Posts by Mark

    It's not the opinion she posted, it's the use of that phrase. Whilst it could be argued that "the man in the street" might use that phrase without fully understanding the connotations, for someone in the media to use it is a disgrace. They know full well what it means and they are playing stupid and offensive games.


    She is an attention seeker, she posts this stuff on purpose to cause offence and controversy.

    That's not what she was saying. She was saying she wanted the terrorists sorted out and I agree with her. FULLY. By whatever method.


    To equate the pre-mediated extermination of an entire religious group with wanting to rid ourselves of people who are trying to kill us, is utter nonsense. I want the terrorists wiped out and that is what she was talking about, not an entire people. How would you kill a billion plus people anyway, assuming you wanted to, unless nuclear weapons were used?


    It's becoming illegal to speak your mind and that is a very, very dangerous thing indeed because it will create the very situation that the PC/liberal brigade say they are trying to prevent.


    She shouldn't have used the term "final solution".

    No.


    The French seem to be heading down an authoritarian route but with a populist bent to it.


    Ban the burqa
    Ban thin models


    All with plausible sounding justifications of course.


    It's a fairly small step from that, to banning political views they don't like. With plausible explanations of course.

    .... Education is different I think, and something which might be suitable for the one penny raise. But health is an entirely different issue as my waistline will testify to!


    I think it played to the same dynamic. Education was a bigger hot potato at the time than it is now (remember Blair's "education, education, education" mantra from the same period). And the issue remained the same - people won't vote for tax rises because they already consider that the government takes too much of their money as it is.

    Hi there.


    Nice to see some people from DS.
    (I am not keen on their new software over there I have to say, although I don't post there much admittedly.)

    ... I thought you lived in Manchester, Mark, so could give us your thoughts on Andy Burnham and the other Manchester candidates, oh well! :D


    Didn't know Leicester had an elected mayor. I thought it was only London and now these six new ones. According to wikipedia, your mayor is called Peter Soulsby. He's a labour chap and he won the first mayoral election in 2011 with 55% of the vote and was reelected again for another 4 years in 2015 with 54% of the vote. So, clearly a popular fellow in your area.


    I used to live in Manchester until a couple of years ago. All Manchester politicians are corrupt.


    Soulsby divides opinion, I think he's generally ok and he certainly has the best interests of the city at heart, even if he occasionally makes odd decisions.

    What you get these days is far from a traditional traffic warden.


    Traffic wardens were under the control of the police and were tasked only with keeping the streets clear.


    What you have today, since the decriminalisation of parking, are "parking enforcement officers", these are typically employed by private companies under contract to local councils (though sometimes still by the councils themselves).
    Generally these are tasked with issuing as many tickets as possible to hit financial targets set by the council.


    That said: don't park illegally and you will never come into contact with them.

    My BT bill arrived today. They had added a charge of £129.99 on for the repair. I've just rung them, stated by case and they said I had agreed to a possible charge even though the engineer said I wouldn't have to pay . It transpires that my beloved had reported the fault online during one of the brief periods it was working that morning. She said she couldn't get beyond that page without doing so. So, as usual they win because they hold all the aces. The socket incidentally is my property. I can take it with me if I move.:rolleyes:


    Anyway, my contract doesn't run out until February 2018 so I'm stuffed all round and will have to pay it. :(


    You should ask them to specify exactly what the charge is for. They are known for imposing these charges incorrectly. Raise a formal complaint using their complaint process, this allows it to be referred to the regulator's dispute resolution scheme later if required.

    Just to recap if I hadn't mentioned it before. My beloved bought me an Amazon Echo for Christmas. We discovered that users had problems connecting it to a BT 4 router and so did we. So, to cut a long story short, we bought the latest BT router. The Echo connected immediately but a while later we began to get lot of outages whereas normally we get hardly any and those are only very brief.


    I rang them up and they said it was an outside fault. Later that day, an engineer rang and said he needed to visit. Knowing BT's charges for a home visit can be £100 plus I asked him if we would have to pay and he said we wouldn't. Anyway, he came, and put new socket on the wall and after a day or so, our connection was back to normal.


    But I'm still waiting to see if they are going to try and charge me for the visit. If they do try to charge me, they may well lose my custom when the present contract is due for renewal. If they don't, I'll stick with them.


    The charge is only for situations where the fault is proved to be the user equipment or wiring....that is anything forward of the termination point, which is the socket inside the master socket (there's a faceplate that unscrews and it is there).


    it sounds like they found the master socket was faulty, if so that's their side and won't be charged.


    Note that extension sockets would class as your own equipment, but the engineer should warn you if there is to be any such charge and they wouldn't normally change an extension anyway, only a master.

    That's a part of it, but it's how police respond to crime, or, as in my case, ignore it. And, is the Tony Martin case, how the law is applied by the courts.


    Most people think the law was always about justice, whereas in fact it was created to protect the interests of the gentry.


    Hmmm. I agree with you, and beware of getting me started on this type of topic.... :eek:

    Just from the perspective of running this site, it's something I am really concerned about.


    If someone gets "offended" by this site and I get reported, how can I run a discussion board if everyone's "sensitivities" have to be protected all the time?


    Oh I could write a book on this. The answer is, you don't have to worry, unless anything strays into illegal stuff, but you might get the odd person leaving in a huff from time to time.


    I have also long had a forum that can only be seen when you're a member, this gets used for more "robust", contentious stuff. What this does is prevent random members of the public (and Google) from seeing it. (You can also then block people from it using a usergroup if they won't play ball). Whether all this is necessary depends on how far you let people go, but when you run a site like this one things will usually get heated and / or contentious at some point.