Moors murderer Ian Brady has finally copped it at the age of 79.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39929538
Well he wanted to die and everybody wanted him to die so that's that then, we're all happy.
A nastier pair I struggle to think of.
Moors murderer Ian Brady has finally copped it at the age of 79.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39929538
Well he wanted to die and everybody wanted him to die so that's that then, we're all happy.
A nastier pair I struggle to think of.
This nonsense is designed to convince gullibles that they are nice people really.
<retch>
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 honestly don't remember that, but loads of people see what's going on and the huge waste in the system, so I'm not surprised that even back then, just raising a bit more tax was rejected.
Ok my memory failed me slightly but I was almsot right and the point stands.
1. It was 1997 not 1992
2. The 'penny' was for education not the NHS.
Paddy Ashdown, then Lib Dem leader, tried a similar scheme in the 1992 election...it became known as Paddy's Penny.
it didn't work then either. People won't vote for higher taxes. The perception is always, "you take enough of my money already, spend it more sensibly".
... I thought you lived in Manchester, Mark, so could give us your thoughts on Andy Burnham and the other Manchester candidates, oh well!
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.
I would be, but there are none where I live (Leicester) this year.
We also do have an elected mayor here already. Not really sure how it all works.
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.
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.
How about this for a "car crash interview"?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39659304
Another self serving multiple turncoat.
He's standing down because he wasn't going to get back in anyway.
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:
Arming the police and guns in general would make an interesting debate actually.
But, then why sentence her in the first place?
The victim surcharge cannot be varied by the judge - he literally has no power not to impose it.
Those who like 28days later may also like https://www.derelictplaces.co.uk.
A word of warning about both those "urban explorer" sites - they have VERY strict rules, particularly pertaining to questions you may and may not ask, and they enforce these rigidly. They are also suspicious of n00bs. So have a good read before posting, if you plan to.