Your comments, slowster, certainly upset me far more.

Rachel, I have apologised for what I said. The thread has moved on, but I think that the perception of me/what I posted previously would distract from the substance of any further posts I might make, so under the circumstances I will not post any further on this thread.

She sounds mentally disturbed to me

–

perchypanther

You can almost smell the testosterone.

Almost. It’s subtly  masked by expensive French perfume.

Somafunk and Perchy, a word of well intentioned friendly advice from someone whose fingers have been charred: Be very careful what you say on these subjects.

I Googled her briefly out of curiosity.

Cougar, thank you for doing that and thank you for the reply.

With regard to the point that “she had lied about being black” and your answer that “it would appear that no, she isn’t black”, she herself identified as black, and ergo did not consider that she lied about being black. The assertion that she lied was presumably the NAACP’s. Her case has some interesting parallels with the trans rights issues.

You say “it would appear that no, she isn’t black”, which says that you either have some criteria of your own about how you define a black person, or you accept some other (possibly vague or possibly quite scientifically precise) definition from an external source, e.g. the definition of the NAACP itself implicit in its judgement, general opinions voiced by commentators in the media, or your friends/acquaintances (some of whom might themselves be black and whose opinion on this issue you might particularly respect). A scientific definition would probably be based on DNA/genealogy, and although that might be far less binary than male XY/female XX chromosomes given the potential for mixed parentage/grandparentage etc., in Rachel Dolezal’s case she had two white parents with solely white ancestry.

Which brings us to the question “If you consider that Rachel Dolezal is not black, then by what criteria do you consider that transwomen are women?”

Oh, that’s easy then. They have the right to say whatever they want, so long as they’re not inciting hate. I respect their right to say she’s a cheese sandwich if they so choose.

It’s acting on it that’s a bit more problematic. If they said she was a cheese sandwich and then stuffed her in a toaster oven, for instance.

This has been a fairly serious thread discussing some extremely sensitive issues, why have you now at this point in the conversation started to make such flippant nonsensical comments?

If asked the question “Should the right of transwomen to say they are women, be respected?”, you would not reply “I respect their right to say she’s a cheese sandwich if they so choose.”

So what is it about black people that allows you to be so dismissive of the rejection by many/most of them of Rachel Dolezal’s self identification as black?

Moreover, is Rachel Dolezal black?

I have zero knowledge of the incident you’re referring to (I just had to Google “NACCP”). I’d have to look into it in order to give you an informed answer, and I’m not sure as I can be arsed just for an analogy. Based purely on what you’ve said it seems to me to be inappropriate to make her stand down – an organisation who’s mission statement is to “…eliminate race-based discrimination” is seemingly discriminating against her based on race. But there could be all manner of other factors at play here that I’m not aware of so I don’t know I’m afraid.

You have answered a different question to the one I asked. I did not ask whether a white person should be able to join the NAACP and occupy a senior position in that organisation. I asked whether the right of a black person to say that Rachel Dolezal is not black, should be respected.

It’s not all that long ago that white American folk weren’t comfortable with sharing their space with black American folk, should their right to say no be respected?

It’s even more recent that black Americans decided that they could not accept that Rachel Dolezal was black and forced her to step down from her position in the NAACP. That is a much closer analogy to the trans issue. So should black people’s right to reject white people who identify as black be respected? (this is not a rhetorical question –  would you please answer it)

I suspect it’s not the terminology that’s the core problem.  Rather, your stance appears to be “well yes, but they’re not really women are they.”

You are attempting to put words into my mouth, and in doing so insinuate that I am prejudiced. This issue does not affect me, and I could not be more disinterested in what women/transwomen want. The best way I can think of explaining my position is that for me it’s a bit like reading a news article about the black majority in Zimbabwe deciding to pass a law that says white settlers or their children cannot call themselves Zimbabweans or be Zimbabwean citizens. They can pass whatever laws they see fit: any view I held on the issue would be irrelevant, and I’m too far away and too uninformed and ignorant of all the issues to be able to form a judgement of my own.

If women are happy for a law to be passed in which the definition of women as far as that law is concerned includes transwomen, that is a matter entirely for them. However evidently a significant number of women are not happy about transwomen self defining themselves as women and that then being used to insist on access to women’s spaces etc., and they are insisting on recognition of the scientific/biological definition of a women, i.e. an adult human female.

As I understand it, female biology is fundamental to feminism/feminist theory. In other words, the unfair treatment and disadvantages that women experience and have experienced throughout history are primarily the consequence of their being the sex that carries, gives birth to, and is predominantly responsible for nuturing babies and children and the various factors associated with that, e.g. the impact of the menstrual cycle and of their generally being physically weaker than men, and the fact that for violent and sexual assaults involving a man and a woman the perpetrator is overwhelmingly the man.

If a woman insists that the scientific definition of a woman is an adult human female, and that it is biology that makes her a woman, and she is attacked for maintaining that view, and attempts are made to silence her, then the issue has moved beyond trans rights to censorship and freedom of speech, and I am no longer disinterested.

