Annoni_mouse

No, it was actually 'tother way around. The US cable channels are quite open to a bit of gratuity, but the BBC felt it needed toning down.

Sadly British sit-coms are on their arse at the minute. America produces by far and away the best TV comedy at the minute, and has done for some years (Simpsons, Curb, Arrested Development, 30 Rock, Modern Family, Family Guy etc.). In recent years, only Spaced and latterly The Office have hit the heights for me for comedy from this side of the pond. It seems British TV would rather do re-runs of Only Fools (yawn) or the execrable My Family than make genuinly good, modern sit-coms.

So twice in the last few days, quite openly and in different parts of the city, I've seen people peeing in the street. Yesterday, I saw some Jezzer Kyle candidate wazzing outside the Timber Top (Shirecliffe), which may be at least a little understandable being outside a pub and all, but a few days ago I saw a middle aged bloke on Hemper Lane (Greenhill) relieving himself into someone's garden - this at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon! When did it become socially acceptable to do your business in public?

Ahhh This Morning with Richard Not Judy.....happy memories....

You cannot legislate for the boulder being in the road. But you should legislate for slow moving vehicles - if it's a car travelling at less than the speed limit or a wagon pulling a heavy load, you should ALWAYS be expecting something on the road which may be travelling slower than your current or desired speed. Let me try and contextualise this to make it a bit simpler to understand. The other day, in my car, i was travelling between Ecclesfield and Meadowhall train station. I was travelling along wooly wood bottom, a national speed limit road, and infront of me was a slower moving nissan micra driven by an older driver at probably 10mph than the speed limit. There was only her and I on the road and although a little later it was still light, and the road was dry and clear. Could she have gone quicker? Without doubt. Did I have to overtake her? No, I could easily have sat behind her and arrived at my destination a fraction later than I did. As it happens, I decided to overtake her (I didn't have to, it came down to my choice). As soon as I decided to overtake, she became a hazard, but not because of her actions, because I had decided, of my own volition, to overtake her. So it was me that created the hazard by deciding to overtake her. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that?

To be honest, outside of the states, I don't think Washington is held in any historically high esteem, except to say that his greatest accomplishment, as you rightly point out, was that he kept in the fight, when most considered it a lost cause. It was a lesson that unfortunately the US did not learn and there are stong parrallels between the American war of independance and the Vietnam conflict... My American colonial history is a bit hazy, but I think the most important aspect of French involvment in the Revolution (and one which is frequently overlooked) is that they (the French) managed to convince the Admiralty that an attack on mainland Britain was imminent, using the involment in the colonies as an excuse. As a result, the bulk of the RN was kept in reserve in home waters to guard against this non-existent French threat, and many of the ships sent to America were older vessels. On the other hand, the French sent many newer ships to support the revolutionaries which had the latest copper bottomed hulls which allowed them to operate much closer to the shore than the older British vessels. As a result, they were able to out manouver the RN, who had to stay further out to sea than they would have otherwise operated. Also it's worth noting there was considerable support amongst the British in certain quarters for the Revolution. A number of MPs attended parliment wearing blue coats in solidarity with Washingtons boy's, and there were many progressives who viewed the move towards a more libertarian society as something which should be adopted here as well as the colonies. Perhaps the greatest shame is that the war could have been avoided if Jaw Jaw had been preffered over War War (to paraphrase Mr Churchill)

I still miss Space:Above and Beyond. It only ran for one series in the states but was recently voted the 50th best Sci-Fi series of all time. I don't think it's available on DVD in this country (region 2 at least), but I live in hope.

I know what you mean. I accept that we lost the case because we didn't (couldn't) turn up, but really is that the best way to decide who's right or who's wrong? It seems totally at odds with my long held belief in British justice. Presumably, had my partner turned up, the magistrate would have felt justified in judging the case based on who wore the nicest shoes

To be fair the VC's were awarded to the soldiers defending Rourk's Drift who fought with courage, determination and no little skill against a foe far superior in numbers. The debacle at Isandlwana wasn't rewarded in such a manner - this is more of a suitable comparison to Little Bighorn. The outcome for 'enemy combatents' in both cases was pretty much the same though - destruction of their way of life and conquest of their lands.

Your grandad was a cockney? I knew there was something I didn't like about you I doubt there will have been any major celebration following Rourke's Drift - I think it was a case of normal service resumed following the defeat at Isandlwana. However it is dangerous to consider the Zulu's as little more than spear-chucking natives. The Zulu army was a highly organised, highly motivated army. Unfortunately for them they beat the worlds premier super power at the time (due to a combination of complacency and shear stupidity) and paid the price for it. Incidentally, did you know that the British had a rocket battery at Isandlwana? Not that it did 'em much good, mind you...

Like opening cans of worms, do you? Whatever do you mean?

