rendelharris

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why is it that someone ALWAYS has to hijack the > thread, ANY thread, and use it to attack ANY > politician to the right of Jeremy Corbyn- eh? > JohnL Well you're quite capable of hijacking any thread to bang on about either immigrants or grammar schools...

Big Brother is advancing apace: how long before our bobbies have these? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-police-facial-recognition-sunglasses-security-smart-tech-travellers-criminals-a8206491.html

I rather think RRR is being ironic.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pedestrians stop or turn without looking, for > example when looking at their hand held computer > things, are often distracted by other things such > as their Sony Walkmans or gheto blasters. There > should be compulsory training, learner badges, > lights mirrors and indicators, a pedestrianising > test, and a new offence of dangerous > pedestrianising, or pedestrianising without due > care and attention. They often have no tolerance > of other pavement and road users, do not pay > pavement tax, and are probably uninsured. > > Sadly this post is not purely facetious..... But is rather good. You forgot to add that any pedestrian eschewing hi-vis and a helmet is "simply asking for trouble."

There is a pin on the map of works planned on Ulverscroft: https://inyourarea.thameswater.co.uk/Work-in-your-area

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My sister (and her husband) teaches > > She tells me she spends all evening marking work > many days (I didn't ask why there's not time to do > that in the day) but teaching isn't the relatively > easy job a few of us of my age remember (maybe > incorrectly) from our schooldays. I know that John, I'm a former teacher and my wife still is one! She leaves for work at 6.30, gets home 19.00, have just time to get some dinner into her before she works until bedtime, plus a good six hours plus over the weekend. I was just making the point that there are jobs, and teaching is one of them, when it's an accepted part of the interview process to undertake the work you're seeking, unpaid, to demonstrate your capabilities - and for a lot longer than two hours.

KrackersMaracas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Joe leg - agreed - but how many interviews have > people done that essentially involved you doing > the work of a (paid) member of staff? For me - > none, and I wouldn?t respond well to the > suggestion. > > I agree that it?s hard to see if someone is a good > fit until you see them working - but the same > applies for office work, and that is why we have > probation periods - for which we receive full pay. > You cannot tell if someone can make a coffee, prep > food, or interact with customers - but you also > cannot tell if an IT person has experience of the > systems he claims to be proficient in, an > accountant can balance accounts, or a scheduler > can book trades until you actually see them doing > it. They are paid for this. Why not a hospitality > worker? Teachers often have to spend a whole day in a school and teach two lessons for an interview unpaid...

They sell one in Argos.

I think a note of caution is needed with everyone saying planning permission isn't required: under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 any "building or enclosure" between the front boundary of a building and the public highway requires planning permission. Obviously Southwark have very sensibly decided to turn a blind eye to this as regards cycle storage, but there's nothing to stop them instigating a crackdown whenever they choose, as Brighton council did a few years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/aug/01/brighton-green-council-crackdown-cycle-stores-barriers-cycling (note the sentence in the article, "Under national regulations any ?outbuilding? in front of a house (flats have different and more complex rules), even a compact bike shed, officially requires planning permission."). Not to say don't build a bike shed by any means, just be aware that the potential is there for the council to object. Certainly best to make sure neighbours will be happy with it, because if they object they would certainly have the law on their side, even if it is an ass.

I don't think you're being complacent at all, just optimistic! From the UK Parliament website re HVIII clauses: The Government sometimes adds this provision to a Bill to enable the Government to repeal or amend it after it has become an Act of Parliament. The provision enables primary legislation to be amended or repealed by subordinate legislation with or without further parliamentary scrutiny. As far as I understand it that means the government can "repeal or amend" anything that's been ported over; any challenge to that would come in Parliament but if the opposition asks for such a decision to be scrutinised such a request can be rejected by a vote in Parliament. With the (bribed) support of the DUP that shouldn't be too difficult to reject; from what I've read there's a very strong groundswell of support in the Tory party to scrap the WDT. We shall see... ETA Quite take your point about the difficulties of persuading the electorate to accept working hours changes, but in the current febrile climate anything that's portrayed as "casting off the EU shackles to liberate British business" will find much favour in many quarters, I feel.

dan b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All of the EU-derived employment rights are > already incorporated into British law - e.g. the > Working Time Regulations which have been UK law > since 1998. We were required to bring these in by > the Working Time Directive. So your weekly hours > and holidays are already our law. They will only > change if our Parliament decides to change them. > Given that we negotiated such a watered-down > version for our UK regs compared to the original > Directive (much longer standard working hours than > across the rest of Europe), and have working > conditions which are already pretty flexible and > ripe for abuse even with these apparent > protections, and that the remedies for breaching > WTR are pretty weak, I'd say this one is in the > more unlikely employment law candidates for > change. I'd keep a sharper eye on TUPE protections > although whether we can change those will very > much depend on the nature of our agreed commercial > relationship with the EU afterwards. You are much, much too sanguine. Most EU laws which are part of our law are being ported across, but under the Henry VIII clause the government will be able to hack out anything they don't like; May has already refused explicitly to rule out removing the working time directive: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-accused-of-refusing-to-explicitly-rule-out-scrapping-paid-holidays-right_uk_5a37bbe9e4b040881bec57c0 Anything and everything in our law which stems from EU law can potentially be removed without parliamentary scrutiny after the UK has left the EU.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also do wonder about the generic impact of > replacing an old vehicle with a less polluting one > vs keeping it a bit longer. For those who live in > the areas where the new vehicle will be driven, a > new vehicle will be better. But for the > environment overall? What's the environmental > impact of scrapping an old vehicle and producing a > new one? I genuinely have no idea. Very, very roughly, a car produces around three tonnes of CO2 during its production and scrappage phases. If you had a car producing 150g/km of CO2 and swapped it for a new one producing 100g/km, over five years of average (8,000 miles p.a.) use you'd save about five tonnes of CO2, so in general the new car would be the greener option, but of course there are lots of variables - if you only ever use your car for a trip to Brighton once a fortnight keeping the old one would be the better bet.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wouldn?t have thought Wetherspoons would be > anyone?s first choice anyway? > > Louisa. Used to be mine when I lived opposite, really good beer, reasonable if hardly earth-shattering food and cheap. It's a shame the small play area has been removed, it was nice for visiting friends with small children, and if one wanted to avoid children there are child-free areas inside the pub, the front terrace and the huge lawned area (which in my opinion is much nicer to sit in than the rear garden anyway). Seems a shame - wonder if there were H&S concerns? I could imagine corporates getting nervous about the prospect of being sued if a child was injured playing there unsupervised (and no I don't think that's right but it's a fact of life these days!).

