) and this trend looks set to continue in the future. The quality is not the same as a regular telephone, but it is improving all the time, and eventually it is likely to be as good as the telephone. Business is the area where the increase on VoIP usage has been the most dramatic in recent years. Businesses that make a large number of calls are benefitting the most. VoIP has become the preferred choice of phone technology for call centres. At present VoIP is some way off dominating the telecommunication market, but it is increasing fairly dramatically. It is possible that as the technology improves VoIP could take over and cause regular telephone’s to become obsolete.
Andrew Marshall ©
Interoute - Business VoIP
VoIP can be significantly cheaper than using a regular telephone. As it uses computers and the IP addresses, there is no need to have a telephone line installed. This saves time, but also money. It is much cheaper to run from the provider’s point of view because of this, and this saving is passed onto the customer. The cost savings is the main plus point for VoIP over regular telephones. There are particular savings on long distance calls. Due to the technology used, a long distance call costs the same as a local call. Businesses can save vast amounts by using VoIP.
Due to the fact that VoIP calls have to be converted into a digital signal and then back into a voice signal, there is sometimes a time delay between something being said and it being heard on the other end. Another disadvantage is that the voice quality is not as clear as with a regular telephone. The technology is improving though, and both these downsides are becoming less significant.
The future looks bright for VoIP. More and more people are using it (both individuals and businesses) and this trend looks set to continue in the future. The quality is not the same as a regular telephone, but it is improving all the time, and eventually it is likely to be as good as the telephone. Business is the area where the increase on VoIP usage has been the most dramatic in recent years. Businesses that make a large number of calls are benefitting the most. VoIP has become the preferred choice of phone technology for call centres. At present VoIP is some way off dominating the telecommunication market, but it is increasing fairly dramatically. It is possible that as the technology improves VoIP could take over and cause regular telephone’s to become obsolete.
Andrew Marshall ©
Interoute - Business VoIP
Friday, May 22, 2009
Changing Divorce Rates
In recent years divorce rates in the UK have begun to fall. It has been well documented how divorce rates had been increased over the period of many years prior to this. There are many reasons why divorce rates first increased rapidly, and why they are now falling from those highs. There was a particularly large increase in divorces during the 1970’s. From the early 1970’s until the mid-1980’s the number of marriages ending in divorce more than doubled. It then continued to rise steadily for the next ten years. The rate is now beginning to come down.
Originally there were no divorce laws. This meant that divorce was effectively illegal, and something that people just didn’t think about. Once you were married, you were married for life. For many years after divorce law came into place though, it was still rare. For many it was deemed unacceptable, especially within religion. It just wasn’t something you did. People felt like, and were made to feel like, they were a failure if they divorced.
In the 1950’s and 1960’s divorce became more socially acceptable, meaning more people started to get divorced. Among certain people however, it was still not considered right, and it was still not common. As it become more acceptable it inevitably became much more common. Eventually it got to the stage where anyone in an unhappy married would consider divorce, and this obviously led to much high divorce rates.
Over recent times the number of divorces in the UK has started to fall again. One of the reasons for this is that so many people got divorced during the 1970’s and early 1980’s. Many people who would have been unhappy in their marriage for many years prior would not have considered divorce as an option. As it became acceptable though, these people started to consider it, meaning a large number of divorces in a short period. It was almost as though many people were at a stage where divorce was best for them, but felt they had to remain married anyway. They then felt they could divorce and all got divorced around the same time. After they had done, it meant there were less people wanting a divorce.
Another significant reason why less people are getting divorced now is that people are getting married later in life. This means more people are making sure they know it is what they want before committing. Marriage is also less common, and the less marriages there are, the less people there are to get divorced. Many couples are living the life of a married couple, by living together and having children, meaning that the break up of these relationships are not part of the divorce statistics.
Andrew Marshall ©
Family Law Solicitor
Government Divorce Rate Statistics
Originally there were no divorce laws. This meant that divorce was effectively illegal, and something that people just didn’t think about. Once you were married, you were married for life. For many years after divorce law came into place though, it was still rare. For many it was deemed unacceptable, especially within religion. It just wasn’t something you did. People felt like, and were made to feel like, they were a failure if they divorced.
