Those legs are growing and growing 😳

View post on imgur.com

Ooh! I acquired an old atco mower too. It’s a bit of a shed (patina, yes definitely patina) and not quite as lovely or collectible as yours, but it’s put some good work in, and the kids love it👍🏼

View post on imgur.com

‘Washing machines live longer with calgon’

but

’buy a new machine for less than you’ll spend in a year or so on calgon’

I see our weakness as Brexit approaches is seen as a golden opportunity for Trump

FFS 🤬 The Donald wants the NHS to build a wall now, as well. Eejit.

the couple on a joint 90k income

Will also be maximising the benefit of their combined tax free allowance, compared to the ‘high earner/non earner’ couples, which I suspect will make the inequity of this child benefit clusterfudge  look like pocket change.

I don’t think that it is inherently racist, although defining a group by a shared skin colour is certainly sailing close to the wind. It does seem incendiary, divisive and kind of a bit ‘can’t beat ‘em; join ‘em’, however. Feels like a bit of an own goal to me, despite there being a small amount of delicious ironing present from the racist types getting all holier than thou about it.

No it won’t – it will mean if she (the partner he lives with) continues to claim (i.e. does nothing) HE will become liable for a tax charge (assuming he is the higher earner).

Understood. Just out of academic interest, what would the case be if two adults were living together as friends, or in a landlord-lodger situation? Or two women sharing living costs? How about a loveless but basically amicable couple that stay together out of inertia and for the kids sake, but both see other people? Seems like a massively grey area to me. What defines whether one individuals situation has an impact on the others tax liability? Seems a bit shit to me.

I have no beef with the principle of reduced/no CB for high earners. But the system is definitely shite, as documented by the numerous examples above. It’s either a deliberate trap to garner extra income from fines, or more likely a badly thought out and implemented political headline policy. Hard to understand quite why they made it so obtuse though.

Is it just married couples? What about cohabitees? My other half gets CB (which she puts into a child ISA for her daughter) I don’t claim it for my boys, because their mother gets it as the resident parent. If I crept over £50k, would it effect either CB claim?

<waves> still here, despite the whinging 😘

Solid axles like on the Defender etc will limits its off road ability because as soon as the dif touches the ground you are going nowhere.  Independent suspension will give you loads more clearance before something touches.

You’ve basically got that completely arse about face. Solid axles are MUCH better of road on seriously challenging terrain. Where they are flawed is on the road, (and fast off road, Dakar rally stylee) where the massive unsprung mass makes for a much courser ride quality.

With a solid axled vehicle, when a wheel goes over an undulation it lifts the whole axle up, and to a certain degree the whole vehicle. With independent suspension, the wheel lifts up independently, (hence the name) which is great for ride quality, but leaves the belly of the vehicle much lower, and prone to striking the ground in rough terrain. Another advantage of a beat axled 4×4 off road is that fundamentally, the body has to sit above the axles. An independently suspended vehicle can sit between the wheels, giving a lower centre of gravity, but with a ground clearance trade off. Again, great for road use, flawed for serious off road use.

The G Wagon is a very capable off roader, (probably more so than a defender in factory spec) but is as flawed for road use as is a defender.

This isn’t happening to everyone. Maybe they are trying to tell you something… 😉

Not as bad as the Bentley one. Still gopping and says little good about the owner.

Loving the blue box 👍🏼

This can mean you end up undertaking middle lane hoggers if you are not careful.

Which is legal I reckon. You’re not undertaking anyway, you’re staying in your lane, keeping up with the flow of traffic.

Just watched two long bows land at Halfpenny green airfield (ahem, sorry, Wolverhampton business airport) they’re bigger than they look!

with no driver in the van

You sure? Would have to be some sort of towing dolly for that to work I think. Towed vehicle is usually modded for one of them and becomes a ‘trailer’ (legal grey area) a la towing a cinquecento with a camper van.

Broke my collar bone in the Wyre Forest; walked. Swore a bit, got a lift to A&E. Wouldn’t catch me in an ambo unless I had no choice; I know where they’ve been!

