Andy1976

and wasn't no-win, no-fee supposed to have been stopped a while back?

Not quite.

The concept was changed.

The 'no win, no fee' part remains. If you don't win, you don't pay anything.

It used to be (until 2013) that you wouldn't pay if you won either. You would recover all your costs from the Defendants. Now that doesn't happen, and you will have to pay a percentage of your damages to cover the costs of the claim. The idea was 25% (the Jackson cap) but certain firms have found ways round that.

Oddly, despite the fact that insurers demanded those changes in 2013, and said premiums would drop hugely ("we'll pass the savings on, we promise!!"), I never noticed my premium go down, rather it continued to increase. Who would have thought the billionaire insurers would lie!

There are plenty of dedicated personal injury solicitors out there and most will offer a no-win no fee.

 

A word of warning that I think people ought to be aware of.

You mention 'no win, no fee' here, quite rightly. People however should be aware that this isn't all it seems.

Many people take that to mean that if they succeed, they won't have to pay. That's not right. You will.

The warning relates to how much. The law recommends 25% of damages as a maximum.

One of the firms mentioned here will take, on average, 45%, through a mechanism whereby they 'avoid' the current law. What they do is theoretically legal, but wouldn't be approved by a Court if challenged.

Just a warning to be careful about that.

Dr Brogden at LWT on Ecclesall Road - can't recommend him enough. My mrs was the most dental phobic person going, and he managed to get her through an extraction, root canal and sorted out her referral to Charles Clifford for extraction of wisdom tooth under sedation.

He is taking on new NHS patients too I believe. Very much recommended!

It's because all the utter lunatics coming up with their conspiracy theories about how the earth is hollow and has an internal sun, Elvis working in shops in Grimsby and so on all, without fail, publicise this utter rubbish on YouTube.

It's a little like the Daily Mail. I'm sure not everything they publish is bigoted garbage, but they've published enough bigoted garbage that that becomes the general view of the paper.

It's a form of prejudice if you like, but a reasonable one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43398417

Facebook has decided that BF is a hate group, and therefore is banned.

I've seen arguments that it's the right thing to do, as they are clearly inciting racial hatred, but also contrary arguments that they're just exercising freedom of speech.

I'm personally on the former view. I think they're filth, desperate to cause hatred amongst their ranks of mouth breathers.

Any views on this?

I'm glad screechy and lardy have been sent down. Good riddance to hideous rubbish. Just a shame it wasn't longer.

Great idea in principle but the trouble is they are rarely available in the key areas, I haven't been able to access one close to the railway station on 3 occasions, similar around the Hallamshire hospital, both should be key pick up zones. Maybe overtime this will rectify itself.

That's really odd. I was at the pub at the station last week, and there were four outside the station. That was lunchtime, so I rode one back to the office

SEO ? SRA ? to make this readable to non tech's these need explaining. To design someones web site gives that person an open book to insert a back door or malware etc. it's a bit like sending begging letters or spam, only instead of gaining pounds you have the chance of hundreds of thousands in one hit. There must be some sort of regulatory body that controls this type of thing but it eludes me, never heard of this before which makes me think is there something wrong with your web site, ie is it set up correctly.

Apologies - SEO (as I've learnt from the multiple emails I get a day - Search Engine Optimisation - the people that tinker with your site to make it appear on Google). The SRA are the Solicitors governing body, who stop lawyers making cold calls, and made it illegal.

Apologies

Hi all,

This doesn't relate to lawyers before anyone thinks that.

I've discovered a bigger and more persistent pest - web designers and SEO people.

My company website was set up a couple of years back - 2013 from memory.

Since then, I've had occasional emails from companies wanting to re-design it, to sort our SEO out and offering all sorts of web solutions.

It really seems to have ramped up recently though. Today alone, I've had about 40!! I also have had calls from people in China and elsewhere offering these services.

I don't know why the sudden increase (perhaps the SEO people we do employ are doing a good job and the site is getting more noticed) but it's very annoying!!

Over the years, I've probably had 10 calls in 10 years from accident companies, but I've had literally thousands of emails from SEO and web people.

Is there any way to stop this now? Is it regulated? I don't know if the web market has a regulatory body to stop them doing this, in the same way that the SRA stops Solicitors cold-calling.

It's annoying though!!

</RANT>

Catch them when you're both going into the house one morning, or leaving for work or whatever, say thank you for the card and have a quick chat. Swat I'd do.

So you pay for half an hour then ride around all day and wait for them to catch up with you ?

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2018 at 23:18 ----------

 

 

So how come all these bikes I see parked up have the metal ring across the spokes ?

 

I'm getting dizzy about all this !!

Think of it like an NCP car park.

You park your car, the timer starts, and at the end of your stay, you're charged whatever the cost is.

Same with the bikes. You unlock them, and start riding. When you've finished, the charge is dictated by however long you've been on it. As has been said, you've already registered a card, so they just charge your card.

You lock them yourself, so as to signal that that's the end of your ride. Next person comes along and wants to use the bike, they unlock it with the app.

You could try Loxley or Stannington, both within 5 minutes cycle ride of The Peak District. You'll get a lot more property for your money compared with Millhouses.

Is that right? I'm never sure where the Peaks start, but I can't see how it's 5 mins cycle from Stannington? End of Rivelin Valley Road and turn right maybe, but is that 5 minutes? I agree completely on what you get for your money of course, but was just curious about the 5 minutes.

Two words spring to mind: Grow up.

You think it's bad on here?

The Facebook comments on the various news stories were frankly disgusting. Let them be happy! They're excited about a new life. No one gives heterosexual couples who use a surrogate such a hard time.

Sadly, it seems that some people still live in the 70s.