In the 1950’s and 1960’s divorce became more socially acceptable, meaning more people started to get divorced. Among certain people however, it was still not considered right, and it was still not common. As it become more acceptable it inevitably became much more common. Eventually it got to the stage where anyone in an unhappy married would consider divorce, and this obviously led to much high divorce rates.
Over recent times the number of divorces in the UK has started to fall again. One of the reasons for this is that so many people got divorced during the 1970’s and early 1980’s. Many people who would have been unhappy in their marriage for many years prior would not have considered divorce as an option. As it became acceptable though, these people started to consider it, meaning a large number of divorces in a short period. It was almost as though many people were at a stage where divorce was best for them, but felt they had to remain married anyway. They then felt they could divorce and all got divorced around the same time. After they had done, it meant there were less people wanting a divorce.
Another significant reason why less people are getting divorced now is that people are getting married later in life. This means more people are making sure they know it is what they want before committing. Marriage is also less common, and the less marriages there are, the less people there are to get divorced. Many couples are living the life of a married couple, by living together and having children, meaning that the break up of these relationships are not part of the divorce statistics.
Andrew Marshall ©
Family Law Solicitor
Government Divorce Rate Statistics
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Lib Dem’s to scrap Child Trust Fund
Last year the Liberal Democrats announced that they would scrap the Child Trust Fund should they win the next election. The Child Trust Fund is a Labour Scheme set up in 2002, whereby the government gives the parents of every new born child £250 to invest on behalf of their child, followed by another £250 when they are seven. Families can then add to this up to the amount of £1200 per year. The child can use the money accumulated from their eighteenth birthday.
The Lib Dem’s have said that the £20 billion that has been spent on the Child Trust Fund over the last few years has been “wasteful”. They believe that there are better ways of investing in children. Many families have failed to take up the Child Trust Fund (resulting in the government investing it on their behalf), which is one of the reasons sighted by the Lib Dem’s for it having been a failure. They think that both government money and families’ money can be better spent elsewhere. The party’s Treasury Spokesman, Vince Cable, said in December that families would be better off spending money on repaying debts rather than putting it towards their children’s Child Trust Fund. This could be a particularly important point in the current economic uncertainty. The BBC has released figures that the average Child Trust Fund has fallen by 29%, which outlines the obvious disadvantage of the scheme; that the investment can go down as well as up.
The Lib Dem’s have vowed to spend the money currently used for the Child Trust Fund on childcare and schools should they come into power. Their aim is to reduce class sizes to around fifteen pupils, half of the current number. They would do this by training an extra 38,000 teachers. The Lib Dem’s plan is to introduce a system they call ‘Pupil Premium’. This is a scheme designed to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds, by allocating a large proportion of the extra money towards them. Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme in February that this would allow those needing the necessary extra help additional classes or one-to-one tuition. He said that this would give everyone the same opportunities. He claimed that at present bright children from poorer background were usually overtaken at school by less bright children from wealthier backgrounds by the age of 6 or 7.
Mr Clegg stated that money currently used for the Child Trust Fund would be used to fund this training of extra teachers. He said that this would cost £500 million per year, which is the same amount as the Child Trust Fund is costing the government.
The Child Trust fund is something that has caused mixed opinion since it was introduced in 2002. Education is something that always comes up around election time, and next time it will be no different.
Andrew Marshall ©
Child Trust Fund
BBC Report on Liberal Democrat Education Policy
The Lib Dem’s have said that the £20 billion that has been spent on the Child Trust Fund over the last few years has been “wasteful”. They believe that there are better ways of investing in children. Many families have failed to take up the Child Trust Fund (resulting in the government investing it on their behalf), which is one of the reasons sighted by the Lib Dem’s for it having been a failure. They think that both government money and families’ money can be better spent elsewhere. The party’s Treasury Spokesman, Vince Cable, said in December that families would be better off spending money on repaying debts rather than putting it towards their children’s Child Trust Fund. This could be a particularly important point in the current economic uncertainty. The BBC has released figures that the average Child Trust Fund has fallen by 29%, which outlines the obvious disadvantage of the scheme; that the investment can go down as well as up.