For what little it’s worth, it seems to me that the trans rights movement has badly misjudged and mishandled its campaign: instead of being a supplicant requesting more understanding and acceptance by women and itself considering the impacts of what it is seeking on everyone affected (rather than just its own constituency), it has sought to force the issue, and that and the behaviour of some of the extremists is prompting a push back.

The key word here is “activists.” …Have you never come across “feminazis”? Neither are representative, and here they’re two sides of the same coin.

I don’t think they are two sides of the same coin. The activists in question are aggressively seeking to intimidate, threaten and silence women who are voicing concerns and objecting. ‘Feminazi’ is not a term which refers to violent or aggressive women; it’s a term usually used to dismiss the statements and opinions of feminists, i.e. also to silence women.

Feminists in my very limited experience are not violent or aggressive. As the ‘weaker’, more vulnerable sex they have had to rely on their intelligence and intellects instead. They have been discussing feminist theory and women’s issues amongst themselves for years, and they are masters at analysing and dissecting the arguments of their oponents. The attempts to dismiss and silence them by those who call them transphobic and those who call them feminazis, are a testament to how much those people are incapable of – and fear – debating with them.

Incidentally I’ve read comments before by feminists that the behaviours towards them of trans activists and ‘men’s rights activists’  are very similar, but they never made sense to me. Seeing your juxtaposition of ‘[trans] activists’ with ‘feminazi’ was illuminating for me. (I am not insinuating that you yourself would use the term feminazi)

Your continued use of the phrase “men who identify as women” is starting to get a little upsetting now, especially as at least two members of this forum are trans women.

Frankly, I don’t particularly like coming here to be described as a man.

I am very sorry and apologise for that. I should have used the word transwomen instead. I had no intention of hurting or upsetting you or anyone else. This is the first time I have ever discussed this subject either online or in real life, and I am not as familar with the terminology and how it is used as I would have liked to be before posting on such a contentious subject.

If the original thread had not been deleted, I very much doubt I would ever have posted. I normally prefer just to read threads on contentious subjects, since there are usually far more knowledgeable and better informed posters than me on both sides of such subjects, and I find it interesting, instructive and sometimes challenging to read what they say.

I only began to post on this thread because it raised the issues of censorship and suppression of free speech by STW (something which Cougar has since refuted), but/and those issues also appear to be almost inextricably entangled in how the GRA and trans rights are currently being debated.

I am not excusing my mistakes, but I note that many women similarly object to the use of the term ‘cis’, and I believe that the Green Party now refers to two groups: ‘male’ and ‘not male’, which many women similarly consider to be offensive.

The language and terminology on both sides seem in some respects central to the debate, and it often seems difficult even for someone not wanting to give offence to be able to find terminology that is sufficiently neutral to either side.

And ask yourself why you’d care.

zokes, I’m not sure I understand you. My point was that it’s not about whether I or you, as men, would care about a transman using the men’s changing room, but whether women – for example your relations, colleagues or friends – would care about or object to a transwoman using the women’s changing room. Or whether they would object to a transwoman in other places/circumstances where they can currently insist upon only women, e.g. getting a smear test at the doctors.

A lot of women are expressing concern and objections about what is happening and what is being proposed, and they are being bullied, threatened, intimidated and shouted down. From what I can see, the trans activists are aggressive bullies whose abuse online and violence in real life is a pattern of behaviour that is more consistent with being an abusive male, than with being a woman.

Why do you think a trans man would be more of a paedophile than a non-trans man. Ditto trans women and non-trans women.

You are reading something into my post that is not there.  Whether or not a transwoman is or is not more likely to be a sexual predator – or a paedophile – than the average man, is not necessarily the issue. The issue is that women should have the right to decide whom they admit into their spaces. Not men, nor men who identify as women. If women are not comfortable with it, their right to say no should be respected.

your logic makes you come across as more than a little transphobic

Using words like transphobic or TERF as perjoratives, rather than addressing the specific concerns raised by those women who are voicing objections and considering the consequences of what is being discussed and their impact on all the people concerned, is simply slinging insults. It does not ‘win’ the argument and it’s not persuasive.

the whole point that they find the existence of their penis as unwanted and devastatingly embarrassing. I’m not sure where you are getting this scenario from but it’s clearly not from experience!

My understanding is that a majority of men who identify as women do not have surgery to remove their penis.

There are a couple of exceptions – for example, women’s refuges – though most of them have now clearly stated that they accept trans women.

Currently the organisations managing those spaces and situations to which exemptions apply can make their own decisions about whether or not to accept transwomen. They can also change those decisions if they consider it appropriate or necessary. The proposed law will remove those exemptions.

Oh, and if it was going to cause such a nightmare, surely it would have already happened in the countries that have already enacted this? You know – like Ireland, Denmark and Malta. Damn – even Argentina!

I am not familiar with what is happening and has happened so far in other countries. Moreover, some changes in legislation can often take some time before the full impact takes effect and is apparent.

