For those who have seen this before I apologise, for those who haven't it's worth the laugh. http://www.pure80schat.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=9315.0;wap2
[video=youtube;Xe1a1wHxTyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Xe1a1wHxTyo[/video]
brb will love this one - I nearly put it in the 'Watching Football' thread - Liberty ? - What Liberty ! - indeed, What a Liberty. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...sWK4Heuxg93CewgEA&sig2=aKr-bAHZL7QdDEZoz516PQ
A few days ago I had to stop at a set of traffic lights on red, the lights were in place due to roadworks and a blind spot, while the road was narrowed down to one lane. Whilst waiting at these lights a cyclist passed me going in the same direction and rode straight through the red. He had no way of telling what might have been coming from the opposite direction, the same as no motorist abiding by the law would have known he was riding in their direction until it was to late. Presumption of liability eh?...
Today I had to go to see a friend (one of the few that Ive got left.) When I arrived there was no reply to the doorbell. As I was making a phone call to my mate, his neighbour ( with dog on lead ), walked into the front garden - past me without saying anything and to the side of the building and towards the gate to the back garden - which he opened and let himself in ! I then realised that I needed to get something from my car - and did so - taking only about a minute. I didn't get a reply to my phone call - because my friend had been inside his back garden and had not heard the phone ring. - so I too went to the side of the house and let myself into the back garden - just as the dog-walking neighbour was coming out. After he left I asked my friend if the neighbour had told him that I had been at the front door - "NO" -- what is it with neighbours and their lack of common sense - what did he think I was going to do at the front door ?
I drove down to the ground yesterday to collect my exchanged tickets for the Bristol City game, so thought I would give some clarification on my findings and experience: MATCH DAY TICKETS General match day, league game ticket bought before a game is £20. I took the time to pick up a ready available booklet within the ticket office titled 'SEASON TICKETS 2013/14 - SEATING PRICES - NPOWER LEAGUE ONE' Turn the inside cover and look at section 4. it states: We have reduced pre-match ticket purchases in most areas to encourage use of our new on-line ticketing system which makes buying tickets to watch games even easier. Now lets look at the two match day tickets I have purchased, both of them have clearly printed across the front of them 'THIS TICKET IS NON-TRANSFERABLE' Although I ask a question to the latter, how is that enforced? Now let us compare this all to... SEASON TICKETS My price for my early bird did increase unlike match day prices indicated above at section 4. - I paid an additional £25 Cost of a match day stub from my book is slightly more than £15, also unlike the non transferable match day ticket holders, I do have to present ID. The club offers me the opportunity this season to exchange a unused season ticket stub for the cost of £5 including the exchange of a £15 saving friends for a fiver voucher. Unlike the services offered to match day ticket purchases, I have to go to the ground to collect my tickets, I was offered no alternative. But the most important part is everyone constantly refers me to the T&C's, well I have finally taken the trouble to read those T&C's via the ST book and the book available at the ticket office. No where in either two type is there any mention of paying £5 in addition to the already paid £15 for my ticket. No where is there any mention of giving up a friends for a fiver voucher worth £15 in that same transaction. The first I knew of these details was when I was handed a letter, AFTER receipt of my ST book. The letter is dated 24th July 2013. It is also interesting to note and I am prepared to be proved wrong but I never saw any copies of this letter available within the ticket office on my visit yesterday but what I can confirm is there was NO addendum within the large booklet that I picked up, that contains the pricing structure. However, I would like to refer you back to the date of the letter...24th July 2013. Now I turn to the pricing structure within the booklet. Page titled 'MEDWAY STAND' - and the bullet point at the bottom of the page: Existing Season Ticket Holders have until Saturday 29th June 2013 to retain their current seat. Which leads me to a personal view in regards to the date and timing on receipt of the letter. Also in regards to the methods used to enforce non transferable on ST holders say in comparison to match day ticket holders, that at my point of purchase the additions of the 24th July 2013 were not completely transparent. Yes, they will be next season but that is not the point.