The Lib Dem’s have vowed to spend the money currently used for the Child Trust Fund on childcare and schools should they come into power. Their aim is to reduce class sizes to around fifteen pupils, half of the current number. They would do this by training an extra 38,000 teachers. The Lib Dem’s plan is to introduce a system they call ‘Pupil Premium’. This is a scheme designed to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds, by allocating a large proportion of the extra money towards them. Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme in February that this would allow those needing the necessary extra help additional classes or one-to-one tuition. He said that this would give everyone the same opportunities. He claimed that at present bright children from poorer background were usually overtaken at school by less bright children from wealthier backgrounds by the age of 6 or 7.
Mr Clegg stated that money currently used for the Child Trust Fund would be used to fund this training of extra teachers. He said that this would cost £500 million per year, which is the same amount as the Child Trust Fund is costing the government.
The Child Trust fund is something that has caused mixed opinion since it was introduced in 2002. Education is something that always comes up around election time, and next time it will be no different.
Andrew Marshall ©
Child Trust Fund
BBC Report on Liberal Democrat Education Policy
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Should your employee do you PAT Testing?
PAT testing is the testing of portable appliances that all businesses must carry out at their premises. It is a test that is legally required on any equipment that is plugged into a mains supply, including computers, microwaves, and many other things. Although items such as fridges and washing machines are not portable as such, as they are usually kept in one position, they still count as portable appliances as they can be moved if necessary. PAT testing within a business can either be done by employees, or by specialist firms who will come in and do it for you. There are advantages and disadvantages that should be considered before you decide whether or not an employee should undertake this task.
PAT Testing training courses are usually only 1-day courses. This means that any employees being trained will only miss one day of work. Courses normally cost between £200 and £300, and PAT testing equipment will have to be purchased or hired when the testing needs to take place. Other than this, though there will be no other costs. PAT testing companies can be quite expensive (depending on what needs doing) so there could be quite a significant saving. This costs saving is the main advantage of having an employee do the PAT testing.
Although you won’t have to pay for a company to come in, there are still the costs mentioned above when one of your employees does your PAT testing. Although this will save you money - will they be able to do the job up to the standard of someone trained to a more advanced level? As professional PAT testers do this regularly, they will be very thorough and are unlikely to make any mistake. If an employee is carrying out the task he/she will probably only have had one-days training and will only perform any PAT test once in a while. This means they are more likely to make a mistake, which could be costly to the company, both financially and in terms of safety. If only one of your employees is trained to perform the PAT Testing and he/she leaves then you would either have to train someone else, or hire a professional. This means that the money spent training this individual would have been wasted. There is also the issue of whether the employee trained has the time to do the task. Anytime spent on PAT Testing, is time spent away from doing his/her everyday tasks. Many companies have had their staff trained to perform their PAT testing, only to hire another company to do it anyway.
The main reason for having an employee doing your PAT testing is the potential cost savings. This is not all that should be taken into consideration though, as there are potential problem. Professional PAT testers have the expertise and knowledge to perform the tasks necessary to a high standard than is likely to be achieved by one of your employees who has only been on a one-day course and has little or no experience of PAT testing.
Andrew Marshall ©
PAT Testing
PAT Testing training courses are usually only 1-day courses. This means that any employees being trained will only miss one day of work. Courses normally cost between £200 and £300, and PAT testing equipment will have to be purchased or hired when the testing needs to take place. Other than this, though there will be no other costs. PAT testing companies can be quite expensive (depending on what needs doing) so there could be quite a significant saving. This costs saving is the main advantage of having an employee do the PAT testing.