All I can say is that as a man I am extremely uncomfortable with the fact that some biological males are demanding the right to access the spaces of women and girls. Moreover, I am especially concerned about how those woman who voice any objections are being aggressively targeted online to silence them and also in real life, e.g.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/26/woman-punched-in-brawl-between-transgender-activists-and-radical-feminists

I am also extremely concerned about how schools and other organsiations with responsibility for children are dealing with these issues, e.g.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gender-swap-boys-spark-guides-revolt-wtcv7xjk5?shareToken=772e2cb2a2f2c493cf7fdcdbc245ab9b

The bike and spec don’t look like particularly great value for money. I suspect that bikes available in the UK might offer a better bang for your buck and a better choice. It might be worth comparing the bike with Decathlon’s offerings and also comparing Decathlon’s swedish and UK pricing for the same models.

A couple of things to consider are mudguards and rack mounts. Judging by the number of threads that crop up on STW about fitting mudguards to gravel type bikes, many/most people soon decide they need/want mudguards, especially for routine day to day riding like commuting. Similarly for commuting there are frequent threads asking how to carry clothes and/or a laptop etc. to work on a bike. So even if you think you will not want them, I would recommend that you get a bike that either has them or will easily accept them if you change your mind.

On that note the bike you linked to does not appear to have a threaded boss in the seatstay bridge (it’s difficult to tell from the pictures of the bike viewed from the rear using the 360 degree view, but there is no silver bolt head visible in the bridge). There are no images of the chainstay bridge to see if that has a boss (although most mudguards do come with a bracket to clip onto a chainstay bridge without a boss, a boss is a better, more secure fastening).

There are no rack mounts on the steat stays, although you could use p clips.

I suspect that gravel type bikes sold in the UK would be more likely to have mudguard clearance and bosses, as well as rack bosses.

Allow me reframe this concern:

“Moreover, it seems there may be some even more serious issues involving young girls in schools etc. being required to accept girls who identify as lesbians in their shared changing rooms, showers and toilets etc.”

Where are we now?

The overwhelming majority of sexual assaults are committed by men against women. Sexual assaults committed by women against women are rare. You don’t hear many men say they are scared to walk home alone in the dark because they are afraid they might be attacked by a woman.

The whole transgender/trans activist issue seems extremely one sided: overwhelmingly it seems to be men who want to identify as women, and about women being required by men to accept transwomen into their spaces without any objection, and similarly about young girls being required to accept boys who identify as girls into their spaces

Ask yourself and some of your male friends/colleagues how you/they would feel if a naked transman was in the changing room while you/they and your/their sons were getting changed at your local swimming pool.

Then ask some women you know how they would feel if a naked transwoman (with penis) was in the changing room while they and their daughters were getting changed.

How about we treat ‘them’ just like we do everybody else?

Talk to people who are making a genuine difference, ignore the obvious cranks and just ask.

We do it all the time. It’s how we progress. The sum of total human happiness versus what?

I like to see people being happy. No one has been hurt by the implementation of LGBT (you come up with something better) rights.

Sounds great. Now tell us how that’s going to work when a woman (maybe your wife, mother, sister or daughter) goes to have an intimate medical examination, which she has requested be carried out by a female nurse (as is her right), and the nurse who enters the room is manifestly not a biological woman but a transwoman. Apparently the proposed new law would prevent a woman insisting that the nurse or doctor be a biological woman. As huckleberryfatt posted above:

The proposed changes will remove the very limited exemptions under the Equality Act allowing spaces, services, roles and activities for biological women eg domestic violence refuges, single-sex hospital wards, rape crisis centres, women’s prisons, sport and statistics.

Because it will be enshrined in law, it won’t be possible to “ignore the obvious cranks” who demand admittance to those places. To refuse them would be a criminal offence.

Moreover, it seems there may be some even more serious issues involving young girls in schools etc. being required to accept boys who identify as girls in their shared changing rooms, showers and toilets etc. Instead of this ringing huge alarm bells, it seems that very often the official bodies overseeing the introduction of these changes are writing policies and guidance which teachers and others are required to implement, which require them to tell the girls that they must accept this. It seems that if the girls object, they are clearly transphobic and need to be re-educated.

Suggesting that people just need to get along and we will muddle through is naive. The implementation of LGB rights over the last 20+ years has generally involved a recognition that people have the right to live their lives and make their own choices about sexual preferences, without being discriminated against. No one suffered or lost out to make it possible for the members of the LGB community to have those rights. In contrast the rights being sought by trans activists now are at the expense of women and girls. Some of what is now being proposed involves women and girls being told they must accept the presence of biological males in places and circumstances where they may feel and be extremely vulnerable, and where historically woman and girls have always been able to expect and insist that there are no men for reasons of safety and privacy.

isnt it an offence to install razor wire?

No it isn’t. However, because it can cause much worse injuries than barbed wire, it should not be used where someone could relatively easily come into contact with it accidentally, and nor should it be installed as part of a hidden ‘trap’.

This means that where it is used at the boundary of your property, it should only be used well above head height on top of a fence or wall – or behind the fence – so that someone is not going to come into contact with it if they should brush past the fence or stumble against it.

It also means that where it is used that standard warning signs like the one below should be prominently displayed. It’s primary function should be to deter intruders from attempting to break in, not to surprise them and injure them if they attempt to do so.

Following the above precautions should protect against any civil liability claims for injury from the fence, whether to passers by or trespassers/thieves.

