rendelharris

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bears- in the holy land- mmmhhh Syrian bears - not in Palestine any more but they were in biblical times. If you want an animal that really gives the bible credibility a good shake, look up Abraham's domesticated camels...

The reg plate is correct - or at least the number you have is linked to a silver Mercedes 2143cc on the DVLA website. You can find the name and address of the registered keeper for ?2.50 by applying to the DVLA with this form: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/v888-request-by-an-individual-for-information-about-a-vehicle Helped me get damages paid for after a similar incident some years ago when a van smashed over my parked motorcycle and a passerby left me a note of the registration - tried to claim they knew nothing about it but when I wondered if I should talk to the police about it funnily enough they paid up!

No it doesn't really matter in the greater scheme of things, but it happens to be being discussed, so... You rather make my point - nobody blocking off a space can know the needs of other people who might need that space, so I just think it's fairest for nobody to do it. Skips are an entirely different matter, they're licensed by the council.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but do you mean you block off a space with bins while you go to pick up the kids to ensure you have a space where you want it when you get back? What if someone else with similar or greater needs to yours needs that space while you're away - for example someone dropping off a child in a wheelchair? Lots of people (including you) have perfectly valid reasons for wanting to reserve a space, but if everyone thought they had a right to reserve their space with bins it'd be chaos. Whose needs are greater? How long is it reasonable to reserve a space? Surely the fairest system is for everyone to take their chances, and if sometimes we don't get what we want that's the luck of the draw. Just anecdotally, my little sister (a far better person than me, shock) has multiple sclerosis and a blue badge for her car. She's been told she's entitled to a reserved parking space outside her house, but she refuses to accept it as parking is very tight on her road and she doesn't want to be selfish.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43317187

Calsug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can tell I?m not busy today... according to > merchantmachine.co.uk the transaction cost is > around 1.75% for a debit card. So that?s about > 0.015 p for an 89p transaction ... Me neither...1.75% of 89p is 1.5p, not 0.015p.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When I lived on Dunstans rd 80s-90s it was in a > house converted to 2 flats. > I lived in the downstairs flat. I enquired about > having a water meter fitted. > I was quoted just under ?2,000. I estimated at > the time it would take 10-15 years to re-coop that > amount of money. > > I have just paid my Water Bill ?385.26 (for the > whole year) ?1.05 per day. > I do not think a water meter would be cheaper for > me. > > DulwichFox Not sure where anyone would have got that figure from, but anyway, Thames Water will now fit a water meter for you free of charge and usually they don't even have to come onto your property.

Could you clarify what the trip hazard is? That there are kerbs which people might trip over? Kerbs have been around for quite a while, people generally cope with them...

B&G Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree. I don't mind being asked to pay 25-50p, > but I resent the minimum spend. My two closest > shops are a fab independent Turkish supermarket > and a crappy co-op. The Turkish supermarket has > a ?10 minimum spend which I think is unreasonably > high. The cash point is outside the co-op. If > I'm popping out for milk or bin bags or whatever, > there's no point walking down the hill to get cash > just to walk back up again. > > Wish they'd see the light and just charge the fee! As noted previously, since January 13th this year it is illegal to charge customers for credit/debit card fees; that's why shops have been forced into minimum spend policies (which remain legal) to cover charges.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is another example of where the Highway Code > is not an accurate exposition of the law. > > The relevant law can be found at Regulations 98 > and 107 of The Road Vehicles (Construction and > Use) Regulations 1986. Nope, superseded by The Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002 12.?(1) An authorised person who has reasonable cause to believe that the driver of a vehicle that is stationary on a road is committing a stationary idling offence may, upon production of evidence of his authorisation, require him to stop the running of the engine of that vehicle. (2) A person who fails to comply with a requirement under paragraph (1) shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

mrcee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Won't be eight pence for a small business for all > card related costs, would go for about 30 pence > once all costs are factored dependant on volume Yes, it happened to be eightpence on that particular transaction but - as I understand it - different cards can run up as high as eighty pence or even more, in which case on a two pound transaction as described by the OP you're effectively asking the store to lose money on the deal!