Although you won’t have to pay for a company to come in, there are still the costs mentioned above when one of your employees does your PAT testing. Although this will save you money - will they be able to do the job up to the standard of someone trained to a more advanced level? As professional PAT testers do this regularly, they will be very thorough and are unlikely to make any mistake. If an employee is carrying out the task he/she will probably only have had one-days training and will only perform any PAT test once in a while. This means they are more likely to make a mistake, which could be costly to the company, both financially and in terms of safety. If only one of your employees is trained to perform the PAT Testing and he/she leaves then you would either have to train someone else, or hire a professional. This means that the money spent training this individual would have been wasted. There is also the issue of whether the employee trained has the time to do the task. Anytime spent on PAT Testing, is time spent away from doing his/her everyday tasks. Many companies have had their staff trained to perform their PAT testing, only to hire another company to do it anyway.
The main reason for having an employee doing your PAT testing is the potential cost savings. This is not all that should be taken into consideration though, as there are potential problem. Professional PAT testers have the expertise and knowledge to perform the tasks necessary to a high standard than is likely to be achieved by one of your employees who has only been on a one-day course and has little or no experience of PAT testing.
Andrew Marshall ©
PAT Testing
What is Colocation?
Colocation is a type of Internet hosting, often used by small businesses. It is a type of hosting that is useful for a company who wants something more than basic web hosting from a web hosting company, but doesn’t have the requirements for hosting their own server.
Many web hosting companies offer rack space for colocation. Colocation works by hosting companies renting out this rack space within their data centres for other businesses to place their servers. These businesses will buy their own server, which they will configure and alter when necessary. This will then be placed in the rack space they have bought from the hosting company. The hosting company isn’t actually involved with the server in any way; they just own the rack space which they rent out to businesses to do with as they please. This means that the business owns the server just as they would if they had the server at their own site, but they use certain resources provided by the hosting company. The hosting company will provide the bandwidth, power and the right air and temperature conditions for the server to operate in. Responsibilities with regards to the server are completely in the hand of the business that owns it. Whenever maintenance needs to be done, the business that owns the server will have to go to the data centre and do this themselves.
Businesses that get the greatest benefit from colocation are those than need to run their own website, email and perhaps a database, while keeping complete control. They will not have to rely on a hosting company; if they need something doing they just do it themselves. Colocation is a type of hosting that has increased fairly rapidly over the last few years. As more businesses have the demand for extra needs on top of basic web hosting, colocation is a good alternative to hosting their own server. Colocation is more expensive than web hosting, but can be significantly cheaper than some of the other options.
With colocation a business runs its own server. This gives them much more control over their server, and has many of the same strengths of hosting the server themselves. There is a lot less work and expertise needed though. This saves them both time and money. A disadvantage is that if something goes wrong or needs changing, they will have to do it themselves.
Colocation has many benefits over other types of hosting. If a business needs more control over their hosting than they currently have but does not want to host their own server, then colocation is one of the alternatives.
Andrew Marshall ©
Colocation
Many web hosting companies offer rack space for colocation. Colocation works by hosting companies renting out this rack space within their data centres for other businesses to place their servers. These businesses will buy their own server, which they will configure and alter when necessary. This will then be placed in the rack space they have bought from the hosting company. The hosting company isn’t actually involved with the server in any way; they just own the rack space which they rent out to businesses to do with as they please. This means that the business owns the server just as they would if they had the server at their own site, but they use certain resources provided by the hosting company. The hosting company will provide the bandwidth, power and the right air and temperature conditions for the server to operate in. Responsibilities with regards to the server are completely in the hand of the business that owns it. Whenever maintenance needs to be done, the business that owns the server will have to go to the data centre and do this themselves.
Businesses that get the greatest benefit from colocation are those than need to run their own website, email and perhaps a database, while keeping complete control. They will not have to rely on a hosting company; if they need something doing they just do it themselves. Colocation is a type of hosting that has increased fairly rapidly over the last few years. As more businesses have the demand for extra needs on top of basic web hosting, colocation is a good alternative to hosting their own server. Colocation is more expensive than web hosting, but can be significantly cheaper than some of the other options.
