I am really your voice of truth and reason

Anyone who says that usually isn’t :-)

I actually agree with a lot of what you say about the bureaucracy – but I judged that the benefits of the EU (trade, human rights, free movement, peace, etc) outweighed the bureaucratic negatives and voted remain.

While contractors aren’t included in redundancy, they are probably in a tight spot.

Employers have a statutory duty to consult on ways to minimise redundancies. Sounds like you have an easy solution – lay off a contractor. You *could* have a case against them for unfair dismissal (if you have enough service) and for breach of redundancy law but you really need a specialist to advise.

Talk to ACAS. But also be looking for another job – if you survive this then your card is probably marked.

When you say

The contractors are effectively disguised employees due to the type of work and contractual arrangements with the company.

two things spring to mind:
1 – are they actually self-employed or are they workers/employees (see uber, etc)
2 – IR35

More detection and prosecution is needed

and education. Most drivers don’t realise that what they are doing is dangerous – they think they are capable of driving safely while doing whatever it is.

It’s simple. If you kill someone with your car, you were driving too fast. I don’t care if you were doing 7, 17, 70 or 700mph, the fact you killed someone by hitting them with your car means you were driving dangerously.

You haven’t read the thread about the guy who stepped out in front of a lorry? Sometimes, shit happens even when you are driving well.

Is it any more distracting than chatting to a mate in the passenger seat? If it is then do you have any evidence to back this up, and why is it perfectly legal?

Yes it is. Try google.

When something happens – braking traffic, someone running a light in front of you, stomping on the brakes, whatever then a passenger will tend to shut up. It also takes more concentration to have a conversation that isn’t physically there with you.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=passenger+vs+hands+free

But UK don’t have to be wounded if the remainders respect the non-binding, advisory-only outcome of the Referendum.

Fixed that for you :-0

More seriously, there are two significant facts that are important here, and often missed:

Pfft. Who needs facts when you have the internet.

freecad

You could more immediately get started by banning all Euro 4 vehicles from city centres. Those are far more polluting than Euro 5 and also old enough that it shouldn’t affect owners too badly.

You could even run a scrappage scheme to encourage older polluters off the roads.

Manufacturers need to be encouraged to sell cars with better petrol engines. My car cannot be bought with a petrol engine in the UK. The only option on my wife’s people carrier is a 1.4 petrol stressed to the max, so we went for the 2.0 diesel. If there had been a decent 2.0 petrol on offer, we’d have gone for that over the diesel.

UKIP

The EU

molgrips – Member

Does this really actually happen?

I’m not talking about refugees now – EU migrants.

Since when did what actually happens influence the majority of votes?

John Lewis own brand.

Although STW probably won’t accept anything less than a Miele.

But paying for access to single market is not what the Leave wanted.

It’s not what some on leave wanted (including all the high profile campaigners who clearly stated we would leave the single market).

I know a few people (and there are plenty others on discussion forums) who are pushing for exactly that. They wanted out of the EU but to stay in the single market. Free trade without free movement of people.

Freedom of immigration doesn’t mean all eu citizens have to be treated as Brits.

The original freedom was for free movement of workers. Since then, the free movement of citizens, including the unfettered right to reside was added. Then they added a requirement for equal treatment for all EU citizens. I think that came in the Lisbon treaty that Labour wouldn’t let us vote on.

So yes, all EU citizens have to be treated as brits. But that isn’t how it started.

TFEU Article 18:

Within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited

The UK court case is a *little* more far reaching then just article 50, the HUGE point a lot of brexiters are simply ignoring is that it will set a precident that a government can remove the rights of it’s citizens at a whim, essentially if the government win the case, it will legitimise dictatorship in the UK. it’s probably het most significant court case we ill see in our lifetimes… not a big deal at all.

All of which is nonsense and none of which is being discussed in the court case.

The court case is still very significant – but it is about whether prerogative can be used to take actions that will inevitably require primary legislation at a later date. Put rather simply, is activating Article 50 part of the legislative parliamentary process of leaving the UK or is it a separate act.

Sod all to do with removal of rights.

You are suggesting that prerogative can override parliament, which is neither of the two arguments being presented. Nor is it at all legal.

But UK courts have decided to delay the process, not the EU

Wot?

UK courts are delaying nothing and there is no sign that the original government timetable cannot be met regardless of the court decision.

All the courts are doing is clarifying the limits of prerogative powers. Nothing about delaying Article 50 or not doing Brexit.

There are a lot of deserving Olympians, so it was always going to be a challenge to select the right pool. Max Whitlock and the Kennys are outstanding – if it was just them and a more regular selection any one of them could walk it.

But Murray has made history in a way none of the Olympians have as individuals.

Team GB for “team of the year” almost certainly.

We should have a referendum on banning referendums.

