After having a ‘family’ tent that we used , but required so much effort to put up, and due to the size if it was underoccupied just remained cold all night, we went for two smaller ones,

much more versatile, bit of separation from the kids etc.

“I’ll send you a receipt when you’ve paid for the additional items”

if you get really desperate – A highway authority can be taken to court to force it to carry out its maintenance duties, or to secure the removal of an obstruction.

Good point – some reading on S56 applications here:

http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Section_56_Process
http://www.bbtrust.org.uk/pdf/notes-s56.pdf

I’m guessing its a temporary traffic restriction order under section 14 RTRA 1984

in which case maximum length permitted is 6 months, although this can be extended as necessary by the traffic authority only on direct application to the Sec of State.

there should be signs publicising it, and a mention in the back of the local paper.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/15

Or is it likely to remain closed while a daft legal wrangle over responsibility drags on indefinitely.

.

This! Plus ‘we can’t afford to as its not in the maintenance budget’

Turn them inside out after four weeks – that way they will last twice as long between washes!

Surely given the fact that any decision by a public body such as the Taxi licensing committee/group has an appeals process that he can appeal against, or if all else fails apply for Judicial review of the decision stating infringement of his his article 10 right to Freedom of Expression, then we can rest assured that he will be able to follow that process, the world will be put to rights, and we can all sleep safely in our beds once again.

Huzzah!

Hitler also wrote widely, clearly and unambiguously exactly what he believed – but there’s no written proof that he ordered the murder of millions of Jews

Given the evidence against Lenin comes from one of the fellow leaders of the revolution, , and given the fact that its accepted Lenin signed orders for the shooting of 765 white guards, and given Lenin himself said in a recorded speech in March ’22:

“Permit us to put you before a firing squad for saying that. Either you refrain from expressing your views, or, if you insist on expressing your political views publicly in the present circumstances, when our position is far more difficult than it was when the white guards were directly attacking us, then you will have only yourselves to blame if we treat you as the worst and most pernicious white guard elements.”

I think I’ll prefer that evidence to your own socialist worker sanitised version of the truth!

Pwned!

And you’ll see that I edited it before you said anything Ernie, as I was looking up the quote – and the evidence that he said it was a direct quote recorded by Trosky, and retold in his book, ‘lenin’ published in 1925

Plus thats the second time you’ve denied that lenin ever wrote that, I never claimed he did, and its the second time I’ve given you the full source and context of what was said and who recorded it, but you still try to pull the wool over peoples eyes with a flat denial even though you knew damn well that you would get pwned, because the bloke who says he said it has a far, far better pedigree on the works of Lenin than you ever will!

Now, who are we going to believe – you, or the bloke who was in the room with him when he said it? 😉

Bit pointless in giving the example of the Bolshies and drawing a parallel with the UK, unless you think the answer is widespread murder and civil war!

“As Marxists, we have never been idol worshippers of formal democracy.”

Trotsky

“a revolution without firing squads is meaningless”

Lenin
(well, attributed to him the actual quote was ‘If we are not ready to shoot a saboteur and a White Guardist, what sort of great revolution is that? Nothing but talk and a bowl of mush’, but the paraphrased version rolls off the tongue a lot better)

My current thoughts are to reply to the email notifying me of the result on tuesday with a copy of the procedure and asking if my performance was so poor why was it not followed.

Question – you say you appealed, was this an appeal ‘to the line manager’ or an appeal that was done through HR?

I’d 100% recommend that if the formal procedure has not been followed, you need to launch a written grievance with HR, as per company grievance procedure (you’ve tried to deal with this informally, now its official and to HR)

I’m wondering if pushing them to offering a compromise agreement while still in may be easier than resigning, threatening a tribunal and trying to get something out of them.

Yes, much, much better if you can pull it off – however don’t disregard the possibility that this is manager acting on his own, and HR will get it resolved (though in my experience they often back the manager up whether he’s in the right or wrong, the drawback of ‘professional’ HR versus old fashioned personnel departments)

If at this point they umm and ahhh because they haven’t thought about it, then push the point home – are they trying to effectively out you, in which case you find that unacceptable but if it’s what they want, then offer to talk about a compromise to suit you both.

Very good advice!

So, they’ve given you a poor grading in this years appraisal, and its clearly bollocks – but what have they put in place as a “next steps”?

Are they going to further review in X months, or given you an improvement plan? if they haven’t done that, then it would strengthen your case for a future constructive, but I reckon that it might be a little too early for it just yet, as all you’ve had is the one poor appraisal.