It’s not unusual for reporting to be limited during a trial, even if certain facts are public.

kcr, I realised too late that I had phrased my post badly, partly because I had initially found and posted the wrong link for the first article. The first article was published AFTER she had pleaded guilty, and the facts in question were then included in press reports by other media organisations, but not by the BBC. I remember reading that first article at the time and finding it very odd: why would an athlete make an extremely violent attack on a UK Atheletics official? When I then read another article from a different media source, it became clear not only why the attack had happened, but also that the BBC had very deliberately chosen to suppress the facts.

No doubt they were directed at a hypothetical person but when I read them I thought of someone on this forum. Someone I’ve never met but she seems like a thoroughly decent person , Someone who has never rubbed anyone on here up the wrong way. Someone who I deem the most punk rock on here.

I had no idea that she was a transexual until she herself mentioned it in a thread. It would be interesting to hear her views on this subject, since I understand that some transexuals who have spoken out about the issue are themselves against self ID, and reject what the so called trans activists stand for and are campaigning for. However, I could understand her keeping her head below the parapet on this issue, since a) she might want to avoid becoming ‘defined’ by this particular argument and reduced to being STW’s resident token transexual and b) those transexuals who have spoken out against self ID etc. are being aggressively targeted by the trans activists.

One of the points that the OP made in her first post on the deleted thread, was that lesbians are being told by trans activists that they are transphobic if they refuse to have sex with a transwoman. Transwomen in this case means men who have not had gender reassignment surgery, but who ‘self identify’ as women, in particular as lesbian women –  lesbian women who happen to have a penis.  From what I understand, many lesbians are unhappy about this, but as a vulnerable minority themselves are finding themselves isolated because many others in their communities, e.g. the LBGT community, upon whom they would normally rely for support and solidarity, are supporting the trans activists.

For a transwoman to believe that a woman should have sex with them, even if she doesn’t want to, sounds like a very male view. They might just as well go the whole hog and say that lesbians who won’t have sex with them are frigid.

So with regard to zippykona’s implicit point, I believe that there is at least one lesbian member of STW. Maybe she/they too are not unaffected by this issue, and maybe we should similarly be concerned about how this issue affects them. Again it would be interesting to hear their views on the issue, but I similarly suspect they too might understandably want to keep their head below the parapet.

Which brings us to the bizarre situation where we are now on STW, where only a bunch of mostly middle aged blokes without any direct interest in the issue – and to whom the whole thing seems crazy – feel able to discuss the subject without fear of being targeted and attacked on social media or elsewhere.

It is not a democracy. If you want to shout your opinions from the rooftops you are perfectly entitled to set up your own forum to do so. STW is under no obligation to provide a platform for you

For democracy to exist, people need to be able to express and hear or read facts and opinions, especially so if they are controversial or contentious, and equally they need to be able to hear or read challenges of those facts and opinions. Any business or organisation that is part of – or facilitates – such public debate, such the media, the BBC, Facebook, Twitter, and yes even STW, has a public and moral duty to protect free speech. STW has already taken a stance on the Daily Mail, by refusing to allow direct links to its website, but it has been quite open and honest about this and its ethical reasons for doing so .

Thats not the point and its not censorships strictly anyway. Censorship would be somone else telling STW to take it down.

When the media, commentators and others are afraid to raise or confront difficult issues and question a prevailing orthodoxy, that is a far more effective and insidious form of censorship than any crude government instruction not to publish something.

For example, consider this BBC article on the attempted murder of a UK Athletics official:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-37439875

The article completely omits to explain that the attacker was a transwoman, and that the official was investigating an accusation that the attacker had not been eligible to compete as a woman when he won the English women’s fell running championship. These were matters of fact which were known to the BBC at the time it published the article, but it deliberately chose to suppress them. Only after conviction and sentencing did the truth come out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-39266777

Edited to correct the first article linked.

The deletion of the thread was a shameful and cowardly act. It would have been more understandable if the thread had been locked and a moderator had posted an explanation of why it had been closed, but simply to erase it and pretend it never existed was an act of censorship and suppression of free speech in the finest Orwellian tradition.

The deletion of the thread seems to be consistent with the continuing efforts of those supporting the concept of self ID to prevent and frustrate a proper public debate of the issues and the potential consequences of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act.

If anything, the attempts to shut down the debate, and the intimidation by activists of those women who are raising objections, makes me think that the likes of rachelgreep are right to be concerned. Those who want self ID to become law are unable to make a case for it which will stand up to proper scrutiny, and are instead trying to prevent rational public discussion of the issues.

“And yet it moves”

“Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.”

Direct group are listed as A provider for our home insurance company, but not THE provider on our policy document

Your policy document will make reference to the name of your insurer. If it is a policy issued by an organisation that is not an insurer, e.g. a building society, a bank, Saga, John Lewis etc., then the policy will still state the name of the insurer that is underwriting it. The policy might list the names and contact details of one or more claim management companies to contact in the event of a claim (more than one, because there might be different possible types of claim which would determine which claims management company should be contacted depending upon their specialism, e.g. property damage, legal expenses, travel etc.).

An insurer might however prefer not to print the name and contact details of any claims management compay it uses in a policy document, not least because it could change providers part way through your insurance cover.