I have nothing useful to say but you have my sympathy, that's such a lovely bike - blagged a ride on one once from a dealer, a dream machine. Hope against hope it's returned, unfortunately it's probably been broken for parts, I remember reading once that an R1 costing ten grand would cost thirty-five grand to build from official parts - perhaps if the manufacturers didn't make replacement parts so expensive there would be less incentive for the buggers to steal them. Hope your insurance will pay out anyway.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Being a bit pedantic, perhaps, but pack hunting is > absolutely hard wired instinct for dogs and that's > the reason why they were domesticated and bred so > successfully for this purpose. No dogs would voluntarily chase a fox across four miles of country - from a risk/reward point of view (in terms of calories expended/calorific value of the kill) it simply wouldn't make evolutionary sense. That's why the most important riders in a hunt are the whippers in, who keep the pack together and drive them forward. If the whippers are incompetent or lose touch with the pack they quickly split up and start casting around independently (I've seen this several times on Dartmoor). Yes dogs will chase prey and they will work as a pack, but without being trained and controlled by handlers they won't pursue a fox for miles, that's not "hard wired."

FJDGoose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fishbiscuits Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Amazing how some people skip right past any > > potential rational explanations, and jump > straight > > to ghost/poltergeist/magic/god/etc. > > > How would you explain it then fishbiscuits ? Squatter/tramp seeking a bed for the night/kids arsing about? As the witnesses fled without stopping to investigate one would think any of those were possibilities?

cynical Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have you seen how narrow the pavements are on > Barry Road? I think its dangerous enough as it is, > without adding bus shelters, along with bins and > trees etc The bus stop referred to has a buildout into the road so it would be perfectly possible to have a shelter without changing the width of the available pavement, as has been done with its identical (in terms of buildout) counterpart on the opposite side.

I'm only nitpicking Penguin but I know you value precision - the Community Charge was abolished in 1993!

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I used a wheelchair I might, Ren, but I doubt > that most of the people complaining on EDF are, > hand on heart, thinking of wheelchair users. They > are thinking of prams, aesthetics, notions of what > constitutes proper social rules and, on one > occasion I've seen, a completely unsubstantiated > claim that bins out causes crime. > > If the good EDFers are going to start putting > disabled people foremost, they may want to also > reflect how difficult it can be when you are > mobility restricted to get wheelie bins back in. > I have had rabid neighbours get in a lather > because it often takes me more than a day to get > them all in, on the strength only that they object > to things being "ugly". Well...if they're thinking of prams and aesthetics I'd say both of those are justified complaints really. If they're claiming bins cause crime then they're talking rubbish (ho ho). If your neighbours complain about your bins being out without offering to lend you a hand as needed then they should be deposited in them! If the bin men forget to put ours back I usually put our neighbours' back as well, just to be neighbourly... It is a serious point about wheelchairs though, as above, I have had to shift them to help wheelchair users get through, more than once.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh the irony. Your precious cats are major hunters > in the world.....seems only fair that they should > get some of their own medicine! Just when you thought he couldn't get any more lovable...

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't particularly understand the angst about > bins on pavements. I have mobility issues that > aren't as obvious to the casual observer, but have > more problems with parents with buggies/prams > trying to force right of way than I do navigating > bins. The only exception is when they are not > left flush with the fence, but that's usually the > binmen rather than owners. I think if you had to use a wheelchair you'd soon understand - as noted above, there are many roads where there simply isn't space for a chair to get through even if the bins are flat against the wall - Bellenden Road is particularly bad in this respect. But even for the fully able bodied they're a pain in the arse, continually having to stop to let others through as there's only room for people to pass in single file. Also they uglify the streetscape, all because people can't be bothered to spend ten seconds getting them in.

Email [email protected] and they'll delete it for you.

Could not agree more, same applies to Copleston - special mention for the houses that have done up their front gardens nicely and clearly don't want to mess them up so leave the bins on the street permanently. Recently had to move half a dozen bins out of the way so an elderly lady using a powered wheelchair could get down the pavement without having to retrace her tracks by a hundred yards or risk bumping off the kerb into the road. Very selfish behavior! Kudos to the refuse collectors I must say; we put our bins out the morning of collection, nine times out of ten they've been returned to our storage area by the time I go out to bring them in - so the binmen are doing their part, we should too!

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 20mph doesn't work, you can't actually safely > travel at that speed Why not?