Also on spelling:
Option 1 – referendums
Option 2 – referenda

You assume drugs – what if it is mental illness or disability that he is trying to control?

You know nothing. The police will tell you nothing and I assume that there is nothing you can tell them that they don’t already know. Don’t waste their time by being a nosy neighbour or NIMBY.

Landlord has nothing to do with it unless there is a breach of covenant or long lease.

It’s a single lane road. There is no “my side” or “their side” unless it is a single lane road with white lines down the middle…

You are both in the same lane and both have to obey the same rules.

Rule 1 – don’t be an arsehole
Rule 2 – if rule 1 fails, don’t get hurt

I would generally slow down and tuck in (expecting the driver to do the same). If they don’t, I’d stop and then follow up with some naughty words.

I sometimes think that you don’t hear about the honourable ones because they’re not dishonourable enough to climb to the top lol

“MP gets on with job, talks to constituents and deals with their issues” doesn’t make headlines and is unlikely to get someone noticed in the party.

I believe most MPs are actually good and honest, they just aren’t the ones you ever hear about.

Neither my MP or MSP are seen much these days (both SNP). That’s sad because both of their predecessors (one Tory deposed in 2011, one Labour stood down in 2015) were very good constituency workers.

The more junior guy was awarded a 50% multiplier on some of the scores

Is this guy also the youngest? Sounds like age discrimination to me…

I’d run what you know past ACAS but accept that you are going and focus on finding somewhere new.

I assume on this you would accept speed limiters in all cars, GPS tracking and rigid segregation on roads.

Giving the authorities the same access to modern electronic communications as they had to phone tapping isn’t the same as bringing in new restrictions that have never existed.

It doesn’t mean that it is desirable, but all this is trying to do is maintain a capability (not add a fundamentally new one).

Should, or should not, the police and other similar agencies have access to private communications if they have reasonable cause and a proper warrant? If your answer is yes then why does the method of communication matter?

which was based on Article 50 having already been declared.

OBR forecast for 2016 (the one that has just been revised) was, at the time of the budget, based on a remain vote. That forecast has been revised up very slightly. The 2017 and 2018 forecasts have been revised down, but nothing like the treasury’s Brexit scenarios.

None of the underlying assumptions made (and documented) by the OBR or the treasury were conditional on activating Article 50. The “shock scenario” was based on only a vote to leave as were all of the predictions that the four horsemen would be taking Santa’s place this year.

You could try reading the various analyses instead of just parroting stuff.

Length of service is not useable as a criteria in scoring – otherwise you enter the last in first out scenario which is I believe illegal.

Not so clear cut – straight up LIFO is likely to be automatically unfair. Length of service as one criteria, provided there is an objective justification and safeguards are in place, can be acceptable.

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4242

That would be Building Control rather than Planning (in England and Wales).

Or a building warrant where OP lives, as mentioned above.

WHAT FING PLANET ARE YOU ON???

PLANET LEAVE

They got a letter from the freeholder

Scotchland so no freeholder, may need the permission of the factors if you have them.

No warrant is needed if it is only a stud wall.

Yes it would reduce the value, although you could reinstate it. Can’t you use the second bedroom for something that doesn’t need a wall knocked down?

There’s no lurch to Trump at all, he polled less votes than the last two Republicans and they both lost.

Mostly there was a lurch to “not voting” in the Democrat camp.

If you had put a stuffed toy up instead of Hilary, there would have been a landslide.

As one commentator put it, many of the protesters that we have seen have been marching right past the polling station that they didn’t use.

Nope – not married. Don’t believe in such an outdated practice. Been with the same woman for best part of 40 years and if we ever split then the asetts go 50/50

Except there is no way to enforce a split for any assets that aren’t jointly owned (cars, pensions, bank accounts, bikes).

Marriage has sod all to do with love and stuff (but you can add that on should you wish). It is a binding legal and financial arrangement that includes protections that simply can’t be achieved by any other means.

The whole “manner in which she is accustomed” gubbins is a myth. Two households are more expensive to run than one so it just isn’t achievable. Nor is being a stay at home lone parent.

After 20 years, it’ll be 50/50 as a starting point including pensions (based on current values). Assets can be traded (pension for house is a common one). She may need some support to get on her feet, but she’d be expected to find a job. Spousal maintenance is generally disliked by the courts but sometimes necessary to make the transition – clean breaks are much better all round. If there is an order for spousal maintenance, it can be varied at any time until it ceases.

If solicitors can be kept out of it, that is usually best all round but it requires a reasonable and open approach from both parties. Solicitors should only be used if it is a difficult split or if you jointly use one to draft agreed documents.

The problem with the Michelin Crossclimate is exactly:

Their main current drawback is they only make them up to 17″

Nokian Weatherproof are very similar in performance and also an all-weather tyre but available in larger sizes and with XL ratings and the like.