This one though, the red flags are that they don’t know/state what you’re actually claiming for and are asking for those details,

Not necessarily. It’s consistant with being a standard form letter from a claims management company to which an insurance company has outsourced the management, negotiation and settlement of claims. It’s quite likely that the initial notification to the insurance company of the claim often does not include the sort of detail mentioned in the letter which is necessary to establish exactly what is the specification/model of the item being claimed for, and what would be appropriate to settle the claim (how much cash or what current model/specification if the insurer is to provide a replacement).

and that they want you to have a credit card on hand.

This would concern me too, but it could be entirely legitimate. As I say, if the claim is settled by cash/cheque or by providing a voucher to buy a bike from the likes of Wheelies, then the excess can simply be deducted from the amount of the cheque or voucher. However, there will be schemes where the insurer will offer an actual replacement for the damaged/destroyed/stolen item (obviously it will have suppliers for common large ticket items like white goods, TVs etc., and it will have negotiated large discounts from those suppliers) – in that scenario it would make sense that the insured would have to pay the excess. However, that should not be necessary until the negotiations were completed and there was agreement about how the claim was to be settled. Requesting actual payment of the excess at the beginning of negotiations, or credit card details in advance, does sound wrong, but it’s possible that some claims might be resolved in that first phone call, with an agreement to have one of their suppliers send a new TV or fridge etc. straightaway.

And yes, companies can seem very legitimate with good write ups, big name clients. See Cambridge Analytica

Pretty much anyone can set up a business and form a limited company. Insurance companies however have to be authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority, and the Direct Group is listed on the FCA Register.

Looks quite genuine to me judging by the website http://www.directgroup.co.uk/. The telephone number in your letter is the one they publicise on the contact page of their website for customers of Direct Line.

With regard to the comment about having credit card details ready for any excess payment, it is a standard generic letter and I presume that it would not apply in your case because the claim will be settled by them making you a cash offer on behalf of your insurer, which would be paid to your wife net of the excess.

My main concern in your shoes would be not to allow communications over the phone to result in a rushed decision about accepting any offer. I would hope that the initial call would be just for them to get enough information about the car etc. to be able to make a decision about an offer and put it to you in writing.

Edit – cross posted with your post stating that it’s a scam. I am surprised given information about them on the internet, not just their own website, e.g. this insurance press article.

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/uk/news/breaking-news/ryan-direct-group-drops-ryan-under-new-owner-71792.aspx

Are they safe to leave unattended and do you think it’s ok in a tight space with paints/flammable liquids/etc?

It depends partly on the flammability of the liquids. Highly flammable liquids will produce flammable vapours at lower temperatures, and if the containers are in a confined space with little or no ventilation, then there might be a risk of a flammable concentration of vapour developing as a result of a leak or a not very tight fitting lid etc., which could then be ignited. Highly flammable liquids would include thinners, and possibly some paints and glues.

The issue with electrical heating – or other electrical apparatus – and flammable vapours is mainly the potential for a spark (the surface temperature of the heating element can sometimes also be an issue, but I doubt it’s relevant here for the sort of trace heating to which maccruiskeen is referring). The point at which sparks occur in electrical circuits is the switch, so it might be OK if you positioned the switch for your trace heating element outside the box (this is how bulk flammable liquids storerooms are usually arranged: the electrical components inside are of a very expensive type that will not ignite flammable vapours due to their design or special enclosure, but the switches for the lighting circuit are positioned outside the room to allow ordinary cheap light switches to be used). That still leaves the risk of things like damage to the circuit resulting in a spark, something to which a trace heating element might be vulnerable if it was not protected against knocks and impacts.

You could install a thermostat inside so that if cuts off at anything more than a few degrees above zero

Since a thermostat is a switch, I would not do that for the reasons described above.

Frankly, it sounds more trouble than it’s worth: you have to build the container and install the heater, you have to remember to switch it on in winter when it gets cold, you have to remember to switch it off when not needed. If the heater develops a fault it might not be apparent until you find your paints and glues are again ruined.

Dont bother making a box, there’s always people trying to get rid of old fridge freezers

That sounds like a much better idea. It’s possible you might not even need any form of heating. You could put a cheap thermometer inside it, maybe even the type that records high and low temperatures, and see if the temperature inside it the freezer was falling too low in the event of a prolonged cold spell. In an emergency, you could heat it temporarily by sticking a brick or two in your oven after cooking a meal, and then transferring the warm/hot brick to the freezer.

Go with the insurer. Criminal compensation relies on a conviction (which can go wrong for all sorts of reasons), accurately understanding your claim (once it’s decided you can’t go back and say you missed a bit), and the offenders ability to pay….. It is quite common for defence lawyers to suggest that “it was just an accident and has been sorted by the insurers” to overworked prosecutors who are happy to have an excuse to drop cases.

OP, ignore this post ^, it appears to be mostly complete bollocks.

Instead, read the relevant Government webpage here, in particular this bit which states that you should make a civil claim against the motorist, and only seek money from the CICA if for some reason that is unsuccessful (something more likely where dealing with a criminal injury like GBH or murder, where the perpetrator is often likely to have little or no money to pay a civil claim, as opposed to a motoring accident where there is an insurer who would pay [or the Motor Insurers Bureau if the driver was uninsured or untraced]).

