rendelharris

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Calm down? The point of the above post was that it > was poison, as identified by the vet, yet some > people continue to post to say it may have been > disease. This needs to be clearly pointed out. The > vet has confirmed it was poison. Let's clear about > that. Yes, the OP says the vet has confirmed it was probably rat poison. By calm down I meant people shouldn't immediately be jumping to the conclusion that we must "look out for people leaving food that dogs might eat" as if there's some mad poisoner about the place, when it would seem far more likely, given that the authorities are laying down rat poison, that the poor dog ate some poison intended for rats - or even a rodent which had been killed by poison itself, secondary poisoning is more than possible. ETA: Also, there are several common mushrooms and fungi which can be fatal to dogs, generally causing the exact symptoms mentioned, i.e. massive vomiting and kidney damage. Unless the vet has run a tox screen it seems only that it can be said the poor thing was poisoned, but whether deliberately or accidentally, by a manmade substance or a natural one, is not at all clear.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > whereas May has a mandate despite the > > fact that nobody has ever voted for her in any > > election! Brilliant. > > And yet despite this she manages to have the > support of the majority of her parliamentary party > - and were there to be a general election she > would win hands-down. > > Whereas "Jeremy" has virtually no support in the > PLP and were there to be a general election, he > would be trounced. > > > One can talk mandates all day long but the bottom > line is still the same. That's all true, I was simply taking issue with TheCat's ludicrous grumble that Corbyn has no mandate.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saffron Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Was warfare or another toxin confirmed by a lab > > test? > > > > Vomiting and renal failure are also signs of > > Alabama Rot and similar diseases which were > rare > > in the UK but becoming more common. > > What is it you don't understand about the vet > having confirmed it was poisoned as stated above. I think people need to calm down a bit - if the poor dog was showing symptoms of Warfarin-type poisoning then it's very likely s/he found some rat poison laid down by the authorities as mentioned by Louise - a broken trap maybe? Let's not immediately leap to conclusions that some evil person is deliberately poisoning dogs, and it's perfectly legitimate for people to ask further questions about what might have happened. Deepest sympathies to the owners.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > May was not elected by party members. It never > went to a second round election, because Leasedom > stepped down. In the first round of Tory party > elections, it is the MP's who vote, to narrow it > down to two. Only then do the membership have a > say. So May is were she is, chosend by a few > hundred Tory MPs. No public mandate whasoever in > ANY form. True, my mistake - I thought there had been a token confirmation vote but not even that. So TheCat thinks Corbyn has no mandate when winning a large majority of his party members' support (twice), whereas May has a mandate despite the fact that nobody has ever voted for her in any election! Brilliant.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I understand the machinations perfectly well > thanks. My issue is with the hypocrisy (the > sentence on which you've chosen to selectively > remove when quoting my message). Theresa May has > been elected leader fair and square also, by the > party members. So Corbyn and his supporters are hypocrites to claim a mandate from the party when elected by party members, but Theresa May is all fair and square when elected by her party members? Bit rich to go on about hypocrisy.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > it also winds me up every time I hear that Corbyn > has a 'mandate'.....in my view he has nothing of > the sort. He has one from 300k labour members, but > what of the 'mandate' given to 172MP's who were > voted in by the electorate? I don't recall the > electorate giving a 'mandate' to Jeremy Corbyn. The leader of the Labour party isn't elected by Labour MPs, so they just don't come into it. By the rules of the Labour party Corbyn has a mandate to be leader of the Labour party, to try and shoehorn in questions about MPs is pure quibbling. Theresa May was voted leader of the Conservative party by Conservative party members, not the party's MPs, does that mean she doesn't have a mandate? How many people who voted Tory in 2015 were voting for her to be PM a year later? I don't recall the electorate giving her a "mandate." It's fine not to like Corbyn or indeed the Labour party, but by the rules which govern all main parties he's been elected leader twice, fair and square - parties elect their leaders then the electorate vote for them, to say a leader who has yet to contest a general election doesn't have a mandate to lead his party because the electorate haven't had a say is ridiculous.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I there a reason you need to take it to allow you > to cycle, otherwise what's the point? Cocodamol? Yes, or the pain in wrists and knees after ten miles becomes intolerable. So with Brad, if he can prove he would have a severe asthma attack without the drugs, fair enough, but that seems damned unlikely given the infrequency of his admitted treatments. I can feel my faith smouldering at the edges...

