Otta

Administrator Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do you put "FS:" in front of your new posts? > It's the For Sale section and it's meant to be a > fair and level playing field but again you're > trying to promote yours above other peoples'. Stop > it. > > I'm going to amend the titles. Have to say that I find this pretty harsh. I would always put "For Sale" or FS at the start of a title if I was flogging something, it just seems perfectly natural.

Did you start loads of individual threads selling separate things? That could be why.

Oh Bravo!

vgrant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kings on the rye Johnny come lately.

This was opposite Kings Arms right?

Well actually, it was her gov that initially introduced the American economic models which Blair's lot progressed to performance indicators in pub sector (square peg, round hole). So basically it's the Americans' fault.

Happy to blame Blair for anything, but if the public sector weren;t so guarded in this country, they'd get slaughtered for each and every decision they made about EVERYTHING. It's shit basically.

My point is actually that this shouldn't be about blame and the whole blame culture we live in. It should be about finding out exactly how the hell these things were allowed to happen, then blaming those that are actually to blame.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Jeremy Wrote: > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > But it would seem wrong to me to lay the blame > at anyone or anything other than the > > > offenders themselves. > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > But why let that get in the way of some lazy mud > slinging. > > Are you saying that if there are people who knew > what was happening and were in a position of being > able to do something, but failed to act, you are > saying there is no blame to laid? Er, no.

I'm interested to hear what people think about the culture (not specifically this case) of just calling for resignations from heads of service whenever something bad happens? To me it's just a crap way of showing the country (and the breying press) that action has been taken, whilst not actually doing anything to fix problems. That is not to say that Jobs should never be lost given proper investigation, but it seems that a quickscapegoated figurehead is the preferred option for the hordes.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't really have the knowledge to draw any > conclusions about the link (or lack of) between > the Rotherham abuse cases and a culture of female > oppression. I very much doubt anyone else on this thread does quite frankly. > But it would seem wrong to me to lay > the blame at anyone or anything other than the > offenders themselves. Indeed. But why let that get in the way of some lazy mud slinging.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Besides. I'm not sure how you're supposed to > legislate agasint cultural patriarchy, legally > mulsim women obviosuly have all the rights any > other women do here. I think you're right, but legislation isn't the only way to change things surely.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Who can genuinely say they haven't shied away > from it? > > I'm not entirely sure what I'm supposed to be > doing about it. Er, I was talking about people in positions to do something about it (i.e. not you). No political party has reallt tackled it because they'll be scared of being accused of nasty things.

Who can genuinely say they haven't shied away from it?

I have also been nominated, but the guy didn't tag me properly so I plan to pretend I never saw it until closer to payday, when I'll do a Patrick Stewart.

Easy tigers, I'm not having a go at anyone here, but as I'm not a driver I didn't know you could pay to have a drop kerb put outside your gaff. I've come at it (professionally) from a purely disability standpoint in the past, so hadn't realised. I had always assumed that it was illegal to park in front of a drive whether there was a car theree or not, but I guess not? I'm not sure I'd agree with people saying "I'm home, my car is in the drive, so I giver permission for my guests to park in front of my drop kerb", because that is having cake and eating.

Oh, fair play. You started your post "except" and because it was after mine I figured it was a response.

For the record, I wasn't having a go at cyclists, and ceertainly not joining in with the cycling on the pavement thing. I was explaining why a guide dog wouldn't prevent someone from walking out in front of a bike. Something I actually know about, so thought it might be worth mentioning.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > a. people parking across the dropped kerb space with the agreement of the resident; I have to say I'm a bit surprised people can apply for a new drop kerb outside their house (assuming they can?) because being a resident doesn't give you ownership of pavement / highway, so why should you have the authority to give permission to park/not park outside your house anyway? Whole thing seems weird to me I have to say.

Fair play to Matt Damon I thought http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/matt-damon-uses-toilet-water-in-ice-bucket-challenge-to-stress-sanitation-issues-in-developing-world-9690743.html

Although I suspect the gist remains the same. They probably insist on a wider space in order that oncoming drivers have a better line of sight to anyone pullin out, and the driver pulling out can see what's coming better.

No, since typing that I have read the James Barber thread in the main section and realised my error. Because of terminology used in my work, I think of a dropped kerb as a specific crossing point, I think of driveways as driveways.

When I read the thread in the lounge, I assumed you were talking about dropped kerbs to help wheelchairs / buggies get in and out of the road, not just any driveway.

It seems to have spread to various charities now. I saw one video of a woman having a real go at MacMillan because she'd shaved her head for them a week before, but thought it was disgusting that they were now trying to jump on this and take money from another charity. I've also seen several people saying they're donating to Mind. So it seems to be more of a do it and just donate to a charity of your choice kind of thing now. I like Patrick Stewart's video best. He writes a cheque, then takes two cubes from an ice bucket and pours whiskey over them before raising his glass to the camera. The point being that when this challaenge originated, the idea was that you were nominated, and you donated OR did the ice bucket as a punishment for being tight.

If you have a yellow line that spans only the length of the actual drop kerb, then in theory 2 vehicles could park either side of it. If you are in a wheelchair, you are lower than a standing adult, so these vehicles don't even need to be vans / people carriers in order to obscure the vision of on coming drivers to the fact a wheelchair user is about to try and cross the road. Also, if you are in a wheelchair, you'd need to lean forward in order to peer around the parked vehicle to see if you were safe to cross. This in itself is not safe as it is likely that the front of your chair would now be further out in to the road than the parked vehicle. It's not the same as a standing adult quickly peeking out from behind a parked van. It sounds to me as if this has been done for the safety of disabled pedestrians, probably after consultation with the likes of RNIB and other charities. Thank me later.