Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Evolution

  3. Brexit

    Seems the EU has warned it's member States to prepare for a "no deal" Brexit; strange, as their stonewall position all along has made this inevitable; and arguably intentional. As I've said all along, the EU cannot be seen to give the UK a reasonable "deal", as this would embolden the rest to exit. So "a deal" was a forelorn hope from the beginning. Now perhaps we can get real; prepare for a no deal scenario and whatever it entails, get businesses and the civil service to adapt to the new reality and move on.
  4. Breaking News

    Couldn't have said it better myself!
  5. Last week
  6. Congratulations - Cliff.

    I agree Davy. I fail to understand the argument that it its done to encourage others to come forward since they may be fake, like the fabled Nick, and it sounds to me to be really close to perverting the course of justice.
  7. Congratulations - Cliff.

    It is about time trial by media was banned. Apart from possibly reporting what could turn out to be false accusations,any reports could prejudice any resulting court proceedings. Only this week vigilante gangs have been criticised for stinging paedophiles in case any revelations mean the case cannot go to court. The law & the rule of law should be preserved.
  8. Congratulations - Cliff.

    A blow for the right to privacy from press intrusion on the basis of allegation alone - let's hope so. But the arguement from the BBC (at our expense) and from the media generally, is "the public interest". Well, just how is it in the public interest to hype up stories based on unfounded allegations, until and unless they have been properly investigated (by the Police) and proven in a court of law ? And is is time that people who are accused, should have the same right as the accusers to annonimity, until the allegations are proven in a court of law ?
  9. Brexit

  10. Donald's visit -

    I would add to that, Trump seems to be surprisingly popular in the US amongst those people the MSM would have you believe that he hates - Mexican (legal) immigrants and "people of colour" (if that description hasn't changed again). Any protest you see against the man is just constant re-iterations of unproved allegations against him. If the MSM had been as forceful in their denunciations against Bill Clinton and his gang, Hillary would have had no chance of standing, never mind winning.
  11. Brexit

    To quote Oliver Cromwell: "It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice. Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government. Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do. I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place. Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"
  12. Donald's visit -

    The whole EU enterprise was planned well before we were lured into it, and has progressed along the lines of ever closer integration under the unelected bureaucrats. To get back to the original post - Trumps visit, I am annoyed that the likes of the BBC and Guardian presume that everyone in Britain is against Donald Trump and report that as a fact. The reality is that the majority of the population (as is their normal stance) couldn't give a stuff either way. There are the usual suspects who will go out and protest about anything if the MSM tells them to, but the rest of the UK is mainly apathetic.
  13. Donald's visit -

    Unfortunately, since MacMillan first grovelled to De Gaulle in the 60s to join the Common Market, every bit of business we have done with the club has meant the UK being at a disadvantage. What started as a trading partnership quickly became a community ,then a political entity & involved much of our industrial & utility infrastructure being taken over by European companies. Luckily we dodged the Euro ,but have succumbed to the jurisdiction of European courts & legal directives ,& thankfully have dodged the final act of treachery ,full European integration.
  14. Donald's visit -

    Correct, and achieved at the third attempt, without firing a shot.
  15. Donald's visit -

    But wasn't the EU created to benefit Germany, everyone has a trade deficit with them,
  16. Donald's visit -

    In a word Milky - tariffs. The whole point behind the EU is to create a glorified protection racket, based on the principle of looking after Jack. Hence, the US has a trading deficit, while Germany has a trading surplus. Donald is challenging that situation, and looking after Jack, by putting America First - that's why he was elected.
  17. WBC You're joking!

    Seems to me from the opening post that Bill is something of a parking dunce or a serial offender. Instead of driving into town and parking wherever you deem fit, save yourself some money and stress and get a cab.
  18. Donald's visit -

    Anyone care to explain why the EU is unfair competition to the US? Donald seems to admire the dictators.
  19. WBC You're joking!