the intelligence of them during the rail fare protests. Her question: Why do people not move and live nearer to their place of work! My answer: Can I swear...please...the dumb ******* idiot. So which place shall we move too, the place of my work or the place of my partners work? Maybe we should just separate to achieve that goal and buy or get this benefit state that I hear so much about to give us another property, so we can both live near our places of work. That way we can add to any housing crisis. I've had at least three different jobs in the last three years, all requiring travelling. My partner has had about two all requiring travelling. We go in search of work to avoid the already great strain on this benefit state, to do so requires us to travel. This also requires us to take the hit on travel costs to our own pockets. While some people and media sources such as SKY continue on about the so called unfairness of the bedroom tax, there are others who are fighting to pay the ever increasing costs of travel to enable us to work to support the people on benefits and of course our own finances. Please if this is the level of intelligence from their researchers then you really do have to wonder what planet they are on...probably the same one as Cameron.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23686277 Sadly, with the state of modern 'justice', his wish is likely to come true. As someone who has taken an interest and 'studied the figures,' - I know just how 'difficult' it is for police to impress the Crown Prosecution Service - to get them to authorise a criminal case being brought to court - this after other methods of 'resolution' to deal with offences..... these include verbal caution & official caution. If / when an offender actually gets to court- they are likely to be acquitted by a combination of a smart solicitor or a stupid jury. If convicted, an offender is usually given community orders or a suspended sentence - which tends to be 'increased' if he /she is caught reoffending. A LONG way into the legal processes, a judge has to eventually make a decision - to consider actually sending an offender to prison - prison is practically always the last resort.......... and this man is a professor ! BAS (bachelor of stupidity)
So another new law comes into force today and while some may welcome it, I would suggest the wider implications of another law that is restrictive of our every actions. Some might well rightly suggest that the police will not have the time required to fully enforce this, especially after their failure to control the use of mobile phones at the wheel. How long then will it be before cameras in the same way as those used in Westminster and Lambeth or even some new future design of spec style camera that will be used to fine or prosecute you at every turn of the wheel instead. Now the media will obviously highlight the most extreme examples of tailgating, whilst I believe the enforcing authorities will use this law to issue cash cow fixed penalities to pay for the ever increasing cost of CCTV. Dare I even suggest that the speed cameras installed over the last decade or two on every town road are no longer cost effective and they need to find new routes of income. Who are all these lane hoggers, well having driven on our wonderful delights of the M25 for many thousands of miles, that some other motorists will never hit in a lifetime my experience is that we all are middle lane hoggers at some point! If you don't believe me, next time you are on the two lane section of the M2, have a look back in your rear view mirror the outside lane is a constant stream while the inside lane is empty with the exception of lorries. The British have never been the greatest lane changers, hence why we will never have an American style of overtaking, so all I can see in this new law to clear the outside lanes is an increase in insurance claims as motorists start to weave in and out, not understanding the meaning of blindspots or how two cars can meet in the centre lane as outside and inside lane drivers meet through failure of all round observation. Just another perspective on road lane hoggers and our great UK big brother police state. Did you know that in Kent DNA samples of people even those never ever prosecuted has increased by 75 percent...
brb - I find it interesting that you should create a post based on an aspect of our (very loose) justice system - after my previous post on the subject. It is not lost on me that it appears that the motorist is now becoming ( in your words ), a cash cow to prop up other, no longer cost effective law enforcement measures..... and yet The Idiot of the Month (post No.449) doesn't want to properly punish criminals who shold have been locked away years ago. I have no problem with punishing bad driving - I have often quoted my frustration with motorists - usually because of their laziness - but with the state of our roads, the volume of traffic etc, the situation will become a whole lot worse if -- all of a sudden -- police / local authorities ( via cameras ) start to dish out tickets like confetti, to people in the middle lane - just because there is nowhere else for them to go. It is a nonsense to expect all traffic to return to the inside lane after an overtake - our roads can't handle the capacity involved.... so the (basically innocent) motorist is hung,drawn & quartered again .
alwaysright - just while I've got your attention...had a thought today that crossed my mind about a customer charter that I thought existed at the club. Eventually managed to find it on their website. I draw your attention to the first line in uppercase after the first paragraph, after the additional emails we had sent the club without response. Then I draw your attention to the very bottom of the charter and the very last paragraph BEFORE the charity policy, emphasis on the wording, 'early notice' - I assume that includes not via a letter at point of collection for ST... http://www.gillinghamfootballclub.com/club/customer_charter.aspx
brb - I have counted at least 6 breaches of the 'Charter' - ( only two definitely involving season ticket holders ) The Charter is not worth the paper upon which it is written. It is meaningless. Deep ( not so deep ) down, I am uncertain that the Club really cares too much about its' supporters - we know how shabbily it is treating its' core support (sth) - what hope do matchday fans have ? In my subsequent email to the Club, I tried to appeal to the one subject that I thought would make them take notice - MONEY.- I thought I would engage them on poor marketing policy - illustrating how much extra revenue the Club could reasonably expect by implementing one or two ideas I put forward - as well advising them of the potential ( substantial ) loss of revenue the Club was risking by alienating fans. The Club did not do me the courtesy of responding - but then they didn't consult with me or give us any early notice of policy (you see what I'm doing !) - I'm wasting my time.