The Scheme is intended to be one of last resort. Where the opportunity exists for you to pursue compensation elsewhere you should do so. We will expect you to take all reasonable steps to obtain any social security benefits, insurance payments, damages or compensation to which you may be entitled as a result of your injuries. We may ask for evidence that you have:

• considered if it was possible to claim compensation from your assailant and pursued this if there was a chance of success;
• asked your employer about damages or insurance entitlements; and
• applied for all benefits to which you may be entitled.

We may not make a decision on your case until such times as we are satisfied that you are eligible and you could not get compensation from any other sources. You must keep CICA informed about any other claims you are pursuing.

Regardless of whether or not you are seeking compensation or damages from other sources you should make your application to CICA as soon as possible.

You may still be eligible for an award under the Scheme even if your assailant is not known, or is not convicted.

Quoted £55 max to supply and fit new one.

Ouch!

Malvern Rider, I suspect what you need to remove your square taper BB is a tool like this VAR one

The bolt screws into the square taper and the spring keeps the tool in place. You then use a big adjustable spanner on the (32mm) flats. If elbow grease alone won’t work and the BB won’t move, then you can use a small hammer on the spanner to break the seal.

I think 36 spokes is better for an all purpose gravel or roughstuff bike, but what width tyres are you planning to use (or possibly what range of widths), and would you want a tubeless compatible rim?

If they will suit your requirements, there’s plenty of choice in traditional rims (inner tubes and rim brakes), ranging from the Mavic Open Pro C to wider and heavier touring rims (e.g. see Spa’s and SJS Cycles’ websites), but lightweight rims marketed for gravel bikes which are intended for tubeless and disc specific like the Stans Grail and Pacenti Forza rims are typically only only available with 32 holes or less.

People split up all the time, sometimes for the better. Unless you know both parties how can you possibly come to this conclusion?

I don’t know what the statistics are for the success of relationships involving two people who have both cheated on and left their spouse/partner to be together, but I doubt that they are good. Maybe given that they are both unfaithful cheats, they will be well suited to each other and make a good match, but I think it’s more likely that one or both will cheat again and/or that they will split up. See also the following comment by the OP:

She’s pretty much isolated herself from most of her friends. Friends have told me thats she’s in a honeymoon period and it wont last but she’s given up a lot for it not to work out for her!

Assuming that the work is notifiable under the Party Wall Act, which sounds very likely, then yes, you have to give the neighbour access to your property to carry out the work if he has served a Party Wall notice and given the appropriate notice of requirement for access…

He can be difficult about it if he wants, but he can’t stop it, and being difficult about it will likely cost both time and money, as well as reducing his chances of getting an agreement that he’s happy with.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523010/Party_Wall_etc__Act_1996_-_Explanatory_Booklet.pdf

The booklet linked to states:

Under the Act, an Adjoining Owner and/or occupier must, when necessary, let in your workmen and your own surveyor or designer etc., to carry out works in pursuance of the Act (but only for those works), and allow access to any surveyor appointed as part of the dispute resolution procedure

Firstly that begs the question of what “when necessary” means. If it’s physically impossible without access, then clearly it would be necessary, but if it could be built without access albeit at (not unreasonably?) greater cost, then would access be deemed ‘neccesary’? After all, if the materials and equipment could be brought through the neighbour’s house, then I would have thought it was not necessary. I suspect ‘necessary’ means that it is physically impossible or impractical to build the party wall without having access to neighbouring  land, not that it is more convenient or less costly for the neighbour if they don’t have access.

Secondly, the Party Wall Act would not cover the entire project, only the party wall element. I suppose that it would be conceivably and technically possible for the parents to allow access solely for the purpose of building the party wall. So I guess you could quantify in advance how many bricks would be required for the party wall, e.g. two pallet loads, and allow no more than that number to be transported across the garden, and also limit the duration of access to no more than the one or two days required for the erection of the party wall.

Rather than online threads, you could check what the actual Act itself states here.

An Act to enable persons who desire to carry out works to any land which are reasonably necessary for the preservation of that land to obtain access to neighbouring land in order to do so; and for purposes connected therewith.

…(2)On an application under this section, the court shall make an access order if, and only if, it is satisfied—

(a)that the works are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the whole or any part of the dominant land

…

(4)Where the court is satisfied on an application under this section that it is reasonably necessary to carry out any basic preservation works to the dominant land, those works shall be taken for the purposes of this Act to be reasonably necessary for the preservation of the land; and in this subsection “basic preservation works” means any of the following, that is to say—

(a)the maintenance, repair or renewal of any part of a building or other structure comprised in, or situate on, the dominant land;

(b)the clearance, repair or renewal of any drain, sewer, pipe or cable so comprised or situate;

(c)the treatment, cutting back, felling, removal or replacement of any hedge, tree, shrub or other growing thing which is so comprised and which is, or is in danger of becoming, damaged, diseased, dangerous, insecurely rooted or dead;

(d)the filling in, or clearance, of any ditch so comprised;

It looks very clear to me that the Act cannot be used to gain access to erect a new building or extend an existing one. I imagine any solicitor would tell the neighbours that making an application under the Act would be bound to fail and cost them a fair bit of money (potentially including the costs of any solicitor/barrister instructed by your parents to defend the case).