I’d be inclined to build up any ammunition you can use against them now, any wrongdoing etc – anything you see him do wrong, write it down and keep a diary – anything you can launch a grievance against him or them on, do it, especially if you can find something to whistleblow (reporting a racist comment or joke perhaps) as all this stuff makes it messy for them, and increases the chance of them settling with a compromise agreement, constructive D cases are notoriously difficult to win.

nick robinson was chair of the Tories at Uni where he surprisingly studied Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Oxford.
He laos spent a year a sleader of the young conservatives
He must be friends with some of these folk and been mates for a while

he is probably personally delighted by it all – tbh he does a fair job of being balanced given how right wing he is- obviously having a Tory as head political correspondent in no way suggests the BBC is oanything other than left leaning

Two words, Andrew Marr

Depends on size but I’m guessing we’re in ‘cat’ size bracket

So:

Cat size
In the hills
North wales
mustelid
possible retractable or semi-retractable claws

screams something very special to me, and I’ve never been lucky enough to see one in the wild. Pine Marten!

It’ll be that Johnson bloke!

I heard he was a nasty piece of work…

What I have implied however, is that both their system and ours have been arrived at by democratic process, and that democratic process is what will change it as and when there is sufficent demand for that to happen. However, as that has yet to happen, it is clear that the will is not there to bring change about.

I give you MP’s expenses as the flaw in your argument – it relies upon the conventional representative democracy rather than the democracy of the proletariat through universal suffrage. As Marx said,

The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them

so even where there is sufficient demand for change, no form of democratic system that is permitted by the bourgeoisie would allow them to lose their control of power, so the only way for that to be overthrown would be revolution rather than democracy, and as Trotsky said, A revolution is “made” directly by a minority so a democratic revolution of the proletariat is impossible.

Er no, cos there’s more than one issue here. Reducing CO2 also generally means reducing consumption of finite energy sources.

Which is more polluting and uses more resources in the grand scheme of things – keeping your old gas guzzler, or buying a new prius?

Their high price is already putting a strain on economies. If we could significantly lower demand then the price would go down.

Most of the high price is tax anyway

So it would be better if we didn’t make batteries more efficient?

Not if the overall production cycle is more polluting to the environment.

Well no, we’ll have more efficient batteries, less particulates in the air,

But no fish in chinese rivers

More than the value of third world debt?

Makes no difference if that third world debt was accumulated buying guns instead of building schools.

We’re spending an awful lot of money on stuff which might not actually prevent climate change at all. Now you might suggest that all this stuff is good anyway – but the question is whether you might be able to do more good by spending money in other ways. For example, rather than trying to stop the juggernaut of climate change, which we may have rather less influence over than many people seem to think, why not spend all that money on measures to alleviate the effects of the change in climate which is happening whether we like it or not?

it appears for some people the certain and permanent environmental destruction is worth it because of the chance is might make a small difference to the climate.

For me, aracer has hit the nail on the head with these points

The pollution and damage that is being, and will be caused to the environment in the name of alleviating carbon dioxide production is horrific – be it the ecological effects of a proposed tidal barrage in the severn, the mining and refining of huge amounts of rare earth metals and pollution from chemicals used in the production of wind turbines and high efficiency batteries, or the revived focus on nuclear power as a source of energy.

Particularly given the fact that so much of this money is being spent in the developed world on reducing CO2 – IF, and its an IF any change in temperature is a natural fluctuation, then this money has not only been wasted, we will have caused a huge amount of ecological damage for no gain, standing Canute like in the face of an oncoming tide when we could have focused our effort on developing more robust systems of agriculture, increasing health outcomes in the third world, alleviating famine, etc – hundreds of billions of dollars that have been raised in the name of ‘green’ taxes that could have gone into education and infrastructure in the second and third world is being pissed against the wall on first world vanity projects that its likely will have had no effect at all.

Thats the real outcome, that we could have wasted something that really could have made the world a better place, on a willo-the-wisp created by statisticians looking for patterns in random data.

Owen could do with a little more homework before taking on the big boys though

No, not Trolling, fundamentally disagreeing with you, as other democracies have constitutional rights to referenda built into their system, such as Switzerland.

Or are you claiming that Switzerland isn’t a democracy Bandit.

Thus necessitating a new referendum down the line? Meaning that if you used current poll figures to reintroduce it, you’d have to then abolish it yet again in the future.

But was it not ever thus? – we’ve had referendums on Scottish independence before, and the independence lobby lost – is that justification for saying we should not have another one now?

they would – or you can start your own – that’s democracy. But apparently that’s not good enough for you

No, because national elections are not, and should not, be settled on single issue subjects, See SNP and the Scottish independence referendum for an example.

So you’re suggesting that the majority of people in the UK support the death penalty? Care to provide some evidence of that then?

Been the case for a long time – it was even more the case when it was outlawed.