Thanks for the info - worth remembering though that the 20M "rule" is only a guideline and doesn't automatically guarantee that the charge will be rescinded - otherwise everyone could use the last 19M of the bus lane with impunity! If a car dives in for just five metres and impedes a bus, for example, it's very unlikely that the ticket would be waived on the grounds of distance. Oh and make sure if you're forced to use the bus lane that you make a note of date and time: when I was working for a while as a motorcycle courier I was caught by a bus mounted camera on City Road - I was pretty sure that I would only have gone into the bus lane to avoid an accident or to let an emergency vehicle through, but as I was up and down that road dozens of times a week I couldn't provide evidence of that and so just had to pay up.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My view of performance enhancing is something that > taken by an athlete who didn't suffer from ill > health, would enhance his performance. > Would cocodomol do that ? Therein lies the problem, cocodamol (don't know if it's banned or not) allows me to perform at around the level I would be at if I didn't have arthritis, so it's putting me at a roughly normal (as far as I can be!) level. Wiggins claims to have bad asthma and that the injections were doing the same for him. The best thing for him to do if he wants to (and if he can) clear his name is to release a full medical report from an independent doctor proving he really has got chronic asthma, whether he can, or can be bothered, remains to be seen.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Bradley had the injections for his 'illness' to > allow him to compete on a level playing field. I'm > of the opinion that even it it isn't breaking any > rules it shouldn't be allowed. Either you are > physically capable of competing at that level or > you aren't. If I wanted to race in the Tour de > France on a level playing field they would have to > take away the bicycles from the others. Oh yeah, > they would have take the mountains out of it too. > They aren't level. Well yeah, if it wasn't allowed it would be against the rules...and I tend to agree that it should be, the point is that it's not. The question of what should or shouldn't be allowed is moot, I went for a forty mile ride this morning, because of arthritis there's no way I could have made it without liberally dosing myself with cocodamol first, so I suppose that certainly enhanced my performance! I like the idea of a flat TdF though - great phrase in one of the Reggie Perrin books: "It's all about challenge, who'd climb Everest if it was flat?" "Well, me and Mrs.Smith would, it'd be just about our mark."

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This doesn't happen at test match level does it? I > understood if you wanted to be in with a chance of > winning a game you declared when you considered > you possibly had enough runs on the board and you > gave yourself a chance of bowling out the > opposition in the time left. Should it not have > been up to the team batting first yesterday to > decide that? Yes, but it was an unusual position yesterday where both sides absolutely had to win - for Middlesex to gain the sort of lead they got against Yorkshire's best bowling they would have had to take too many risks, so...it doesn't happen at test match level as they have five days in which to get a result and also they're not playing for points. I know it seems a bit contrived but it was a choice between that and a boring draw - it is an accepted part of the game, even Somerset aren't complaining! I'm trying to think of an analogy - I suppose it's a bit like an extended version of a penalty shootout!

It's more considered good sportsmanship, to give the fans something to watch and take a chance on winning rather than the safe option (though in this case playing out the draw wasn't an option for either side). The targets are a matter of negotiation between the captains - having been in on some of those conferences at a far lower (Surrey league) level, I can tell you the convolutions of them would make Machiavelli nod in approval!

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bit of a contrived ending to the county > championship. Just not cricket, is it? Somerset fan Alan? It was a bit of a fit up but that's been going on for as long as I've been watching (since about the time W.G. was in his pomp). For a neutral it was a very good watch, just regret I didn't follow my instinct and nip up to Lord's for ?5!

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'm guessing (and this is only speaking as an > > absolute DIY bodger with many a plumbing > disaster > > behind me) that if you didn't mind a boxed in > soil > > pipe running across (as I can visualise it) the > > left hand wall of the new bedroom it wouldn't > cost > > much at all? Hole in the partition wall and > new > > external hole. Sounds awful but if it was at > the > > back of a built in cupboard or the footing for > a > > bookcase nobody would know...doubtless more > > informed people might know if that's allowable > > under building regs but... > > Thanks! > > I can't really visualise what you are suggesting. > Wherever the loo went in the new room, it would be > on a diagonal to the existing one. Maybe I should > draw a plan and attach it (not tonight!) LM's suggestion to talk to a plumber is far more helpful, I'm known for my Heath Robinson probably totally against regulations solutions! But I really don't think it should be too difficult - maybe 10% on top of the cost of a new bathroom? Good luck anyway, sounds like a good plan, never understood why people want large bathrooms, as long as there's room to bathe, brush one's teeth and (deleted for reasons of delicacy) then why does one need more? Far better to free up space elsewhere.

Just want to tip my hat to Mr.Barber here (whom I don't know and is not of my party!) for going above and beyond in making an effort to sort out an issue outside his ward which he could quite justifiably have ignored - appreciated.

I'm guessing (and this is only speaking as an absolute DIY bodger with many a plumbing disaster behind me) that if you didn't mind a boxed in soil pipe running across (as I can visualise it) the left hand wall of the new bedroom it wouldn't cost much at all? Hole in the partition wall and new external hole. Sounds awful but if it was at the back of a built in cupboard or the footing for a bookcase nobody would know...doubtless more informed people might know if that's allowable under building regs but...