I suspect it might be more likely that the neighbour will conveniently forget to tell the builders that they have not obtained permission to remove the fence and use your parent’s land for access. To guard against that possibility, I would suggest that your parents keep an eye out for any builders starting work, and at that point tell the builders that they do not have access (and video themselves telling the builders). If the builders then make any move to take down the fence, that would be (I think) criminal damage, and I would then call 101.

As suggested above, if relations have broken down, I would definitely not want to allow builders on my land, given the mess, damage and disruption that they would cause with no prospect of the bad neighbour making sure the builders do not annoy your parents and clean up/make good afterwards.

30 years ago cycling in the UK was a much more niche sport and leisure activity; one which was more the preserve of the less well off. Arguably what changed that were the Olympic successes beginning with Chris Boardman and the arrival of mountain bikes/mountain biking.

If anything would be likely to get more people from minority groups riding*, it would be seeing their role models riding bikes.

* other than seeing one of their particular minority winning an Olympic medal etc. (which is a chicken and egg situation: by the law of averages enough of them need to take up the sport first to have a prospect of such success).

Maybe there’s scope for STW to have a regular article akin to Top Gear’s ‘Star in a reasonably priced car’, where a sporting or entertainment celebrity from a minority group is invited to go on a mountain bike ride and is provided with a bike and the necessary kit. It’s possible that the likes of Mo Farah, Idris Elba or similar big names might be willing to particpate without a fee if it is understood that STW are not making much if any profit from the articles (but are doing it because they think it’s a good thing to encourage others into the sport). By the same token, maybe some of the bike manufacturers would be willing to provide the celeb with a free bike for the article (especially if they are a big manufacturer that would value the PR and can see the potential for such promotional activity to draw large numbers of potential new customers from minority groups into the sport).

I am sure they would want to know about changes to your financial circumstances, but I am not sure I agree this a change. Also how many of us, who are X years into our mortgages and changed jobs, took on a massive bank loan, or guaranteed a relative, have told your mortgage company?

I suspect that the issue is that until the house purchase is completed, the OP is under an obligation in the small print of the contract he has signed – or will sign – to tell the mortgage company if there is a change in his financial circumstances, which would include the potential commitment to pay X amount for the brother’s rent for whatever period. Breach that obligation, and the mortgage company can probably pull the plug and stop the purchase or insist on the house being sold to repay the mortgage.

Once the house has been purchased, I suspect that the situation is different in that the OP would be entitled to take on other potential financial commitments as they saw fit without telling the mortgage company, BUT I suspect that then the landlord’s credit check to ensure that the OP could afford to act as guarantor might be negative: if the OP has a 100% mortgage or other debts that mean his total liabilities equal or exceed his assets, he is unlikely to be a good bet for a landlord seeking a guarantor.

I take it the 6 years we spent together before we got married count for nothing in this situation?

IANAL, but my understanding is that they do, i.e. the courts tend to view it as if the marriage duration included that 6 years and so are more likely to issue a judgement for a 50/50 split of marital assets (assuming no children to complicate things).

However, be aware that this will probably apply to ALL marital assets, so would potentially include your pension which might be important if you are a significantly higher earner than her.

Given the circumstances, you definitely need to speak to a solicitor.

if/when it all goes hideously wrong

When you say “if/when”, are you just being flippant, or is your brother someone who has form for not being absolutely reliable? I wouldn’t do it anyway, but especially not if the person is someone who cannot be trusted absolutely, regardless of family ties.

with our retired dad being the actual financial gurantor

The implication of this is that he has the capital to cover the rent if the brother fails to pay. Is that really the case? If your father has the money in the form of savings, then I understand that a guarantor is often not needed if the renter pays something like 6 months rent in advance, so your father could simply lend your brother that amount. If your father is unwilling to do that – or if the reality is he doesn’t have the money – then I absolutely would NOT agree to being a guarantor, because your brother (and father) are deliberately pretending to you that there is no real risk to you, when that is not the case. That would suggest to me that they do not acknowledge what a big ask of you this is, and such people are far more likely to be unreliable in paying the rent and in reimbursing you if you were called upon to pay it as guarantor.

The other possibility is that your father has the money, but only in the form of equity tied up in his own home. Do you really think he would sell his home (or be able to get a mortgage on it) if your brother failed to pay the rent and you were on the hook for thousands and facing losing your own home because you could not afford his rent and your own mortgage? Equally in such a situation, could you see yourself accepting or even asking your father to sell his home?

Is the general consensus that i should make sure she gets her deposit back?

As much as you might want to hurt her back or ‘punish’ her for what she has done to you, I would urge you not to use the financial settlement as a way to do that. I imagine you are relatively young, and the amount of money involved might seem large now, but in 10 or 20 years it will probably be insignificant in the overall scheme of things in your life. Far better to be able to look in the mirror in 10 or 20 years and know that you behaved with integrity and honour (when she didn’t), than to know that you took advantage of the situation to get revenge.

It sounds like she is going to make a mess of her life anyway. Leave her to it and walk away with your self-respect.