Either she is crazy, or she has baggage.

Only one of those can be dealt with and sorted.

Michelin Crossclimate or Nokian Weatherproof are where it’s at. They aren’t all-season tyres – they have a quite different construction. The manufacturers call them “all-weather” instead.

In testing, winter performance is competitive with the best winter tyres. Wet performance is also good, a good summer tyre will beat them in the dry.

Discovery has a mixed history, depends exactly which model/engine you want. Not cheap to own, new 2017 model should be better.

Anecdotally, you either get a peach or a lemon. Folk who get a good one love it, if you get a bad one then you are cursed for ever more.

9 out of every 10 land rovers ever sold are still on the road today.

The other one got to it’s destination.

I think if the EU had offered even some relatively minor compromise on FoM (e.g. national limits on numbers) then it would have persuaded many people to stay.

I’m pretty confident that if Merkel had said 6 months ago that free movement needed to be looked at then that would have been enough to swing the vote. If she had said it last year when Dave pretended to make a deal, the campaign would have been totally different.

According to the Ashcroft poll, a third of leave voters did so because of immigration and border control.

These points can just as easily be applied to drivers as reasons to slow down, be patient, make good observations, and not manoeuvre your vehicle into the paths of vulnerable road users.

And those rules can and should be used to encourage car drivers to modify their behaviour.

But when I’m on my bike I tend to take the view that I don’t want to die and big metal boxes may not always behave as I would like them to.

So if I take a temporary secondment to another country (or even just a site in England) then I lose my say in the future of a country I intend to return to and make my life in?

Both immigrants and emigrants are awkward and you need some sort of time limit to ensure that transient immigrants don’t vote and transient emigrants aren’t excluded.

You again say that

people who live in a country should have the decisive say on how it is governed

but that wasn’t the Scottish government’s chosen franchise. Only residents with certain nationalities were given a vote (several of those nationalities based on historical colonialism).

For example, a USA immigrant with indefinite leave to remain (a precursor for British citizenship) would not have been entitled to vote.

so to make it clear, I believe everyone who lives here should have a say, not just the lucky ones who were born here.

Was just trying to highlight how the Brexit vote was skewed by not doing just that.

The Scottish referendum franchise did not include all who live here – only British, Commonwealth and EU citizens.

Immigrants voting is an awkward one – I’d want anyone who has semi-permanently moved to this country to get a vote, but someone on a brief student visa shouldn’t. I agree the Brexit franchise went too far.

The Brexit franchise also included expats, which our referendum didn’t – I think a Scot living in Wales should probably have a vote as they have a vested interest. The SNP are making a big deal about needing access to EU freedom of movement, but denied a vote to any Scots who took advantage of that.

Finally, Nicola has found an argument that has won me over. I repent, please forgive me.
http://newsthump.com/2016/11/12/nicola-sturgeon-refuses-to-accept-result-of-england-vs-scotland-match/

Its hard to argue the winner,in a popularity contest, is the one with the least votes.

Except if you read more than six words from my post, it isn’t a popularity contest. It is a state-by-state contest to gain electoral college votes. The campaigns are run with that objective.

Change the rules, it becomes a popularity contest.

So it seems that Trump has won, despite Clinton getting a higher percentage of the popular vote,

Except it isn’t by very much, some states have still to return and if the popular vote was what mattered then the candidates would campaign differently. You didn’t see Trump in California (for example) because they were always going to give their electoral college votes to Clinton. If the popular vote mattered, he might have dropped by to get a few.

The electoral college system affects the campaign, not just the results.

So having legally shown that our parliament now needs to vote on article 50 before its’ implementation, and given that in the absence of the Whip, most MPs have previously said they would vote to remain in the EU, could the vagaries of our own democratic process also overturn the popular vote?

It might happen, although unlikely. But it won’t be presented as overturning the popular vote – it will be “I support Brexit because the people said so, but not on the terms the government is proposing.”

I doubt any MP is prepared to stand up and say “the referendum outcome was wrong” but that does’t mean that they will support the government’s Brexit bill.

Some MPs may vote with their constituency result which I think is fair enough although not the point of the referendum.

Not yet proven. Cancers from such stuff turn up decades later. When it comes to carcinogens, trace levels is all that’s needed to mutate a few cells. Statistically low yes, but the risk is there.

Do you know how many substances are in the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s “probably not carcinogenic to humans” (group 4) category?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_4_carcinogens

I’ll be buying a new frying pan soon, I will probably avoid PTFE because there are better around and I don’t like the low temperature limit but I still have some old ones that get used. PFOA free is fairly common these days.

And I cook scrambled eggs in a plain old stainless steel pan and they don’t stick. (OK, it’s 3-ply because straight up stainless isn’t very STW).