Oh come now Harleyman, you know better than that. Doesnt matter how well armed a small unit is, against a force of vastly superior numbers armed with spears (although there were quite a few armed with Martini rifles plus the rifles they had plundered from trouncing the British forces at Isandlwana), the rearguard action at rorke's drift is still pretty remarkable (even if it's importance and the large number of VC's awarded was largely overplayed thanks to the defeat at Isandlwana and the need in Victorian Britain for a moral boost following such an embarressing defeat).

Thanks Louise. Well, as has been said, we've certainly learned a lesson from all this - never do a good dead for anybody:hihi:

Well, as i said my OH is a curriculum leader at a school going through an offsted inspection - taking time off was not an option. This was all explained in a letter to the court. Somewhat foolishly, we believed that the case would be judged on it's merits not on an opinion formed by the appearance or otherwise of one of the parties (i dont know if the claimant turned up at court or not). Guess we had a bit too much faith in the system, not a mistake we're likely to make again.

Thanks for the replies everyone - nice to know we arent being unreasonable It seems that because my partner (who was named specifically in the claim, not me or us as a partnership) was unable to attend the hearing due to work commitments (she's a teacher), this influenced the magistrate/judge to rule against us. This of course is all speculation, as the only thing we have received is a rather uninformative letter telling us of the outcome, but not of how the result was reached or even on what point we have lost the case:huh: The money is only a small amount, and we'll be able to raise the cash (all be it not within the 3 day timescale the court have given us - another bone of contention), it's the principle of the thing. We don't feel that we did anything wrong, yet we've been punished for what was an unfortunate incident, and from what i've found out the appeal system is a complete joke unless you have an indepth knowledge of the law and a bottomless pit of money! This is another major kick in the proverbials. As far as we were concerned, the dog was ours as soon as it arrived in Sheffield (although there was no written agreement). When the small claims form was received, the other family then claimed we were holding the dog for a trial period only.

The 'danger' exists only when someone attempts to overtake in a dangerous situation. We've been repeating this over and over since page 1. No one forces you to overtake, the decision to do so is entirely yours (as is the way you overtake). As for "excessively slow driver increases the amount of overtaking that will take place by being an obstacle to normal traffic" this could equally be applied to cyclists and other slow road users - are they dangerous too?

I don't know if this is always the case, as it happens. I had a situation on my bus back in March when a man got on and began threatening passangers with a small (ish) knife. The police were called and he was arrested for afray and possesion of a bladed (sp?) article in a public place. I got the letter from the CPS the other day to let me know that he had received a 12 month sentance for the affray and a further 14 months for the possesion (less time spent on remand).

I think the same could be said of most of King's works (which is opart of th reason why I believe him to be a brilliant writer). On the face of it, the paranormal appears to be prominant, but there is more often than not this is just a way of examining the characters all too human failings and weaknesses. Wish he could get back to writing some good stuff though...

So after 9 pages, has anyone conclusively proved that slow driving is fundamentally dangerous yet? So far all I've seen is a catalogue of reasons why being stuck behind a slow driver is a bit of a pain in the 'arris?

Thanks for the reply fooman, but it appears we're on a bit of a hiding to nothing. By all accounts, even if we're allowed to appeal (which is by no means certain), it would appear that it would cost us far more to challange the decision than just to pay the money. Lesson from this is that the small claims court is a lottery that has only a passing resemblance to anything judicial. So people can harass and raise trumped up claims and be rewarded for it. Welcome to Britain 2011!!

I havent read the article, but I think one of the things I always liked about Kubrick's version is that he did stay clear-ish of the paranormal element of the story to concentrate on the psychological side (although he did use 'the Shine' which is kind of paranormal, and there is the debate over the meaning of the photo at the end of the movie which could be seen as paranormal). If you see the Stephen King version which was made a few years ago, he decided to jump in with both feet to the paranormal aspect of the story. Result? Crappy tv film! SK is a brilliant writer but a **** poor movie maker

Not for the first time on this thread, you've made a huge leap of logic and come to a completely wrong conclusion. I'm not an HGV driver and I'm in full time employment. I think that's known as a swing and a miss on your part:hihi: However, even if I was as you described, I would still be an experienced driver which kinda makes your point that people who drive the most 'know' that slow drivers are the worse drivers impotent, no?

Ok, so we recently lost a small claims hearing which relates to this case. We are both furious that we have been ordered to make payments to this woman and are naturally looking to appeal. Can anyone recommend a solicitor who may be able to help in this case? Thanks in advance

Considering the state of Sheffield football at the moment, isn't this a bit like a debate between two tramps over who stinks the most?

I have the same conflict over any pre-meditated murder, to be honest. No right minded individual believes it's right or ok to murder someone, so how can anyone who commits a pre-meditated murder be considered sane?