There's an online shop called Dobell which does jackets, waistcoats etc, and would probably have them. Excellent delivery and customer service I found.

I can see an argument for people who are paid from taxpayer's money salary being viewed online. However people paid from private companies or who are self employed,should only have to give that information to HRMC. It really isn't any business of any one else what people earn, who work in the private sector.

I think they pretty much are aren't they?

NHS for example, you can find the various payscales/bands online. I know that my friend for example is a senior consultant of over 10 years, so I can look up his basic salary. There are other parts of course, such as clinical excellence awards etc, but I can get a good idea. Same thing for the police, and I believe teacher salaries are online too (but that might not be correct).

They're a real nuisance near us.

Mess everywhere, making ungodly noises at all times in the night whilst fighting or fornicating. The amount of 'things' I've had to clean up after them, and the amount I have to take off my lawn before I can use it in summer. It's very annoying, but apparently I'm not allowed to throw things at them, and they don't seem controllable.

No, wait, that's chavs not cats.

Indeed I am not. Nor is my business call Cyclone industries.

I don't think I can carry on today. My belief system is rather shaken!

Half of this makes no sense, and the first bit is wrong. I'm self employed, work less than 9 - 5 and would be happy for my tax return to be shared.

In reality, if you knew my real name you could look me up as a director and get my company tax return anyway.

You're not Mr Cyclone?!

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

 

Do you have something to hide?

That doesn't work.

I have nothing to hide in, for example, my sexual preferences, such as gender of partner, colour of hair, body shape etc. The fact that there's nothing to hide doesn't mean I want people to openly know it. Ditto my favourite football team - I've nothing to hide there, but why should I be forced to reveal it?

If there's a genuine benefit to people knowing it, then fine. If it could stop crime or something, fine. It can't.

Pedestrians should not be expected to jump out of the way of cyclists.

If there is no room for you to cycle, safely, on the pavement, get off and walk (or use the road).

 

In the event of a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian on the pavement, it is the fault of the cyclist.

 

.... things are different on shared cycle paths, of course.

Yep, I agree with that.

But if they couldn't stop, surely it's better to ring the bell and say "Hey I've made a mistake here, look out!", than simply crash into them?

We don't know the circumstances. Perhaps the cyclist misjudged it. Perhaps they thought it was safe, then realised they'd made an error and couldn't stop. Who knows. Perhaps the furious ringing described was a genuine warning as they were panicking. We simply don't know.

As for the question of fault, generally yes, but not always. I've seen cases where people just walk into others, including cyclists. Everything turns on its individual circumstances.

People earning over half a million and any bonuses they get should be made public and what their job description is. You never know they may deserve it.

Then put the wage of someone who works full time at Asda or similar next to it.

Why though?

I know quite a few people who own their own companies that earn more than that. I know quite a few people that work incredibly hard physically and earn 1/20th of that. That's life I'm afraid. It's unlikely I'll earn £500k a year anytime soon, but I'm not jealous of people that do. They've worked hard and/or got breaks to get them there. Fair play to them.

They should be ridden on the road. It is illegal for adults to ride on a footpath (and I don't mean a designated shared footpath/cycle path before anyone chimes in with that again). I saw a chap on a yellow bike pinging on the bell for pedestrians to get out of his way on the footpath on ecclesall rd today and another yellow bike just dumped right in the middle of the path on its side. There are some very inconsiderate people around.

It is illegal yes, but 2 home secretaries have said that cyclists should use the pavement if they feel that the road is unsafe, and you can in fact find the police on cycles using the pavement themselves.

It's time that the law was changed.

As Cyclone says, it has been supported by two Home Secretaries now.

From an admittedly cycling site:-

"Fortunately, when FPNs were introduced for pavement cycling in 1999, Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued guidance saying that: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief Police Officers who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required".

The Home Office guidance was re-affirmed in 2014 by the then Cycling Minister Robert Goodwill, who agreed that the police should use discretion in enforcing the law and recommended that the matter be taken up with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). ACPO welcomed the renewed guidance, circulated it to all forces, and issued a statement referring to "discretion in taking a reasonable and proportionate approach, with safety being a guiding principle".

To summarise, cycling on the pavement is still an offence, but there is clear guidance that the police are supposed to exercise discretion."

I've highlighted the part that is exactly what I said in my post. I suspect that this scheme is very much aimed at those who don't cycle regularly. I don't even own a bike, but on the odd occasion, have used the yellow bikes. I would certainly feel very hesitant to cycle round Bramall Lane roundabout, which is the nearest one to me, so will use the underpass, carefully. I can understand people not wanting to cycle on Ecclesall Road too - in fact many roads in Sheffield - as the motorists can be total idiots on there, as someone I know found out when they were hit and killed.

If people are regular cyclists, I'd suggest they're unlikely to use this scheme, as they will have their bikes with them. This, to me, is designed for those who rarely ride, and perhaps it will encourage them to do so, and to leave their cars at home.

As for the person ringing their bell, would you prefer them to collide with people?

What's the point?

You'd see what John Smith at GSK earns but what would that info give you? You could be grumpy that he earns £1500 a day? That he earns more than you do?

I genuinely don't see any use to it. It's not like anything's going to happen as a result.

Used one at lunch to go into town. They're still not charging oddly, although it's a bit hit and miss with the app. First one into town unlocked fine, but when I came to stop the hire, it wouldn't shut off on the app, until I re-started it. Tried to hire one for the way back, and although it scanned, it wouldn't unlock. I walked.

I assume they're free until they sort these teething issues out.

Can you only ride them on the pavement?

I'd expect that a lot of people who are riding them rarely ride bikes, so feel more comfortable around town on pavements than sharing with motorists. If they were regular riders, they would likely have their own bikes. I might be wrong, but that seems logical to me.