oh my goodness!

good luck.

http://www.glencoe-cottages.com/ – Torren in Glen Coe. Fishing, hiking, climbing, boozing, mountain biking (at Fort William). A great little place.

One thing though – you might find it hard to get a weekend rental from a good place. Most of them prefer to rent by the week and often they're booked out months in advance. Didn't check if that one above is available in June or not.

lim dems say to labour, clegg or we walk away

No way – is every Lib Dem going to accept walking away from being in government for the first time ever just so Clegg can massage his ego by only accepting the top job?

MTFU!

xe.com have been good to me so far.

You send GBP to their UK account, they send CAD to your Canadian account.

you could always try turning her daughter against her and poisoning their relationship :lol:

That's why we're going to make a law that says if that if they don't dress how we want them to, we're going to put them in prison.

No. It's against the full covering of the face. I agree with your response to what I put earlier, but not this.

Honestly, I think whether or not "dress" is the right word is actually a distinction without a difference, but if this sounds less absurd to you:

People taking away women's rights to decide what goes on their face is oppressive. That's why we're going to make a law that says if they try to decide what goes on their face, we're going to put them in prison.

…then go right ahead. Think about it for a second: it is a law that takes away your right to decide what you put on your face. Your *face*. Is there anything more personal than that? Is there anything that the police and the government have less business getting involved in than that?

it oppressive to women

People telling women what they are and aren't allowed to wear is oppressive. That's why we're going to make a law that says if that if they don't dress how we want them to, we're going to put them in prison.

Oh, wait…

Whether it was intended for Muslims but put under another guise I can't tell you.

You are simply factually incorrect and poorly informed on this one. The law was explicitly proposed as a move against the burqa and the niqab. Hoodies or bank robbers have bugger all to do with this law's genesis, although its apologists have attempted to spin that ludicrous line to the credulous.

The law’s chief sponsor, Daniel Bacquelaine, said the burqa defied the principles of an emancipated society that respects the rights of all. He described the burqa as a “political sign first and foremost” and an affirmation of values contrary to fundamental values.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0501/1224269474933.html

Bacquelaine says banning the veil is also a security measure against potential Muslim radicals. He says it is not intended to stigmatize the Muslim community, but to promote women's rights.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/religion/Belgium-Moves-Closer-to-Banning-Face-Covering-Veils-91752349.html

Or is it more likely that all the admin, time, and beaurocracy was meant for 30 women?

You're aware that the French- and Flemish-speaking parties cannot co-operate on any topic apart from Muslim-bashing, that parliament is just about to be dissolved again because there was an attempt to downgrade the status of French in Brussels, that after the 2007 elections there was no government for almost a year…? This kind of pathetic xenophobic crap is the only thing that they can agree on.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0430/1224269369721.html
http://www.france24.com/en/20100429-francophone-parties-block-divisive-pro-flemish-bill

In my opinion this can't be a bad thing, but I am sure if it was tried here there would be all sorts of "human rights" mumbo jumbo that stops it :roll:

Human Rights Act in the UK is the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. Belgium is also a signatory to that Convention. Funnily enough, this new law breaches human rights in Belgium just as much as it would in the UK.

Be honest, do you really think you'd be given ALL the oil and gas money for the north sea? National waters extend a few miles offshore, beyond that its fair game (well it would be if nations hadnt agreed already who got what area). Seeing as those treaties were written up as great britain/uk/whatever, the English would have as much claim to (whats left of) the oil and gas as you.

That's factually not true, unfortunately. Ownership/jurisdiction over all the oilfields is settled in legislation and agreements in tedious detail going back decades. There wouldn't be a free for all if Scotland left the UK and there are numerous models for dissolution of assets in previous countries/federations dissolving. It's not legal rocket science.

It's wishful thinking, of course, that Scots would be relaxing in a jacuzzi of oil money as soon as independence came around.

What currency would an independent Scotland choose?

The groat, obviously. Actually, it could be anything: could continue to use the pouund sterling (!), a new Scottish pound, use the Euro (don't have to join the ECB), use the dollar, use the Swiss franc, use whatever is convenient. There are quite a few countries that don't have their own currencies and use their neighbours' (none are superpowers, I concede, but neither is Scotland): Montenegro, Kosovo, Andorra, Monaco, Liberia, Panama.

If Scotland becomes independent, will Scots in the UK become "illegal immigrants"?

No – most likely at the time of independence the model would be that Scots living in the rest of the UK would be entitled to keep their UK citizenship or acquire Scottish citizenship, and anyone who's currently a UK citizen in Scotland would be allowed to acquire Scottish citizenship. (Don't believe it's likely that in either case acquisition would result in loss of UK citizenship – it's up to HMG but traditionally they haven't been big on cancelling citizenship en masse).

