Posts by bestkeptsecret

    It wouldn't surprise me if the woman did manage to get herself killed by her own bloody mindedness - I've seen people doing all sorts of stupid things like crossing the road in front of a speeding motorist because the motorist shouldn't be speeding.


    However, it doesn't change the fact that it is illegal to ride the type of bike he was riding on the road, so its no defence in this case

    [Mod comment] There are no postings by yourself in this thread that have been deleted. Bear in mind I can see all the database here including deletions.

    Thanks for looking I would have been quite happy to accept I might never have managed to hit 'submit'. As it happens I've just found the answer. Instead of two threads on one forum, this conversation is being played out in two threads across two forums!

    I'm sure I replied to this thread suggesting that the Monarch is our last line of defence against a PM that has lost the plot.


    And if we were to 'get rid' as per whoever was suggesting, what would we replace the monarchy with, or would we not replace it with anything at all?


    Am I going nuts - were those replies deleted or is there two threads on this?

    Interesting

    My experience with the police is similar to Horizon - they rely on people not to commit crimes

    If you think about it the State has always had a certain reliance on people not committing crimes in order to maintain control.


    The bible was always there to try and keep people on the straight and narrow, rather than catch people after the event, and subsequently, so are the police.


    The bible achieved it by virtue of an omnipotent being , who would ultimately sit in judgment over people. The police achieves it by creating a fear you will get caught, leading to a Judge standing over people sitting in judgement.


    Neither is 100% effective, but the one big flaw with the new system is that no-one would be daft enough to think the police could be omnipotent. Also, because they are tangible and will get scrutiny, anyone can see that they are not infallible. With the bible system, everyone gets their comeuppance in the end another beauty of religion is that judgment happens when you die, so no one can report back and say the deity got it wrong.


    In many ways the police, CPS and Courts, perform a function that the bible was originally designed to perform.

    You are missing the point, but I cant explain the point, and why those questions are all subtly different as there is a danger it would influence responses and skew the results.


    The reason for limiting the choices to three was to force prioritisation. It was by design. Now for example, when I come to analyse the relative weighted importance of the options to people against those who voted, Ron Manager effectively cancelled himself out, because he has selected every option.


    the future, when such changes are made, members will be automatically informed by the software of such changes, and can appeal the decision but I've not installed those functions yet.

    Whether it goes through an appeal button or I appeal to you outside it. I've appealed to you and explained the reason why I set up the poll the way I did.


    If you're unhappy with the change, go ahead and delete the thread

    If this is your final decision despite my appeal, that's up to you. But how does that sort of response do anything more than encourage the loss of content, and discourage people from posting. Its counter productive to the aim of building up content to attract more people to the site. Its cutting your nose off to spite your face if you think about it.

    I've edited the poll and bks' post to allow multiple votes and to allow votes to be changed too, if people wish to alter their votes.


    I can't restrain myself to just three options.

    I wish you hadn't. Its undermined the analysis I was going to do on the results. Getting people to select the three that are the most important to them was an important part of the premise.

    It was one of the bosses of the American department stores who invented Santa Claus (Father Christmas) to sell presents to kids. I assume he was a man and chose a man as his "sales" guy.


    We can get into political correctness on another thread, but as it's the theme here, I find PC people very illiberal, always have. They only tolerate you if you accept their view of things. So, it's an acceptance of a PC agenda, but using a sledge hammer.


    But, as I said, I am looking forward to seeing, what, if anything, has changed with the new female Dr.

    Are you sure about that?


    I was under the impression that he comes from St Nicolas, Dutch settlers took the legend with them to the US, and that is an anglicised version of his Dutch nickname.

    The government has been encouraging people to set up businesses to help establish a wider network of electric charging points around the country. There are a few recruiting right now.


    I think the reason they are waiting is they don't want to push people into it too soon, find they really struggle to work with the limited facilities in place now, and then resent the concept before it has matured sufficiently.

    As I know from reading your posts on Po Fo UK, you're good on political topics, even if I don't agree with a lot of your politics.

    If only half the population agreed with my politics, I'd be PM by now ;)


    Perhaps, you might consider starting a topic up at some point about political reform and better ways to do politics.

    I might revamp and turn my site into something along those lines, and then perhaps in the future could feed off and feed this site with members.

    There is scope for to be so much more than just a couple of threads and it could be quite a good way of boosting SEO for both domains too.

    I will give that some thought.


    You've done pretty good already, bks. You've only been here for five minutes and you've already started substantial political topics up.

    Thanks:) - I noticed the google and yahoo bots were crawling the Scottish posts I put up last night too - bonus!


    I also noticed that they were crawling the forum calendar too by the way - that's not so good as it can hurt the site ranking rather than help it. When I was putting mine together I did come across some code you can insert to stop bots going where you don't want them. Its a while since I looked into it but if you google it you should be able to find it. If the Woltlab platform is anything like the one I was using, they will have a community forum that will usually have hints and tips like that and tell you how/ where to imbed the code in relation to this platform. That might be a better option to try.

    Well, the "geezer" who's responsible, scarpered. I am sure Cameron is enjoying every minute of May's difficulties.

