I wonder how long it'd take to read this thread from start to finish
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
test please delete
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
Collapse
-
-
In June 1947 the military requirements were updated and the Model 464-17 met all of them except for the range. It was becoming obvious to the Air Force that, even with the updated performance, the XB-52 would be obsolete by the time it entered production and would offer little improvement over the Convair B-36.[6] As the result, the entire project was put on hold for six months.How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't thinkComment
-
-
-
Comment
-
-
7 hours 59 minutes and 3.75 seconds.Originally posted by DiscoStu View PostI wonder how long it'd take to read this thread from start to finishDrivelling in TPD is not a mental health issue. We're just community blogging, that's all.
Xenophon said: "CUK Geek of the Week". A gingerjedi certified "Elitist Tw@t". Posting rated @ 5 lard pointsComment
-
During this time, Boeing continued to perfect the design which resulted in the Model 464-29 with a top speed of 455 miles per hour (395 kn, 730 km/h) and a 5,000-mile range.[6] In September 1947, the Heavy Bombardment Committee was convened to ascertain performance requirements for a nuclear bomber. Formalized on 8 December 1947, these called for a top speed of 500 miles per hour (440 kn, 800 km/h) and an 8,000 statute mile (7,000 nmi, 13,000 km) range, far beyond the capabilities of 464-29.[10]How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't thinkComment
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by DiscoStu View Post23000!!!!

I had 4 screens loaded up...couldn't be bothered anymore
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't thinkComment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Autumn Budget 2026: 10 predictions for UK contractors Today 00:08
- Is HMRC ‘cruelly seeking to transfer debts’ to MSC contractors? Yesterday 06:37
- IT contractor demand climbed in August 2026 to 40-month high Sep 25 04:53
- 5 steps before your client ‘does a Foreign Office’ and puts 90% of contractors inside IR35 Sep 24 01:11
- Luke’s Story: “I knew it was a loan. But they changed the rules.” Sep 23 00:00
- I registered my company with my home address. Whoops. Here's what Companies House shows the world about you Sep 22 13:06
- The Tories’ three IR35 replacement options — but contractors are right to be sceptical Sep 22 03:51
- Conservatives to replace IR35 outright, Griffith vows — advisers who met him reveal what it should contain Sep 21 05:06
- HMRC’s tax calculation errors: why contractors must check their bill now Sep 17 05:14
- HMRC names 12 loan charge-type schemes, one with ‘Tardis’ clause Sep 15 00:12

Comment