With colocation a business runs its own server. This gives them much more control over their server, and has many of the same strengths of hosting the server themselves. There is a lot less work and expertise needed though. This saves them both time and money. A disadvantage is that if something goes wrong or needs changing, they will have to do it themselves.
Colocation has many benefits over other types of hosting. If a business needs more control over their hosting than they currently have but does not want to host their own server, then colocation is one of the alternatives.
Andrew Marshall ©
Colocation
Monday, May 18, 2009
Why it matters if the Rich have less
The annual Sunday Times Rich List was published on 26th April, with steelmaker Lakshmi Mittal topping the list with a £10.8 billion fortune. Chelsea football club owner Roman Abramovich was second, with the Duke of Westminster in third place. The fortunes for those in the list, though, have taken a big drop in a recession hit economy.
The total fortune for the 1000 listed has fallen by over a third. In 2008 the total fortune was a record high £413 billion. However a 37% fall has seen this amount drop by £155 billion to £259 billion. Mittal is top of the list despite loosing more than anyone else. The last year has seen his fortune drop from £27.7 billion, a fall of 61% and £17 billion. Abramovich’s fortune has decreased by 40%, from £11.7 billion to £7 billion.
So why does it matter if the rich have lost some of their vast fortunes? Business tycoons making less money, means they will take decision that could affect many industries around the country. They may well cut down on their business interests, especially those not making the profits they are looking for. This will have the knock on effect of more people loosing their jobs.
In a recession even the super rich are likely to be more careful with their money, and this will affect many industries. The wealthy are often known for their love of extravagant cars. This is less likely to be a priority in the current financial climate. The motor industry is one the areas that has been most affected in the recession, both at the top and bottom ends. People are more likely to wait until times are better before they purchase a car.
High end products are likely to suffer. If there is a cheaper option available, it is more likely to be taken up when times are tough. Somebody who needs a new suit, is less likely to go to a Savile Row Tailors to have a suit made for them, and more likely to pay the sales a visit.
With the super rich loosing money, expensive luxury products and services are less likely to be sought after. There will be less demand for Luxury Yachts, for example. Yachting is an area the wealthy like to indulge in, but they are less likely to see this as an essential activity in the current situation.
The average person may not think that the rich are the people who will suffer most in a recession, and they are probably right. If they spend less though, and cut down on their business interest, that doesn’t just affect them, but many others who work in all sorts of industries.
Andrew Marshall ©
Luxury Yachts for Sale
Savile Row Tailors
The total fortune for the 1000 listed has fallen by over a third. In 2008 the total fortune was a record high £413 billion. However a 37% fall has seen this amount drop by £155 billion to £259 billion. Mittal is top of the list despite loosing more than anyone else. The last year has seen his fortune drop from £27.7 billion, a fall of 61% and £17 billion. Abramovich’s fortune has decreased by 40%, from £11.7 billion to £7 billion.
So why does it matter if the rich have lost some of their vast fortunes? Business tycoons making less money, means they will take decision that could affect many industries around the country. They may well cut down on their business interests, especially those not making the profits they are looking for. This will have the knock on effect of more people loosing their jobs.
In a recession even the super rich are likely to be more careful with their money, and this will affect many industries. The wealthy are often known for their love of extravagant cars. This is less likely to be a priority in the current financial climate. The motor industry is one the areas that has been most affected in the recession, both at the top and bottom ends. People are more likely to wait until times are better before they purchase a car.
High end products are likely to suffer. If there is a cheaper option available, it is more likely to be taken up when times are tough. Somebody who needs a new suit, is less likely to go to a Savile Row Tailors to have a suit made for them, and more likely to pay the sales a visit.
With the super rich loosing money, expensive luxury products and services are less likely to be sought after. There will be less demand for Luxury Yachts, for example. Yachting is an area the wealthy like to indulge in, but they are less likely to see this as an essential activity in the current situation.
The average person may not think that the rich are the people who will suffer most in a recession, and they are probably right. If they spend less though, and cut down on their business interest, that doesn’t just affect them, but many others who work in all sorts of industries.