    He may have scarpered but May was in his cabinet, and its not as if all the other government ministers or MP's generally are excused from learning the lessons of that situation.


    What's worse is that a select committee was set up to learn lessons, and then when announced the lessons, 'May's team' didn't pay any attention. Its seriously weak governance.


    What worries me is we 'the electorate' are just as incompetent. We keep returning people to parliament despite them demonstrating their incompetence over time, because many of us can't see past our tribal allegiances. If the parties don't put up a credible candidate, then people should be willing to stand/ and vote for credible independent candidates en masse. That Dianne Abbot and Keith Vaz keep being returned is not a good advert for representative democracy. A divisive racist and a proven fraudster - brilliant! good job people !

    think our negotiators are in the same position as they always were, so not sure I agree on that.

    My point is more that a no-deal scenario is much worse for the EU than it is for the UK. On that basis if the government had prepared for a no-deal scenario and it was a credible threat in that it was a route we could go down in reality, then our negotiators would have a much stronger hand.


    We can't risk a no deal situation because there is no provision for it, so the EU negotiators know its a hollow threat and that we have no choice but to agree a deal. This is why the EU negotiators are being so 'robust' in their demands.


    So you are right in that our negotiators are in the same position that they always were, but my point is that its a weaker position than they should have been in from the outset, and that is a result of the governments' incompetence in formulating the plan, with a particular emphasis on contingencies.


    What annoys me the most is that it is a demonstration that nothing was learned from the Brexit referendum. When they said there was no plan for a brexit outcome it was the truth. It shouldn't have been that way. The government should have been prepared for both outcomes. There was a select committee hearing that concluded as much, but no lessons were learned and the mistake has been repeated.

    I think everyone needs to wait to see what the findings of the enquiry are. There are just too many unknowns to understand culpability at the moment.


    When you consider that 'desk research' is a perfectly legal way of specifying products used, and the rules around those desk exercises are rather flexible, its very difficult to suggest that people in the council who have seen all the boxes have been ticked against their requirements checklist, according to building regulations, have then done anything wrong. the enquiry needs to investigate to see if they can establish something more sinister was going on.


    A manufacturer doesn't decide what applications their products are used in, and they might be perfectly acceptable for one situation and not another. Its hard to see how the manufacturer can be held accountable.


    For those who took the decision to do desk research as part of preparing their suitability report , did they do it because they knew the product wasn't suitable for the application, or because they were told to - or did they just do it because its legal, and it is obviously more cost effective than doing physical tests. This needs to be investigated and proven in advance of the CPS having any chance of securing convictions.


    The courts exist to dispense justice, not meet out revenge because the mob needs someone, anyone to pay, to satisfy their blood lust.

    That's exactly why I predicted it would initially be a 5 year period with the option of extending it.

    Bear in mind, I came up with this theory and first set it out back in April, before any of the comments in recent weeks, and before he EU(W) existed.

    In recent weeks we've had MP's talking about a 2 year transition and now, they are talking possibly 5 years.


    Having read all the whitepapers to date, as well as having read the EU(W) bill from cover to cover, I don't see anything that would allow for a no-deal scenario to be able to be allowed to happen. I don't think anything other than a transitional arrangement is viable because of the way the government has conducted themselves since the referendum. From the way the EU have positioned themselves, I can see they realise this, and its put our negotiators in a much weaker position than they should have been.

    For me a plant is the best way to bring it out of the lab and into the world. Instead of lab equipment and messing about with cultures and a controlled environment to grow the meat in you use a plant as the 'life support system' to grow the meat.


    It's not that far removed from 'the vines'



    Why couldn't plants spit out meat!



    A plant that could end starvation forever - Who would have thought a children's cartoon from the 80's would be delivering concepts that we are now pursuing seriously!

    This is a prediction I made a few months back, and it seems that what politicians are saying now, is bringing us ever closer to it.



    As part of the Brexit process pre 'departure' in 2019, I think a transitional arrangement will be agreed which will see us agree to continue to align ourselves to EU rules. We will probably see freedom of movement continue, though there is a slight chance the EU might concede to freedom of movement of workers, not just people. Not that it will mean anything because that's not going to be hard to get around if you really want to come.


    The transitional arrangement will probably be agreed for 5 years with the option to extend that out (probably to 10 years). As a comprehensive free trade agreement could easily take 8-10 years, and that needs to be sorted as part of a the permanent post transition arrangement, that could be sold as reasonable as long as MP's keep saying how committed they are to 'delivering the will of the people, as proven by delivering brexit in 2019'


    In 2028 when the 10 years is looming and the deal is still not quite finalised and there are so many unpalatable compromises for people in terms of what is on the table so far someone will say "look guys the referendum is ancient history now anyway. You've got a whole new generation of voters who never got a say, one of the generations that tipped the balance in favour of leave is now dead", before we do this damned silly thing in this dammed silly way, perhaps we should put it to another vote"


    Then we will have a 2029 referendum with only 6 months before the 10 years is up. We will get cliff edge rhetoric on top of everything else, and we will see the main parties move heaven and earth to get the re-join vote over the line. The EU will join in too - they will say, re-join, no problem. Juncker always set the transitional deal up to keep us aligned so that can all be done without massive headaches, hoping we might 'rejoin the EU boat in the future