No-one with the slightest credibility is suggesting Scotland would be outside the EU so Scottish citizens would be entitled to live in the UK on that basis (assuming they weren't put on the Polish/Bulgarian accession country scheme, which would be amusing!). But probably in any case in parallel to the EU stuff you would have a UK/Scottish deal on the UK/Irish model anyway – unrestricted immigration, open borders, no discrimination between citizens A and B, service in each other's miitaries allowed, full voting rights…

We know of not one single company who has actually benefitted from a single penny of it

You should file a Freedom of Information request – which, incidentally, has been another piece of useful legislation introduced by Labour!

At the time the economy was actually doing OK, but there was a deadly mixture of sleazy politicians and internecine warfare over Europe.

1997 is also just after the turnaround of a crime wave that started in 1981. It has fallen every year since and is now at a 30 year low. Anyone ready for the next Tory crime wave?

(there was no war in Europe in 1997. Bosnian War ended in 1995)

The problem with bleating about the height of vulgarity is that vast numbers of guests have no taste whatsoever, and it's really heartbreaking when people act in good faith but don't know what to get so waste their hard-earned money on stuff that won't actually be used. It would have been much better if they'd kept their money for themselves than giving it to Mr Gift Shoppe.

The fact is that *some* people want to buy gifts and if you don't give them a clear idea of what you want, they'll have to make their best guess, which is usually wrong, which is like asking them to throw their money away. Even if you say "don't give us anything" people will want to.

You need to make sure that people don't feel awkward if they're broke or don't feel like splashing out, so make sure there's a lot of stuff at the 10-50 quid mark. No problem in putting bike bits, tools, flatpack, whatever on. No point in putting a **** telly on – no-one will buy it and you'll look like a ****. Make sure you do it at a shop which has a flexible returns policy and that you can get eBayable gift cards (usually get 80-90% of face value).

I don't think it's offensive to ask for cash (and in some cultures – not English – it's traditional just to give an envelope instead of fannying about with toasters) or to give cash. I've been to a couple of weddings where I flew in, had no idea what to give them bc I hadn't seen them in a while, and just gave an envelope. They were just as grateful as if I'd got them something – at least it will be useful to them (esp considering how expensive weddings are).

There is in fact a principle of abandonment in English common law but I think it's been qualified by statute after waste management stuff.

I'm sure there were a few high profile cases a few years back of dodgy dealings that were discovered because the person had thrown the 'evidence' out in the rubbish and some journalist went through it – he was being sued for theft but the photo evidence showed the rubbish to be off the property so the journo was deemed safe and not in the wrong.

I believe (but am not sure) that it wasn't so much to do with the abandonment of property but to do with theft – common law definition of larceny was (among other things) to permanently deprive someone of goods. The guy in question – Benji "The Binman" Pell – was taking stuff, photocopying it (he claimed) and then replacing it i.e. there was no permanent deprivation.

Investigators always used to "spin the bins" on that basis but in fact I think it was the DPA that really killed that practice – and the use of shredders and email.

My non-professional understanding is that you can be done for taking stuff out of bins etc. Back when aluminium and steel were worth something, there was a big problem with guys coming around on recycling day and nicking all the metal – the council was really losing out because the sale of metal offset the cost of collection (a little).

However, morally/practically – I think going through bins and skips is fine so long as you don't leave a mess. Probably had a dozen pub bike frames out of skips over the years…

after the stress of uni

Been on stressful uni courses, been on easy ones.
Had very stressful jobs, had piss easy ones.

it's a garage specifc job to do the ATF

Jesus Christ.

Do they change the filter or just suck it up through the dipstick tube (what's it called) with a pump?

Having had auto problems in the past, the usual advice was – change the ATF and see if that works. Don't know about Laguna specifically but on my Ford it was essentially just an oil change albeit a big grubbier because the whole pan had to come down. But not mechanically a big deal. Of course, what you would do when you drop the pan and there's a whole bunch of metal fragments…

When was the last time the ATF was changed?

I knew there had to be a good reason for us invading their country

No war for oil! Or snow!

I get text messages saying i have been hurt and i can claim compensation. It just isn't true.

It isn't true YET, sunshine.
<taps side of nose>

Reduce every public sector budget by, say 25%, but leave the end service at 100%. Then let the management do what they are paid to do and provide the service required from the budget.

Why don't we just increase corporation tax by 25% if it's such a foolproof plan? Let management do what they're supposed to do and provide the profits required on a narrower margin.

Or raise income tax by 25%! Be your own manager! Sustain your quality of life by filtering out the waste!

lols

I work in the railway and in the old BR days we used to get an allowance of sleepers that we could buy of the company

Weird perk!

No tyger, your link gives absolutely no figure whatsoever, for the Muslim birth rate in UK.

But it is, funnily enough, the second result you get if you google "muslim birthrate UK". The first result is an article called "Will Britain one day be Muslim?" on the Daily Fail website. Can't imagine why he didn't choose that one to post up…too self-evidently hyperbolic?

Stop the subsidy to the arms industry – a billion on exports alone.

Raise the duty on new cars.

Enforce anti-corruption law rigorously and extract massive civil penalties from transgressors. The US raises hundreds of millions of dollars a year like this.

Nuke the ID card scheme.

