Robl

I don’t watch the shows myself. But as I understand in the first big brother was an interesting investigation as to how a dozen random strangers get along – and they did for the most part. By the second or third series it was relatively interesting from a anthopoligical point of view – but it wasn’t really entertaining TV for anyone. That’s when they changed tack, and instead of keeping the freaks out of the house they decided to start putting them into the house, and started manufacturing conflict. Then it stopped being a fly-on-the-wall lifestyle show and turned into a voyeuristic freakshow.

The irony is strong in this one. Anyhow… It’s car crash TV. Edited and cut together to amuse chavs and outrage normal folk. The Dad was no doubt asked to do the gun thing as it makes for ‘good’ tv. The kids in the house know that the more outrageous they are the more screen time they get. And the more screen time they get the more chance they have of getting some sponsorship or book deals. Just look at Jade Goody – she ended up having a few million in the bank for a short career being a stereotypical slapper. Those who are interested in these shows want the extreme behaviour – either to enjoy it or to be offended by it and to write angry letters to Points of View. I really couldn’t imagine anyone being interested in a reality TV show of a dozen perfectly nice young people going to Uni, playing scrabble, drinking a few pints and reading facebook.

I think in general the pendulum of law is swinging back to the side of the home owner. If you have your shotgun upstairs and there’s an intruder downstairs then it’s in your best interested to take the gun to defend yourself and your property. I guess things might be a bit different if a farmer used his hunting rifle to score a headshot on the person breaking into his barn. But shooting a shotgun cart at a couple of intruders in the kitchen to make then run back out the door seems fair enough. (just keep the second cart ready in case one of them runs towards you)

He was gay. But when the bible was written that just meant Happy.

Take no advice from anyone on here is good advice. However, it’s worth reading what people say as it’s a different perspective and might help you consider things. This is a forum for posting opinions and musing – if not legal advice. The first thing I’d say is that you haven’t left the job – so you can’t make a claim there yet. It seems from what you have written that you’re still in charge of the office, but they have bought in someone new to be in charge of the factory. You haven’t been demoted, they have just re-organised the business. That sort of thing happens all the time. If you plan to quite over the restructure then you might want to speak to your manager and find out what’s going on before you ask about it on an open forum. Lastly – it’s probably worth investigating what you would get if you were successful in a constructive dismissal claim. Something similar happened to a mate of mine, he was made redundant and month later they employed someone new in his role – he got some legal advice and sued. He got one months wages as compensation. A nice lump of money – but barely worth all the hassle and ill feeling – especially if it ends up being a factor that gets in the way when you look for a new job.

Either, Someone has hacked your password from the server side and is using your email. Changing the password will fix it. You have a virus/Trojan on your PC that’s monitored your keystrokes and has acquired your password. They probably also have the passwords for any online banking, games, facebooks or anything else you do online. You need to get a decent Virus checker from the local computer shop, turn off the PC, unplug the network cable, start in safe mode, install the Virus checker and run it. Then reconnect to the internet, update the virus checker to the latest patch then run it again. Then, change all your passwords – I mean ALL your passwords. Actually, if you can, use a different safe PC and change all your passwords as soon as possible, that’ll make it safe – then do the virus checker thing. Something else – like you have logged into email in a dodgy internet café. Chances are it’s #2, because #1 is actually quite rare unless you are daft enough to log onto random phishing forums using your email address and a password that’s the same as the email address password. (yes, some people do this – if you have done it, don’t do it again.) For a hacker/spammer it’s also much easier to do #2 than it is to do #1. If you do have a virus/Trojan it’s probably because someone on that PC has followed a link from an email or other website and has just clicked OK when asked to install something. Even a basic install of Windows these days is quite secure unless you invite something in.

You want to complain because you saw a cop driving and eating a chocolate bar? I think perhaps you are overreacting somewhat. I’m also not sure I agree with your comment about “now if that was me or you we would of been stopped” I think police have better things to do that pull over a chap eating a chocolate bar – so long as the rest of his driving is fine. This is a person who’s taken a low paying career so that he can stand between you and criminal and protect you from them, and you want to report him for eating a mars bar while driving. Possibly the first thing he’s been able to eat since he started his shift 5 hours earlier because he’s been too busy chasing burglars, speaking to bereaved parents and arresting the nonce that’s been hanging round outside the local school. But you think it’s important to get him ####ed for eating a mars bar. I think a new sense of perspective is in order here. What would I do? Nothing at all.

I went to the embassy to get a visa a few years back as I wanted to stay there for more than 3 months. In short – you wait in a lot of queues. Then you speak to a chap through a glass window (much like in a bank). If you can prove you’re a respectable citizen with spending money and that you have a mortgage/life/family at home then you’ll get a visa. I only wanted a short term one but they gave me a 10 year one. They basically just want to check you’re unlikely to commit crime there and/or decide to stay there indefinitely.