Public opinion on the death penalty

two 747’s

No, Bandit, you’re mistaking the parliamentary representative democracy that we have in the UK as the only form of democracy, there have been a great many differing form of democracy throughout time, all of which have had differing yet equally valid ways of deciding ‘what the majority want’ on particular subjects.

Why on earth shouldn’t the people have a referendum on issues that affect us all – the death penalty being a fantastic example of where the political settlement does not and has not reflected the majority public view for decades.

The fact that you’re unable to expand your thinking beyond the current format of government shows that you’re one of those who on reflection probably would benefit society by having your democratic mandate limited to putting a cross in a box once every five years.

Is that possible?

I thought that weebles wobbled, but they don’t fall down!

(hope you’re ok!)

How can you have your braking foot on the clutch?

How is that even possible?

you would either have to have two feet on the clutch

or be using your left foot for braking.

I’m lost!

So there was no climate variability prior to the change in CO2 emissions, perfect, in that case you’ve proved your point then, haven’t you.

Not even you [trolling] think its getting colder

Since when?

its all about timescale isn’t it?

You know when, about two years ago, Germany opened up a big gas piepline from Russia which they are pretty much reliant on to run their domestic and industrial energy needs since they’ve now closed down their nuclear power stations…

Well, do you think they fully thought through the chances of Russia becoming slightly pissed off with them for being seen as responsible for the theft of russian money from the Cypriot banks?

Consensus is essentially another word for evidence.

its really not you know, it really, really is not, like its so far from being not, that it just isn’t, understand?

What about proxy measure like say reducing glaciation and the polar caps?

Sure – but in that case why cherry pick the last thirty or forty, or even a hundred years to prove ‘warming’?

Ooh, look, a downward temperature trend! its all going to be OK after all!

Stand for election yourself. If folk care enough about those policies they’ll vote for you.

Isn’t that what UKIP did – but we’re constantly hearing from the lefties that they are unfairly targeting swing voters with emotional arguments

I thought you wanted democracy, not more of the same?

oh, hang on…

Basic principle of scientific data collection & analysis number one: garbage in = garbage out:

Wouldn’t it be interesting if that list of things in Grums picture included the words “nuclear power”?

Up until the last election we routinely have had a referendum on these issues, its called a general election and thus far it has maintained the status quo as you know it.

Really, can you tell me which significant political party in the past forty years has stood on an election commitment regards the reintroduction of the death penalty, departure from the EU, or cessation of foreign aid?

I thought we wanted democracy?

why cant we have democracy on these issues as well as the issues that suit the political elite?

Interesting Pie chart

Hows about a pie chart that shows us how many scientific papers supported Galileo’s theories on the solar system?

Or how about Alfred Wegener’s theories on continental drift?

Consensus has no place in science, let alone as justification for the rejection of opposing theories.

Abolishing the monarchy (and it’s associated undemocratic institutions such as the House of Lords etc) would be a good start though.

You’ll recall that we’ve tried that before – it didn’t work, so we asked to have a monarch back again as a check and balance against the power of elected government.

Tell me, if you’re so keen on democracy, would you be happy to have a truly democratic society? lets take a couple of exmaples, would you be happy for a referendum on the following subjects:

i) EU membership
ii) The death penalty
iii) immigration
iv) Foreign Aid

Or are you happy to tolerate democracy only as long as those democratic decisions fit with your own belief system?

well the debt is socialised but the profit is privatised – see banking crisis

Don’t you get the point yet? its a merry go round!

the government, and their predecessors, of both parties, fir the last five decades, have been more than happy to let the bankers take a profit, as its a chicken feed pay off to keep them buying sovereign debt.

if the bankers stopped buying sovereign debt, we as a nation would have to live within our means, and we’d be royally ****! 50p in every pound spent is government spending.

the UK enjoyed it’s best period, economically and socially, following the imposition of Leftist ideology.

Hmm if we’re honest with ourselves, we enjoyed our best period economically and socially by forcing people in Brown countries that we kept repressed through force to buy things off us, whilst taking their natural resources off them and forcing them to work in virtual penury to provide us with a lifestyle.

Some years ago I, ahem, ‘acquired’ a large entrance mat (rubber one side, carpet the other)

has been my faithful trusty carpet protector ever since – brilliant.

the argument about different helis for the SAR role is not correct – Sea Kings are used on ops regularly.

Yes – but the point is that SK is at the end of its life, 2016 and its gone, and the chances of using Merlin for civilian SAR when it costs about twice as much per hour flight time as SK is a no hoper.

(official treasury figure is somewhere in the region of £35k per hour for the merlin with everything taken into account, but a marginal cost of about £4k per additional hour is roughly the same as the SK, and those figures are a few years old now)

not just noise and smoke like the Deltics

FFS man – do you realise just how revolutionary that engine was? a work of art!