Be more aggressive about charging unentitled people for NHS care.

Tax aviation fuel.

Reduce proportion of fuel costs that can be written off against tax.

Abolish the monarchy and renationalise their assets. Contract out management of the useful venues to be run as tourist enterprises and develop plan to sell off the rest once the market picks up.

Had one of them in the US as a rental.

Shite car. Can't see out. Uncomfortable. American, with all that means for build quality, reliability, parts and resale.

anyone who honestly believes that the right to defend your property is not a fair and just proposal is looking for any excuse.

D'oh! That's not what the BNP are proposing, though.

They're proposing legalisation of using ANY amount of force so long as the HOUSEHOLDER thinks it's necessary. That's not a "reasonable" i.e. objective test, that's just a subjective test. What if I am an unreasonable person who thinks it's perfectly appropriate to stab whoever looks like they might touch my letterbox in the face? If the BNP's law were passed, all I would have to prove is that it was true that I thought it was necessary (actually, iirc, the burden of proof would be on the CPS for this defence).

You are allowed to use a reasonable amount of force to protect yourself and your property. If you use excessive force, you should be convicted of the relevant crime – as Tony Martin was convicted by a jury of his peers.

im sure not every1 who has one is a bad driver

Yeah, but to be fair – their driving skills are often a bit rusty because the cars are usually at the dealership…

I live in Beijing, and have lived in China for 7 years, I'll give the Chinese food a miss (but appreciate the advice though)

Yeah, the food, cheap clothes, massage and pirate DVDs are probably no big attraction in that case!

I can't remember the tax paid in Thatchers day but I can remember the growing costs today.

Before April the 1st my car tax was £175 a year. Now its £200. Ontop of this I damaged the suspension on my car recently (£150).
You wouldn't have damaged your suspension under the Tories?

Let's just remember that without capitalism we would all still be hunter gatherers.

Eh? No, we'd have a feudal system, or we'd have skipped capitalism and gone straight to state capitalism, as they did in the USSR (before they went back to a kind of capitalism).

jhw – at a guess – you're at a big law firm, right?

My bet is that SRA/SDT won't be interested in this. All over the country solicitors with egg-stained kipper ties are losing files, maladministering estates, forgetting to call witnesses and failing to perform conveyances properly. Sending a bill late doesn't rate up there.

Things are getting more expensive…

Which things? Food, travel, motoring, computing, telecoms, clothes etc have never been cheaper.

Pick, say 100 organisations who actually run the country. For example, Association of cheif police officers, National Union of teachers, British Medical Council, RSPCA, NSPCA, RAC/AA, etc, etc.

The RSPCA runs the country?

Police officers (part of the executive) should be given seats in the legislature?

Government employees (doctors and teachers) should be allowed to vote on their own terms and conditions?

The ones that would baulk at paying high levels of tax (on that part of their income over and above the threshold) on income over £150k? and as a result leave the country.

It's all shite anyway. Phil Collins said he'd **** off to Switzerland and he still hasn't.

Surprised no-one's mentioned the Tories' abysmal record on crime…me, from t'BNP thread:

In fact, if you care to cast your beady eye over this PDF: http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf

You'll see that there's a long consistent rise in British Crime Survey crime between 1981 and 1995 (which are of course the years of Thatcherism) and then a long consistent fall since 1995. In other words, we're only just now getting back down to the level of crime under the penultimate Labour government and before Maggie **** it all up. So much for the Tories' claim to being tough on crime.

Just realised I said penultimate – should have said last, obviously.

I suspect some of the posters on here weren't even around to know what it was actually like at the end of the last labour government.

Well, if what you're asking is are some of the posters around here younger than 46 (31 years since 1979 + 15 years of age), funnily enough the answer is yes.

Emotions
Children
Women
Reality

Statute of limitations gives you 6 years to present a bill.

You can always present a bill. Question is whether it's enforceable.

recorded crime

Recorded crime levels are practically irrelevant. Bet there wasn't much reported domestic violence in the 60s. British Crime Survey/something similar or GTFO, surely?

In fact, if you care to cast your beady eye over this PDF: http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf

You'll see that there's a long consistent rise in BCS crime between 1981 and 1995 (which are of course the years of Thatcherism) and then a long consistent fall since 1995. In other words, we're only just now getting back down to the level of crime under the penultimate Labour government and before Maggie **** it all up. So much for the Tories' claim to being tough on crime.

There's not much of a change in reported crime at all through the whole period though.

"the risk of becoming a victim of crime remains at a 30-year low…The long-term fall in crime rate since 1995 is now one of the longest on record… the BCS shows the risk of being a victim of crime is at the lowest level in almost 30 years."
http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/world/451927/uk-crime-falls-by-seven-per-cent.html (Don't flame me for Marie Claire – it's just a rehash of the press release anyway)

The American said 'it is how the constitution says we have to do it.'
The journalist replied 'the constitution also says you have to be a white male landowner in order to vote?'

The US Constitution does not say that. See for example the 12th, 14th, 19th, 26th Amendments…