    OH OK, it was something that was mentioned on TV a week or two ago, it was a clip about black cab drivers in Liverpool.
  20. Donald's visit -

    Ahhhh I love the stench of gammon roasting 😄
  21. WBC You're joking!

    Apologies for the Off-Topic post ----- About the black cab lark, well it never did require that the driver carried straw! The requirement was to feed the horse in the street only with food from the drivers hand..... it was intended to stop cabbies blocking others from picking up fares. It was ineffective it you had a horseless carriage unless you fed someone else's horse! It was finally removed from the original (London Hackney Carriage Act 1831) Act in 1976 but they didn't change the heading of the section (51), perhaps for fun, which still says "Improperly standing with carriage, or feeding horses in the street; refusing to give way to or obstructing any other driver or depriving him of his fare; penalty 20s" . The rule (yes I mean rule here) about headings in Acts of Parliament is that they don't form part of the Act, so the requirement doesn't exist and is one of those urban myths.
  22. Donald's visit -

    He is the ultimate wind up merchant, and the left wing media fall for it every time.
  23. Donald's visit -

    I'm finding Don's so-called gaffes, quite hilarious - his latest wind up to shock the liberal media, is to describe the EU as "a foe". Then when you think about it, you have to admit he's right - in terms of trade (unfair) competition, they are a foe, likewise China. So, an amusing change to the conventional and hypocritical world order by telling it like it is !
  24. WBC You're joking!

    So it is OK to flaunt the rules if the authorities are not there? Trying to extort £60 from someone for parking outside the white lines in an empty car park is obvious glaring idiotic decision. I guess you believe black cab drivers should be fined for not carrying straw for their horse, after all it is the law!
  25. WBC You're joking!

    No Sid, No. In Bill's case they are not rules at all. They are in fact contractual terms, applying to the implicit parking contract made by Bill when he entered upon the Private land owned by WBC for the purpose of parking. In that regard no person is responsible for enforcement in the way that you suggest as being a duty. Enforcement is not obligatory at all. Further it is not a fine that Bill was asked to pay (they are for on-street parking). The fee claimed is I believe in essence liquidated damages for the breach of contract. As such it represents the reasonable costs incurred as a loss by the council in losing an adjacent parking fee or fees and cost of recovery of the debt. That has been the position in the Supreme Court in similar cases. This is no different to a supermarket charging for parking on a white line at 10pm on a Monday night at ASDA Westbrook. Would PJ then have considered it only proper that he should pay extra, which in that case would start at the value of the average shopping bill over the whole day at ASDA!! Further the value of the car parking spaces is currently set at zero if you go to the market, therefore the recoverable damages are zero and the council should not be charging for recovering the zero cost. If ADSA or Tesco did this they would be accused of being Rip-Off merchants. The council has no special position here, WBC are being Rip-Off merchants. Indeed they are using assets which the public paid for to rip-the same public off, a situation that normally gets the usual suspects going when it applies to the railways or other privatised assets.
  26. WBC You're joking!

    There is a difference between a law and a rule. Laws tend to be set on a national basis and are enacted in parliament. By laws are set on a local basis and are set by the local authorities. Rules are set by whomever writes them and are usually guidelines and open to interpretation by anybody who wants to challenge them or enforce them. That there is nobody around to enforce the rules at a certain time is irrelevant.(there is no reason why there could not be somebody on duty 24 hours a day enforcing the rules apart from financial ones), When there is somebody around to enforce them they must be seen by public and employers to be enforcing them. My point was that IF the council or whomever was responsible for enforcement were seen not to be enforcing the rules they would be held up to account by the public. If they do enforce the rules to the letter then they get complaints that they are being over zealous and money grabbing if a fine is issued. Bill the people in power have to back up their underlings when it comes to a decision made, unless it is a really obvious glaring idiotic decision. If they did not then said underlings would have no confidence in their superiors which would lead to the underlings basically sitting in a room drinking tea all day as their thinking would be "what is the point if everything i do is overturned by the boss."
  1. Load more activity
×