For log splitting has anyone else use a log grenade. Basically, it’s a 4 way wedge. I received one for Christmas last year and it’s been fantastic. You can even use it to split long logs if you put a spacer on top of it.

That’s not entirely true. The really rich do try and pay a smaller percentage of tax – but they do often pay more than a little in actual amount. Take the Jimmy Car situation recently. He was critics for avoiding paying Tax – be he was still paying many millions of pounds of tax each year. I wonder if Income Tax should be capped. How about a 1 million cap – really, why should any one individual pay more than 1 million of their income as tax regardless of what they earn. Except that the Govt. relies on that money. Not to mention that the sliding tax scale means that anyone who earns more than about 50k pay proportionately more tax than those who earn less. For all those who rant about the rich paying ‘their fair share’ that’s blatant double standards as even the moderately well off are paying proportionately more. No wonder people try and find ways to avoid paying tax when they are being asked to pay more than their fair share.

I have read an article that tried to explain an answer. It was an American article, but it made sense. Which is to say, I could understand their point, but I didn’t really agree or like it. It comes down to Economics. In short – it’s cheaper to give an individual a free flat and money for food than is it to deal with a rough living petty criminal. The former is just a fixed amount, the latter required police, it requires medical care when he gets health problems from sleeping rough and so forth. If you don’t offer basic free social welfare money then you have to deal with the repercussions of that. This will either be crime or illness. The US deals with this by locking up the criminals for life and having them make a profit for the prison. And they deal with the illness by ignoring it and letting people die – except in the case of some state funded emergency medical care. Africa, India, China and so on do the same sort of thing – but with even less emergency medical care and nastier prisons. But, the UK doesn’t have the justice system that allows us to lock up persistent offenders, and we have a free health service that’s open to all. It’s cheaper to give a single mum a free flat than it is to deal with the illnesses the child will get from living rough. Unfortunately you give a family money to raise their kids and they spend in on TV and cigarettes and the kids still end up getting ill and costing money. As I said, I don’t like it. But it’s an understandable argument.

I don’t think it’s a bad suggestion actually. At least as a starting point to reconsider voting rights. I think it’s Robert A. Heinlein who wrote the book Starship Troopers which splits the population into Civilians and Citizens. Only Citizens can vote, and you get to be a Citizen by serving a tour in the military. The argument being you can only join in the control of the country if you join in the defence of the country. I could see an extension of the argument that says something like “you can only vote if you contribute to society.’ Perhaps some rule about only having the vote once you have contributed £1000 in tax payments during the last 5 years. It’s not a huge amount so that anyone with a job would be able to do it, even those with redundancies, pregnancies, or who have part time jobs should be able to get the vote. I’m sure accounting could be made for those with tax credits or income support or homemakers who’s partner pays that much tax– it would just need some basic accounting. But it eliminates those who contribute nothing.

He shouldn’t have done it. But, he did. He’s since apologised. That should be the end of it. The fact that there’s a difference of opinion on the exact words used is irrelevant to me. In fact, the exact used words are irrelevant. Perhaps ‘Pleb’ is just a word he uses as an insult in the same way that other people of different educational backgrounds might use cock, *****, **** or any other of the words in their vocabulary. It was just a derogatory term, it wasn’t a considered class based insult…. Probably. The daft thing is the people who seem the most upset about the term Pleb are the same sort of ones who will be the first in like to bitch about the posh toffs and not see the irony that they are doing the exact same thing that they are complaining about. However, the normal political ******** has started and people are just using it as excuse to put the boot into a politician. A politician who has personally apologised to the person involved – who has accepted that apology. The funny thing is, if you read a bit about him he’s not actually a bad politician. He’s been in the military briefly, and the TA, he’s done a lot of charity work, he didn’t get touched by the expenses scandal. He seems to have played silly ******* in terms of his company buying a building the selling it for less and dodging stamp duty – but it was perfectly legal and it’s probably his accountants fault not his. Most of the way he’s voted seems to be fairly decent. But, some people want to destroy his career just because he got shirty at someone who decided not to open a gate for him. Apparently the gate had been opened for him 3 times before on that day when he was on his bike – although I don’t know the exact truth of that. Not to mention the argument that cyclists should be treated as traffic not as pedestrians. I think it makes the Police Federation look like a bunch of idiots. It’s right that it’s been mentioned and investigated. But the apology has happened, it’s not worth prosecuting, now they are just flogging a dead horse for political reasons. Yes. He was out of order. But he’s made amends. It should be all over now.

There is a whole world of difference between being arrested and being charged or cautioned.

If you invite them in and engage in discussion then they will come back. If you tell them you aren’t interested because you already have a faith then they won’t. I would guess you invited discussion rather than just saying you weren’t interested.