Technically, if he was towing the van with it’s engine running, and the towed driver is on the ball, there’s a hell of a lot of braking available. In fact, I reckon the van could easily bring the mondeo to a halt without the mondeo driver ever touching his brakes…

still dodgier than a dodgy dodge dodging stuff in dodge city though…

That ad is a beautiful thing 😂😂😂

Dunno, but I like them too so I’ll be watching thread with interest. Curious as to real world running costs.

All of them are illigal and only marginally better than each other.

See that’s why he was going fast. Reducing his chances of getting caught, as if was spotted, he was always going to get busted.

#methodinmadness #stilldumberthanastump

Are the scots setting a different level for what constitutes justifiable cost effectiveness or does the different geography of the land change the formula?

I would imagine that geography and infrastructure have a lot to do with it.

I’m no veggie but I’m happy to have meat free meals. We’ve been trying out hello fresh meals for the last few weeks; a fair few of their recipes (which are available online) are veggie, and I’ve yet to have one that wasn’t both delicious and satisfying.

Ah, ok. Neither did you.

Oh, I do. I asked if they were available publicly.

I can’t quite get my head around the concept. If they are the most effective way to get patients into hospital you’d have thought they would get paid for out of the same budget as ambulances that drive on roads.

They are not in the least bit cost effective; but they undoubtedly save lives, very expensively. Hence the charitable status.

Lol. I do, yes. I have some insight. (Like I said; all views are my own).

Your excitable response kind of proves my point; what other UK charity commands such fierce support in the face of (very) faint criticism? I’m not criticising btw; air ambulances do valuable, if sometimes overemphasised, work. It’s just this sort of support that makes fundraising so easy; it is dripping with both virtue and excitement. Hospices, homeless shelters, cancer support etc just can’t compete.

Out of interest; are charities accounts in the public domain? Is it possible for you or I to actually find out how much they have in the bank and what their balance sheets look like? IANAA.

It’s different from charity to charity, meaning all of the above may be correct. Most air ambos are rolling in dough though, it’s a business model that sucks in money hand over fist. To the detriment of less exciting but equally deserving charities, I fear (opinions are my own, etc)

I think its as someone said

<Waves> ‘‘Twas I.

makes for a black view and scumbag intolerance

Worse than that, they can start to think that scumbags are disproportionately common. Especially in the geographical areas that they frequent. Often as a result being guilty of tarring whole areas/races/social classes with the same broad brush, and it’s not right, or defensible. Eh, Deviant?

I’ve seen your previous posts. It doesn’t feel like those are the only people that you haven’t got sympathy for. If I’m wrong, I apologise. But that’s how you come across sometimes. I appreciate that your job can give you a particularly dark and cynical outlook compared to most.

On the contrary, i have all the time for the genuinely needy in society, what i come across far too often however are people who want to blame everything and everyone else for their situation.

Not everyone in a tough situation is there because they are a victim, plenty have made awful decisions, played with drink or drugs, refused to put in the effort at work etc…when i come across that i’ll happy call it for what it is.

Yep, heard it all before, and it’s still bollocks. I’ve felt like it too in the past. What you fail to get is that whilst you might be right in the individual cases that you see, what you do see is a massively unrepresentative sample of society. Yes the idiots that you see are idiots. But if those idiots had been allowed more opportunity, they would either be more capable idiots that you’d never meet, or maybe they wouldn’t even be idiots. It’s easy for people who are born with opportunities open to them to castigate those who were never afforded it, when instead they should be directing their ire at the system that doesn’t allow opportunity and those that maintain and benefit from that system.

A twelve hour shift, looking after the people that look after the people of my city. Got home just after sundown. Still, lie in tomorrow before nights. Small mercies

Deviant posts stuff which makes him looks like he’s been misled.

Agreed. He seems to be a classic example of an insulated from reality, institutionalised white male. Bet he was in the forces or other similar healthy white male job in the past, and I’m pretty sure he’s an Ambo now, which makes me sad.

There’s a reason that coppers and Ambos often end up fairly right wing with a loss of any sympathy for the most vulnerable in our society; they are continually exposed to the worst kind of vulnerable people, those with little or no social skills, those who have never been afforded a chance, those who are physically, emotionally, mentally damaged by substance or circumstance and are cynical, nasty and generally unpleasant as a result.