Something else that you might want to add into the above calculations if she keeps the house and buys out your share, is that she will not pay stamp duty on the transaction. If you use your share of the equity as deposit to buy your own house or flat, then you will have to pay stamp duty assuming it costs over £125,000.

with a further amount coming as a “gift” from her parents

If “gift” means it was really a loan from her parents, but the mortgage company was told it was a gift because otherwise they would have reduced the amount they were prepared to lend, then you would be a thief if you refused to give the parents that money back when the house is sold.

They use less water (and so less energy) than equivalent sink washing.

I’ve often seen this stated. However, I presume once the energy consumption and environmental costs of manufacturing the dishwasher plus the end of life disposal/recycling costs are included, that dishwashers are nowhere near as environmentally better than handwashing as they are advertised, and possibly are much worse.

Neither Theresa May nor Boris Johnson have decided who the perpetrators of the attack were. That judgement was probably made by the UK’s most senior career intelligence officials (Joint Intelligence Committee?). It would have been based on more than just the fact that the Russians developed the Novichok agents,  i.e. it’s possible they may have other intelligence sources such as from GCHQ and from any moles MI6 might have in the Kremlin or the Russian intelligence service.

The JIC will have communicated both its assessment of who the perpetrators were to Theresa May, and crucially it will also have told her how confident it was of its assessment. It’s possible that the JIC knows with absolute 100% certainty that the Russians did it, which might explain why Theresa May and Boris Johnson have been so unequivocal in accusing the Russians. If there is little or no prospect of getting the sort of corroborating evidence which would not expose their intelligence sources and which could be shared with the public, such as scientific evidence about the source of the Novichok agent used, then there might be little point in waiting for the official police investigation etc. to run its course before accusing the Russians.

Some of the comments on this thread treating the subject as source of amusement and entertainment have been shameful, given that Skripal and his daughter are still in critical condition in hospital and it is not yet clear whether they will recover.

The fact that the Yulia Skripal – who is guilty of no more than being her father’s daughter, and probably had a very hard time of it when her father was arrested and imprisoned – was also poisoned suggests a number of possibilities:

– The perpetrators were incompetent/indifferent to the possibility of any innocent victims in picking a time and place when she would be likely or certain to be included in the attack.

– It’s been suggested that Yulia might have been used to bring the nerve agent into the UK unwittingly. If so, that was a truly evil act. It would also have been staggeringly reckless given that the outcome of such an uncontrolled remote ‘delivery’ of the poison would be unpredictable, with the potential to result in the deaths of multiple innocent persons, not least first responders.

– If the father and daughter were exposed to the agent at his home, then it was a matter of pure luck that they decided to go out and were consequently discovered by members of the public when the symptoms started. If they had stayed at home, then they would have died and their bodies might not have been discovered for some days. Moreover, the persons who would have discovered their bodies in such a scenario might have been at much greater risk of being poisoned themselves, because the cause of death might not have been apparent/identified for some time (whereas the symptoms the Skripals exhibited when they were found by the public and treated by the emergency services probably gave some warnings which helped to determine relatively quickly that it was a nerve agent).

– If Yulia was used as an unwitting mule, or some other remote delivery method was used such as sending a parcel in the post to Skripal, that might indicate that the Russians were less keen (following the forensic exposé of who murdered Litvinenko and how) to send one or more agents to the UK and specifically to Salisbury to kill Skripal, because of the high likelihood that they would subsequently be identified by CCTV etc. and/or the higher risk of getting caught.

I don’t think I’ve ever had all 4 fingers under the levers

Me neither, but the OP says he is new to riding skinny wheels, and some brake and brake/shifter levers are now so big that I suspect someone with smallish hands could grip them with all four fingers.

Bruising of the bottom knuckle of the index finger sounds very unusual, and it’s difficult to envisage what might be causing it. The only other possibilities I can think of are an excessively tight grip (which might result from poor bike fit and weight distribution), or pushing the gear shift blade with the bottom of the index finger (as opposed to keeping the index finger straight/unbent when changing gear in order to use the (stronger) muscles in the palm to make the shift.

my bottom knuckle on my index fingers hurt

If that is the only place where you are experiencing pain, it sounds like a problem with ergonomics (shape and angle of the hoods – which is specific to the brand/model – combined with their position on the bars) and your grip (including whether you are maintaining it for long periods without movement).

If you are gripping the hoods with your index finger inside/behind the lever blade, then I can easily imagine bruising might occur as a result of the knuckle being in contact with the blade and receiving lots of small imperceptible impacts from the normal general vibration of the bars. If so, it sounds like that particular shifter does not have sufficient space underneath the hoods for all your fingers to grasp around (do you have large hands?). Try instead positioning your index finger in front of the lever blade*.

I would echo the advice to use the shape of the drop bars to allow you to move your hands around occasionally. Even getting out of the saddle will alter your grip on the hoods a bit and vary the pressure points.

You could also alter the rotation of the bars and the position of the levers on the bars, which might also improve matters.

* Edit – see this video from 50 seconds in to see what I mean

If you are going to have to compromise on grip on the pedals in order to have a shoe that is more suitable for hike a bike, then how about a pair of Shimano XM7 shoes which have a vibram sole? Leave/put back on the cleat cover on for your holiday, then fit SPD cleats for use at home.