Calsug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Firstly some people don?t like to carry cash so > I?m with the OP on this one, very rarely have > money in my wallet. A big wedge I quite understand - and I don't carry much myself - but a fiver just in case it's needed is hardly going to put one in danger of being mugged (or any more danger than anyone else, anyway). Just as an anecdote, and not saying one should do this, but if worried about being mugged, a former colleague of mine used always to carry ?50 on the basis that muggers would be satisfied if you handed that over, whereas if one had nothing they might force one to go to the nearest cashpoint and take out more. Don't know how tenable that was but an interesting theory.

Sorry, just to recap, you expect shops to lose a portion of their profit margin on an item (as Penguin points out, on a small item, a large part of their profit margin) because you can't be bothered to carry a few pound coins or a fiver to pay for smaller purchases?

Callie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good for you that you always have cash on you but > there will be a time when you pop into one of > these shops & find you don't have cash then you > will know how annoying it is. Given its place in the grand scheme of things I'd do my best not to become too aerated. I'd probably just take the fifty yard stroll to the free cashpoint outside the Co-op, get some money and go back.

Since January 13th it's been illegal to charge for debit card transactions, but it's still permissible to impose a minimum spend, so many small retailers have gone down that route whereas previously they would have just imposed a small charge. I think it was fair enough for retailers to ask a customer to cover fees, if they were reasonable about it - but a certain local retailer last year charged me a quid for a ?8 payment on my debit card, citing a ?10 minimum spend not to be charged. Out of curiosity I checked what the bank would charge the retailer - eightpence! I suspect as plastic payments become more and more ubiquitous minimum spends will disappear, for now, as tomskip said, I don't find it a great hassle to dig out a handful of change if I know I'm going to a local shop (for local people) and only going to spend a couple of quid.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was under the impression that Squatting in > residential buildings had been a criminal offence > since 2012 > > DulwichFox. Yes it has - but as I said above, that law doesn't cover commercial premises, under which definition Curry Cabin presumably falls.

Squatting commercial premises doesn't come under the law on squatting, so I'd just leave it to the owners to be honest (and agree with SS's point).

Leave it a week after a film's come out and go midweek and PP is great - saw Three Billboards there recently with about a dozen others! Weekends or just out and it's snack rustling/gossip/mobile hell.

Didn't think it was!

That's some quality arguing, "How many Class 230's do you think is needed to operate the hourly Bedford to Bletchley service?" These are the questions to which we need answers! Much as I admit I have too much time on my hands, there are many more five figure posters on here than just Sue!

Not by me, I assure you, I see where you're coming from. But you encapsulate the problem, the referendum asked a bald question without any consideration for the nuances such as staying in a customs union, having a hard border across Ireland, etc. It's always being referred to as a divorce - well how many divorces do you see where the parties are asked "Do you want to get a divorce? Yes? Right that's it - no you can't discuss who gets the house or how you share the children, you said yes." That's why we need the debate (and in my opinion a vote on the final deal).

EDOldie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmmm is that the same Miriam Gonzalez Durantez > that's married to Nick Clegg? It's the extremely highly qualified and very highly regarded expert in EU Law and former EU trade negotiator Miriam Gonzalez Durantez. She does also happen to be married to Nick Clegg, but if you're implying she would toe his line - I know people who know them both and I'm pretty sure, from what I'm told, that's not the case!

Oh get up the street Fox, you thought you'd have a go at Sue's perfectly inoffensive post because you've got a beef with her. Drop it before you make yourself look even more unpleasant.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They have grit they buy it in every winter- and > there is a dept of transport emergency stock so > there is NO excuse. Well... except for trotting > out the lies about 'tory cuts' yet again Are you claiming that it's a lie that the budget has been cut since 2010 by successive Tory governments? Because if so that's even worse rubbish than usual, in 2015 London councils as a whole received ?9.9bn in revenue resource grants, in 2019 that will have dropped to ?2.2bn. Southwark may have adequate salt supplies (not grit, technically) but they only have three salting lorries. You want more, we, as taxpayers, will have to pay for more (they're about ?100,000 a pop) - oh no it's that horrid Labour council deliberately not buying any when they could but they want to make the government look bad. According to you.

Of course it would be possible - anything's possible - to have enough resources to hand to deal with unusual weather; are we prepared to pay the extra council tax for that? Or should we just accept that very, very occasionally the weather will get the better of us and leave the cars (and bikes) at home?