What these insulated, less cerebral coppers and ambos don’t consider is that there are nasty, vindictive and spiteful people at all levels of society; but those that are afforded a little bit of opportunity learn quickly to hide their nastiness and instead portray themselves outwardly as decent people. It’s only occasionally that the mask slips and we get a glimpse of true evil in their actions. See; Grenfell, disability assessments, response to the Mediterranean refugee crisis as examples recently. But these are easy to ignore for insulated white male man, because they aren’t having their noses rubbed in it every day; so they hate on the everyday shitbags they interact with daily, instead.

I know this because I’ve frlt it on occasion too, and had to have a word with myself.

apologies if that all comes over as a bit sanctimonious; I’ve just seen it all before. Tory voting NHS workers. Turkeys voting for Christmas.

It’s certainly the norm. I did most of my 3000 miles in jeans, tshirt and occasionally leather jacket. Mostly helmeted (small, open face one) except in Az where it’s not required, so I HAD to try that. Must admit, it was lovely, I can totally see why helmet laws are resisted.

So, yeah, perfectly normal. Sensible? That’s your call.

Even the bike cops in Cali don’t appear to wear protective gear except helmets and gloves.

I think you’d be surprised how much weight you can get away with, I think it’s the frequency of use that might be your challenge. Interested to see how you get on.

Back into nappies until it stops if it were my young’un.

The more I read this thread, the more I think my plan to hire a HD this autumn in USA is misguided.

I think that that going to the States for a motorcycle road trip and hiring anything BUT a Harley would be a MASSIVE wasted opportunity. It’s their home environment; they definitely work there. It’s our crowded isle that I’m not sure about.

Harleys are ace. They are just not competing with the European idea of what a motorbike should be. Look at (almost) all of the ‘Harleys are crap; try one of these’ suggestions; all gorgeous, flickable, retro cafe racery things. Absolutely lovely bikes, but completely different in purpose and execution to say, a Road King or a Heritage Softail, with its low seat, even lower centre of gravity, massive, lazy engine with waves of torque complemented by an absolutely unique and iconic soundtrack, designed to cruise all day in comfort and in a relaxed fashion, not attack the traffic and carve up the twisties. Nothing wrong with either of those things, I’ve currently got a SuperDuke, and it’s awesome. But just coz a Harley doesn’t do those things well, doesn’t mean it’s shite. It just means it’s not designed to.

The reason I started this thread was to see if people actually enjoy owning Harleys in the UK. It seems that they can, and it also seems that a lot of people are cross that they aren’t sports bikes 😘 I’m completely cool with that, but I haven’t decided if I’m cool with the amount of cleaning that I may be committing myself to should I get one. We’ll see. Thanks all!

Fair do’s. It’s been a while.

I don’t think I was contradicting you TBH; both are fairly ratty. If anything it proves your point; I couldn’t see him on anything fancy chrome and custom paintjobby, that’s for sure.

Did they pinch those things from an Apollo mission? Kerist. You’ll be telling me that they retail for more than £30 next!

OMG how middle aged grumpy dadlike are we?!?

Bloke at work is in a Welsh patch club. He’s got a Harley and a Pan.

(make of that what you will)

Times have changed  – at least for some insurers who specify commuting as a separate use. I always check the quotation and the policy.

likewise pillion cover is usually an extra these days as well, so if you’ve got a two-seater, don’t assume you’re covered to take a passenger.

See, this is why I HATE insurance companies. Heaven forbid we forget to tell them about the bumper sticker that your 6 yo stuck on because it might be considered a modification; heaven forbid that you forget that your car was dinged in a carpark four years ago, that’s dishonest and can invalidate your cover. But it’s totally okay to advertise insurance and place it in comparison sites no doubt that DOESNT ACTUALLY COVER YOU for reasonable use of your vehicle! Going to work on a rod vehicle that you own is hardly **** unreasonable! Carrying a passenger on a vehicle designed to carry a passenger is NOT unreasonable! Why the bloody hell WOULDN’T you be covered for these things?!? “It’s in your policy schedule sir, sorry” absolutely disgraceful business.

a contract of utmost good faith? Ha! Don’t make me laugh. 🤬😡🤬