Andrew Marshall ©
Luxury Yachts for Sale
Savile Row Tailors
Friday, May 15, 2009
Disable children get extra Child Trust Fund - could this be spent better?
In the budget in April, the chancellor Alistair Darling announced that children with a disability will get an extra £100 per year towards their Child Trust Fund. This will be £200 per year for those children with a severe disability.
The Child Trust Fund began in 2005, and is a scheme whereby the government give parents of each new born child a £250 voucher to invest on behalf of the child. Family and friends can add an extra £1200 per year towards the fund, and an extra £250 is added by the government when a child turns seven. The child cannot touch the Child Trust Fund, until their eighteenth birthday, when they can do with it as they please. The Child Trust Fund is designed to give young adults a head start in life.
With the extra amount for disabled children, it means that an extra £2,900 would have been invested on behalf of a disabled child by the time he/she has turned eighteen. This will be £5,800 for severely disabled children. If it has been invested well it could be significantly higher by that time.
This is obviously good news for a disabled child once he/she turns eighteen. It could be questioned though, whether this is the best use of the money. Those with disabilities need extra help, but there may be better ways of helping them. A child with a disability needs more help now, and not being able to touch the money until they are eighteen will not solve that problem. Many would argue that the government are taking the easy way out by throwing money at the problem without thinking of schemes that benefit those in need.
Giving a flat rate of £100 a year for most disabled children and £200 for severely disabled may also be misusing the money. It is not focussing on methods of improving the assistance disabled children get, but just giving each individual child an equal amount (although there are two categories). Surely there are more than two levels of disability, and therefore each child should be helped on a more individual basis. There are, of course, other schemes that are used to help disabled children, but more money spent in these areas may have been a more useful option than spending it on the Child Trust Fund. The needs of the disabled are about services and facilities, and not just about pure money. These services and facilities cost money, and this is where it should be going. Once eighteen the money can be used however the beneficiary wishes, so may not be used to help them with their disability anyway.
The one advantage of this money being put towards the Child Trust Fund is that it will be worth more when it comes to the child using the money. £100 spent now is only £100, while the accumulation of all this money plus interest over many years could be significantly more.
Andrew Marshall ©
Child Trust Fund
The Child Trust Fund began in 2005, and is a scheme whereby the government give parents of each new born child a £250 voucher to invest on behalf of the child. Family and friends can add an extra £1200 per year towards the fund, and an extra £250 is added by the government when a child turns seven. The child cannot touch the Child Trust Fund, until their eighteenth birthday, when they can do with it as they please. The Child Trust Fund is designed to give young adults a head start in life.
With the extra amount for disabled children, it means that an extra £2,900 would have been invested on behalf of a disabled child by the time he/she has turned eighteen. This will be £5,800 for severely disabled children. If it has been invested well it could be significantly higher by that time.
This is obviously good news for a disabled child once he/she turns eighteen. It could be questioned though, whether this is the best use of the money. Those with disabilities need extra help, but there may be better ways of helping them. A child with a disability needs more help now, and not being able to touch the money until they are eighteen will not solve that problem. Many would argue that the government are taking the easy way out by throwing money at the problem without thinking of schemes that benefit those in need.
Giving a flat rate of £100 a year for most disabled children and £200 for severely disabled may also be misusing the money. It is not focussing on methods of improving the assistance disabled children get, but just giving each individual child an equal amount (although there are two categories). Surely there are more than two levels of disability, and therefore each child should be helped on a more individual basis. There are, of course, other schemes that are used to help disabled children, but more money spent in these areas may have been a more useful option than spending it on the Child Trust Fund. The needs of the disabled are about services and facilities, and not just about pure money. These services and facilities cost money, and this is where it should be going. Once eighteen the money can be used however the beneficiary wishes, so may not be used to help them with their disability anyway.
The one advantage of this money being put towards the Child Trust Fund is that it will be worth more when it comes to the child using the money. £100 spent now is only £100, while the accumulation of all this money plus interest over many years could be significantly more.
