Loz

"Dealt with by the bank" means they usually just do a chargeback on the poor retailer, who foots the bill. Often weeks after the event. The bank literally passes the buck.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Under 50 pounds or victim won't support > prosecution. Must be an opportunity for G4S or > someone to privately investigate though. Except they'd probably charge a lot more than ?50.

Well, if you knew what an an analogy was, why did you make the obviously incorrect 'exact equivalence' claim? But, the analogy is spot on. You just can't bring yourself to admit you are anti-car, so you make nebulous claims that you hate "hate their lazy, selfish, unnecessary and inconsiderate use" and drop in that you somehow are OK with "sensibly used low emissions motor vehicles". I'm surprised you didn't go the whole hog and slip in "well, some of my best friends drive cars". Just admit it - you are anti-car. You want to see the bridge closed to traffic because you hate cars.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > That sounds a bit like a kipper saying "I don't > > have anything against immigrants. After all, I do > > like a good curry after the pub on Fridays. And > > that Nigerian bloke who drives the 176 is a decent > > geezer." > > > > Let's face it, in any debate involving roads you > > are just going to take an anti-car line. You hate > > them. > > Yes, it's just like that, I'm impressed you know > me so well. My wish to see reduced car traffic > and to have cleaner, safer streets and healthier > air for all Londoners makes me the exact > equivalent of a racist. > > On second thoughts, maybe you're being a little > bit silly. Yeah, you might want to re-acquaint yourself with the definition of an 'analogy'. Clue: it doesn't mean 'exact equivalence'. Because the analogy I made is really quite apt.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And the Tories now once again taking an almighty hammering in the Daily Mail comments section > (couldn't resist looking) as they've suggested they might tax older people to help younger > people. > > Deja Vue Looks like they learnt nothing from the last election. Rule 1 - don't piss off you core vote.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think we've all known this has been going on for years, despite their use of the future tense. At least in the case of shoplifting, yes it has. Under a certain amount, they just don't bother.

The light and colour is changing about every 5 minutes at the moment.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps to detract from the surname? Not when you say her full name.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > rendelharris Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > We're never going to agree, because you see car driving as > > > some sort of inalienable right > > > > ... whereas you hate it with a vengeance. > > Not quite, I see the place for sensibly used low emissions motor vehicles; if you mean I hate their > lazy, selfish, unnecessary and inconsiderate use to the detriment of the health and quality of life > of others, then yes, yes I do. That sounds a bit like a kipper saying "I don't have anything against immigrants. After all, I do like a good curry after the pub on Fridays. And that Nigerian bloke who drives the 176 is a decent geezer." Let's face it, in any debate involving roads you are just going to take an anti-car line. You hate them.

On a compete tangent, a friend of my sister once had a girl in her class called Ophilia. Her full name was Ophilia Dick. What sort of parent would do that to a child?

In town it went a weird reddish-orange, but now has switched to grey-yellow. Apparently Ophilia is full of Saharan dust.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Those online logins that ask you to (for example) > "Select all the images with a store front"... Grr. Sadly, these days it is a necessary evil. It's to stop online bots from creating accounts and spamming.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We're never going to agree, because you see car driving as > some sort of inalienable right ... whereas you hate it with a vengeance.

No, they want women who have piloted helicopters. It's a very specialised party.

Hoppers all round!

Ahh, uncleglen, you write as if the EU are going to come out the most damaged out of this debacle. > What amazes me is the fact that there were no proper contingency plans laid down by the EU in the event > that a country that is a net donor to the EU votes to leave. The EU seem to be in complete control of this process. No doubt it will throw a few EU spending plans awry, but that is nothing compared to the disaster that the UK faces in event of a no-deal. A better question is why the hell didn't the UK have a serious plan before triggering A50? > As the days go by the arrogance and ignorance of the EU shines through more and more and just goes to > show that a Leave vote is in the best interests of the UK- even though the people of the UK benefiting > from being in the 'club' don't like it. So you agree that the UK benefits from being in the EU. Well, it's a start, I suppose.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe most bridge structural weaknesses are > caused by vibration rather than direct load > bearing - hence the famous sign on Albert Bridge > telling marching troops to break step. Vehicles > send vibrations through a structure in a way the > equivalent weight of people don't. That is often the cause, yes, but now the structural weakness has been caused, then pure load may cause further degradation.

Who knows? British Rail was awful. GWR are awful. The problem with any monopoly - private or nationalised - is that they don't need to try. Sometimes, they do (TFL are very good, I travel with Virgin East Coast a bit and they are fine). But too often they don't.

I think it was less the number of amendments, and more the worry that a good dozen of them might actually get passed.

I used to go to South Wales regularly from 2009 to 2012. GWR was rubbish then. Back then they were 'First Great Western', but they were not known as 'Worst Great Western' for nothing.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It used to back up due to things that only 'Ladies' put down toilets. ;-) Let me guess: chihuahuas?

Personally, I think it should either be repaired or be removed completely. It has structural problems. Repairs would allow 'small cars' (i.e. about 1400kg) to use the bridge. So does that mean that currently, in it's 'damaged' state, half that, so a group of about 10 people, would be considered a dangerous load?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sorry Foxy, but the The Forresters was a dump. > > Some of us can go back further than you. That is undoubtedly true. So it is quite possible that, once upon a time it was not a dump, but it certainly became one.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As for putting money aside for no deal, money for what exactly? Well, here's your starter for 10 (billion) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41271028

Sorry Foxy, but the The Forresters was a dump.