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FFS, the definition of free range for eggs is > hardly a closely guarded secret: > > unlimited daytime access to outdoor runs with > vegetation > > 4 sq metres of outdoor space per bird > > plus indoor requirements as for uncaged birds > > So this: > > The term Free range is virtually meaningless. > Any animal in an enclosed shed that can see > daylight through an opening can be called free > range. > Even if the place is so crowded they could never > reach the outside. > > is about as accurate as the normal level of > 'expert' posting from DF This is correct, but you need to add the exit requirements, which are 2m of popholes for every 1,000 hens - as I said above, due to the way hens interact that means a significant proportion won't actually get outside. And you're skating over the fact that when indoors (which is permitted for 16 hours a day) they're permitted to be kept at a density of nine hens per square metre. Which is frankly sod all.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichFox Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Do not know if they have Free range.. The term > > Free range is virtually meaningless. > > Any animal in an enclosed shed that can see > > daylight through an opening can be called free > > range. > > Even if the place is so crowded they could > never > > reach the outside. > > > > Foxy > > Not quite true. For meat chickens, they must have > outdoor access for at least 8 hours a day. For egg > layers, they can be indoors all the time, but are > not caged. That is true, but...free range farmers are allowed to keep nine chickens per square metre in sheds, but must have 10,000 square metres per 2,500 hens available outside. But there is no regulation on how often the chickens must go outside, just that they must have "access" eight hours a day - it's not like they're all taken outside for eight hours a day every day. In practice chickens are very territorial and dominant birds will prevent others getting to the exits - a significant number, if not a majority, will never actually see the light of day.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People sitting near windows to 'look through > them'? > > Pull the other one. > > I suppose, next, you'll be telling me that > restaurants put seats near windows and encourage > people to occupy them so they seem popular and > encourage more passing trade to come in. > > I wasn't born yesterday. Post of the month for sure.

I'd get yourself a lottery ticket for this weekend if I were you!

peckham_ryu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Well you see the thing is, I distinctly asked > your fine bar staff for non-alcoholic lager. The > drinks they served were delicious and by the time > I realised I had been drinking reassuringly > expensive, full strength Stella Artois, it was all > too late and I was very nearly divorced. Leaving > the motor in your care was the only responsible > thing to do really. Disgraceful service when you > think about it though I suppose - how about some > Steak Club vouchers eh?" ;-) Ha! It's quite symptomatic of the way things are now - when we bought a flat opposite eleven years back if mates were coming to stay I would have a word with the manager, explaining that they were driving and going to have a drink in the pub, would it be OK for them to leave the car overnight - no problem. Now the ANPR system presumably just sends the info to a computer at the parking company which then automatically issues a demand, I don't suppose the manager could override it if s/he wanted to. Progress! Fools to themselves really, as by allowing a little leeway they not only got self and mates running up a fair old bar bill but going back the next morning for coffee and fryups before collecting the car...

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's absurd. > > Jules-and-Boo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > well, they haven't been in the news much for > > anything else recently - can't help thinking > they > > need attention. I think JAB's sarcastically referring to The Archers rather than Brangelina.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Never said that. But I very much doubt they'd be > too quick to condemn, having put him on a > pedestal. You may be right, though the reporting I've seen thus far is far from fawning, if anything leaning the other way, saying his reputation has been damaged and he has questions to answer (e.g. Daily Mail, "Injections, flare-ups and the vital questions still dog Sir Bradley Wiggins while he does not explain himself," Guardian, "Bradley Wiggins faces a fight for his reputation in wake of Wada hack"). Don't forget the one thing the press love more than setting someone up on a pedestal is then to knock them off it!

By the other way he presumably means helping him avoid income tax and VAT - tell him to sling it! Not only is he asking you to be complicit in cheating the exchequer (which ultimately is cheating schools, hospitals etc) but if he does substandard work, or just doesn't finish the job, you'll find it difficult to get trading standards interested in an off-the-books black economy deal. Also, as MM says above, it sounds like he's charging what it should cost anyway with tax paid but pretending he's doing you a favour. Go with a legitimate VAT registered business and get proper receipts and pay by cheque or bank transfer - apart from anything else withdrawing ?5K in cash every week and transporting it around is an accident waiting to happen! Good luck.

It can be enforced - the owner of private land can levy parking charges and claim penalties if they're not paid. The only way one can escape them is if it's unfair - inadequate signage, wrong timing etc. As mentioned above, the Fox has in and out APNR cameras and pretty clear signs. You could just refuse to pay and see if they can be bothered taking you to court, but that could prove hellishly expensive if they do take you on. Unless you have a just reason for thinking the ticket unfair it might be best just to pay up. I don't like the way all this operates - it's basically set up to catch the unwary or those making a genuine mistake - and I'm not defending it, but I do suspect appealing it will not get you very far, unless you have a genuine reason to believe it unfair. ETA Blah's right by the way, it's not a parking fine, it's an invoice for breach of contract, the assumed contract being made when you entered the carpark. However, again unless you have a genuine demonstrable reason it's unfair or excessive you'd still be liable to pay in a civil court.