Andrew Marshall ©
Child Trust Fund
Friday, May 8, 2009
5 reasons to choose Medical Consulting Rooms
Consulting Rooms can be renting for a variety of Medical Purposes. Among them are chiropracty, physiotherapy, psychiatry, and complementary therapies. There are many advantages to renting Medical Consulting Room, whether part-time or full-time, short-term or long-term.
CAN RENT ON A SHORT TERM BASIS
If you only need to rent a Consulting Room for a short period, this can be done at a relatively low cost. Long term leases are not usually necessary. Therefore if you only need it for 3 months, you only pay for three months. If you are only practicing in a certain area on a short term basis, or are waiting for more permanent premises to be ready or refurbished this could suit you.
CAN BE USED FOR REGULAR EVENTS
If you have a clinic once a week, you can rent a consulting room just for the session that you choose. You do not have to pay anything for the period you are not using the premises. This could save a huge amount. These Consulting Rooms are useful if you work in one geographic area regularly, while practicing in another area on a part-time basis. If you spend half of the week in one place, and half in another, renting a Consulting Room in each could prove beneficial.
MAY BE EQUIPPED
Consulting rooms that are specifically for hire for medical purposes are sometimes equipped with medical equipment. This will depend on the specific premises you choose, but they may have none, some or much of the equipment you need. If these are not already in the rooms, they may be available for hire, for a lesser price than if hired from elsewhere. General office equipment, such as computers are usually supplied.
USED FOR DIVERSE PURPOSES
Consulting Rooms aren’t usually used for a specific medical purpose. Therefore, whichever type of medical practice you are involved in, the consulting rooms will probably be appropriate.
COULD SUIT YOUR TYPE OF PRACTICE
Although most Consulting Rooms are intended to be used for diverse purposes, some are for specific purposes. If this is your area of expertise, this could be beneficial as they will most probably come with certain equipment that will be suitable to you, which could help your costs. The other advantage is that those specific Consulting Rooms may have a good reputation for this type of practice, and therefore could help bring you clients. If they are primarily used for a specific practice that is not in your area, this does not mean they are exclusively used for this, and you cannot rent them. This will vary from place to place.
Andrew Marshall ©
Consulting Rooms London
CAN RENT ON A SHORT TERM BASIS
If you only need to rent a Consulting Room for a short period, this can be done at a relatively low cost. Long term leases are not usually necessary. Therefore if you only need it for 3 months, you only pay for three months. If you are only practicing in a certain area on a short term basis, or are waiting for more permanent premises to be ready or refurbished this could suit you.
CAN BE USED FOR REGULAR EVENTS
If you have a clinic once a week, you can rent a consulting room just for the session that you choose. You do not have to pay anything for the period you are not using the premises. This could save a huge amount. These Consulting Rooms are useful if you work in one geographic area regularly, while practicing in another area on a part-time basis. If you spend half of the week in one place, and half in another, renting a Consulting Room in each could prove beneficial.
MAY BE EQUIPPED
Consulting rooms that are specifically for hire for medical purposes are sometimes equipped with medical equipment. This will depend on the specific premises you choose, but they may have none, some or much of the equipment you need. If these are not already in the rooms, they may be available for hire, for a lesser price than if hired from elsewhere. General office equipment, such as computers are usually supplied.
USED FOR DIVERSE PURPOSES
Consulting Rooms aren’t usually used for a specific medical purpose. Therefore, whichever type of medical practice you are involved in, the consulting rooms will probably be appropriate.
COULD SUIT YOUR TYPE OF PRACTICE
Although most Consulting Rooms are intended to be used for diverse purposes, some are for specific purposes. If this is your area of expertise, this could be beneficial as they will most probably come with certain equipment that will be suitable to you, which could help your costs. The other advantage is that those specific Consulting Rooms may have a good reputation for this type of practice, and therefore could help bring you clients. If they are primarily used for a specific practice that is not in your area, this does not mean they are exclusively used for this, and you cannot rent them. This will vary from place to place.
Andrew Marshall ©
Consulting Rooms London
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)