    May even dropped the free movement may continue bomb back in April while in Saudi as a subtle hint and so she can say she did tell us when the details of the transitional arrangement become clear - but she delivered her National Trust Easter egg rant at the same time and the real story got buried under that rubbish.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39498647


    Boris Johnson did too

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n…ris-johnson-a7672741.html


    Juncker believes we will re-join the EU one day, and that's what he hopes for. He will work for that lengthy transitional deal using the free trade agreement timescales as a smokescreen and set things up so that can be done quickly and easily - once we have had our breathing space to pause and reflect. http://www.thewestmorlandgazet…d_rejoin_EU_after_Brexit/


    The country is being played, and I think remainers might get their wish in the end. Its got to be done subtly otherwise its not going to look like the government was never sincere in 'delivering the will of the people' and that would be a problem.

    I can't believe that in a world beset with some of the most horrendous human suffering, caused by war and ignorance, greed and dictatorship, people are worrying themselves to death over chicken washed in anti-bacterial solution.

    I'm less worried about Chlorinated Chicken, and more worried about getting my hands on a Chicken Wing Tree that 'pollinates' my wings with cayenne pepper etc ;)

    If post Brexit, the ECJ still has jurisdiction in Britain, there isn't much point in Brexit in the first place. Perhaps that is the aim of the negotiations by the EU, to make us think again about leaving the EU, so they put up these ridiculous barriers.

    That's an interesting one. The way things are going there is a slight danger the CJEU may have some influence post brexit, but it is unlikely.


    The ECtHR will definitely have primacy over our domestic courts post brexit though, and I don't think many people appreciate how many things can end up being an ECHR issue.


    The other thing to bear in mind is that the Council of Europe is made up of 47 member states. Post brexit the EU will control 27 votes giving them the majority, and we will no longer have any direct influence on how that voting block acts. We will be one if the remaining 20 single voices.


    I think a lot of people who voted Brexit, either don't realise the brexit plan being followed by the government won't give them what they voted for, or were being disingenuous about why they voted brexit.

    On the subject of grown meat, if they can get it out of the lab and to the point someone comes up with a chicken wing tree, or a lamb shawarma bush - I'm first in the queue.


    It would be pretty cool if they could get to the point where they create a set up where the bush / plant also produces spice 'pollen' that then causes the 'meat' to get a light coating of the appropriate spices as it reaches maturity.

    Its going to work for a lot of VPN providers if it goes through. A lot of people who would never gone beyond one of the ropey free options, will start using more robust paid for services to get a reliable access to their favourite sites.


    I doubt many will be comfortable handing over their card details, both for fear of fraud, and because it will mean their identity can't be hidden. You can see hackers having a field day attacking the sites and then publishing lists of who have been getting age verified. Its a car crash waiting to happen.

    Personally I think the whole affair has been an utter disgrace. People have been using the situation for their own ends, and have had no consideration for the family involved. From Campaigners using it to further their own causes to Donald Trump using it to score political points., a lot of people need to take a long hard look at themselves.

    The Government continues to push on with Brexit, however I wonder if Remainers and Brexiteers have missed a trick.


    There is no plan to secede from the Council of Europe so our supreme court will not see its supremacy restored. The government set this out specifically in their 'Legislating for Brexit' whitepaper. The European Court of Human Rights will therefore still trump our domestic courts.


    So for all those demanding 'We want our sovereignty back' and 'We want the power to make and enforce our own laws' etc - the Government's Brexit plan will not deliver that as things stand. On that note, as part of the European Union (withdrawal) bill progressing through the house, you will see a statement from David Davis documented on the front, as the minister responsible.


    David Davis has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:


    Quote from David Davis

    In my view the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.


    Hi did this because ministers have to make such a declaration, in accordance with the ECHR, as part of presenting a bill to parliament. Now on reading that, it got me thinking.... Is it really compatible....... Could Remainers work with this........


    Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

    ARTICLE 2 Freedom of movement

    (2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.


    Now that being the case couldn't you construct argument to say that by leaving the EU and abandoning 'free movement of people' , you are deliberately and knowingly making it harder for people who don't want to live in this county from being able move abroad. At the moment you can just go to other EU member states, so you have a very accessible 'out'. If freedom of movement ends for the UK's population, then they will only be able to leave if they have enough merit that another country wants to take them.


    Couldn't you make a case to say, rather than being compatible with the ECHR, the withdrawal bill actually offends Protocol 4, Article 2. Is there enough here to give a Gina Miller Mark 2 , the opportunity to raise some money and take a legal challenge to the ECtHR in connection with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. While It may or may not succeed, its not so black and white that some high priced lawyers wouldn't be able to at least construct an argument around this, and have the EU withdrawal bill become the subject of months of legal scrutiny at the hands of the ECtHR. That would surely put a rather large spanner in the works as far as delivering Brexit is concerned. Who knows, it might even require the government to seek to withdraw the Art 50 Notice while they deal with the legal wrangles, so they don't run out of time.....