I have to balance the 'sense' of my last post with some nonsense - and take an opportunity to give my camel mate the hump. I think that the article has some mileage. I wonder what brb would think to the idea I have to make it compulsory in cases where people die intestate. They bleed you dry in your lifetime - strip you of your organs the moment you breath your last - and then take what little they didn't rob whilst you were still alive. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23696924
alwaysright - it is a very difficult one to make a judgement on, not knowing the deceased persons real intentions. The media will paint it up in some way for political gain dependent on what their political allegiance. As you know I do not generally read the media and although having heard of this story, I was unable to make a personal judgement on it without the actual facts. Although I would say, no one should make assumptions of any kind on the woman in question intentions. I tend to make a lot of judgements in life that are contrary to general opinion. Therefore I treat the woman's intentions with the same open mindedness. As for governments taking people's inheritance well the answer on that one, I'm sure I do not need to answer, hence your question, however, in regards to this lady I er on the side in benefit of doubt.
Looks like I will be driving at 28 mph in the inside lane of motorways now and putting a webcam on the dashboard to fight the officer who is pissed-off, trying to maximize conviction of us criminals, trying to raise revenue etc
Steve347 If you do indeed travel at 28 mph in the inside lane of a motorway - you had better have a good excuse - because you can be given a ticket for 'inappropriate speed' - which can be going too slowly for the road conditions - or too fast if it is wet, icy, foggy, too hot or there is an R in the month - or its' the officers wrong period of the month -or if their 'figures' are low for the month. The definition of inappropriate speed is about as loose as a referee's interpretation of the offside rule.
I think what a lot of people may not realise a lot of tactics against motorists having been going on in the London Boroughs for a long time, Westminster and Lambeth being the main culprits. Businesses that receive daily fines. Anything from that moments stopping on the side of the road, to wheels on crossing studs in a traffic jam, through to a wrong manoeuvre. As any motorist attempting to work in those areas know, so much as breath in the wrong direction and you will be fined and all done by CCTV and who knows probably courtesy of a rewind button. I exaggerate not. This has been going on and got away with by local authorities on a far grander scale then the Chatham Bus Lane money spinner.
Several years ago a friend of mine came up with a plan to reduce significantly the amount of petty crime that was blighting the lives of upstanding citizens, an amount that has of course increased in the intervening years. The plan's beauty was its simplicity, and was that every (say) 12th person convicted of a crime in a magistrates court should be taken out the back and summarily executed. He acknowledged that this might be a bit harsh on those who had forgotten to pay a parking fine, but was quite adamant that it would have the desired effect. Just to reassure those who don't know me personally of the company I keep, I should point out that this plan was formed solely for comic effect in response to a mutual friend's story of being the victim of such a petty crime (whether it was burglary or having his car broken into or something similar is lost to memory), and in no way reflected the political or, actually, compassionate sociological views if it's founder but you can't help but wonder.......
To 'prolong' the 'justice' theme ; As we all know, motorists are an 'easy' target...... allegedly in the name of road safety............. more likely to boost 'numbers' - and not forgetting the coffers - with not a lot spent to improve things for motorists. In the early 90s a Kent police office, in a town in which I lived, was closed ( & personnel 'transferred' to the neighbouring, sub-divisional headquarters ). The closure was on 'economic' grounds. 12 months later the crime figures for my town were published - they had gone up by ( officially ) 72%. This figure did NOT include an attempted burglary at the house of a friend ! Why ? Because no entry into the house was gained, and the jemmy marks on the window frame & rear door were not conclusive enough to establish the intent of the criminal. This incident went unrecorded - NOT added to the 72% increase in the crime figures. How many more crimes went undisclosed ? ........ and, even at 'only' an increase of 72%, IF this level of incompetence was replicated in industry there would be wholescale sackings. The buffoon who was head of the Police in the area came out with a 'pearler' when the next years' crime figures were published. He had the nerve to announce that the figures had gone down by 4% !!!!!!!! This still meant that the crime figures were 65.12% higher than before the closure & 'removal' of the police officers. The following year the crime figures were not announced ! nb ..I'm not sure what the head of Police is now doing - maybe chairman of a football club ??
