Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.

Top Cats Hat

Members
  • Content Count

    7,720
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Top Cats Hat

  1. That's a ludicrous thing to say. A second referendum would cost millions at the very worst. Brexit has already cost the UK economy 30 billion and counting and no one knows how bad the eventual economic damage will be. It is a huge decision that is being made without the backing of the majority of the population so there is an absolutely democratic imperative for the process to be reviewed.
  2. That isn't nonsense. That's not what happened and if it had been, things would be much clearer. The system says simply that if you have a condition you can take medication to help that condition. What it doesn't say that the medication needs to be appropriate which is why Wiggins was allowed to use triamcinolone. Therapeutic use exemption should be done on a case by case basis with heavy focus on 'appropriate'. Like countless others, Wiggins used Sambutamol for his asthma and allergies until he moved to Sky where he started receiving triamcinolone injections. It is common knowledge that triamcinolone has much greater performance enhancing properties than Sambutamol. Think of it like having a mild headache. An aspirin will take the edge off but codeine phosphate is much stronger and works more quickly. The aspirin is a more appropriate analgesic but both are available, although the risks with codeine phosphate are higher. In Formula One, teams are constantly taking advantage of weakness in the rules to gain an advantage. If enough teams kick up a fuss the advantage is either banned or allowed, in which case all teams then adopt it. At the end of the day no one then complains that Lewis Hamilton, Michael Schumacher or Sebastian Vettel are not deserving champions. So is Wiggins (and Sky) culpable of cheating? Legally no. What he used was undoubtedly performance enhancing but was also allowed under the rules that existed at the time. Morally, who knows? If you are allowed two alternatives one of which gives a distinct advantage even though it's riskier and not appropriate what would you choose? The problem cycling has is the legacy of Lance Armstrong. I suspect that what Team Sky did was to focus so obsessively on complying with the letter of the law, that nobody took a step back and asked themselves "Should we really be doing this?"
  3. You do realise that it is precisely because of people like you that a new identity and all the costs that go with it are necessary?
  4. Why on Earth would the US fake the moon landings? They had the technology (albeit a bit clunky) to do it for real so why bother faking it?
  5. So what? As leaving the EU looks more and more like a very bad idea with every week that passes, why shouldn't people be allowed to have a re think of the whole idea?
  6. Interesting point. A lot of people were fooled into voting to leave the EU. Should they be blamed when it all starts to fall apart or should blame be saved for those who stirred the pot?
  7. That's the problem with the fashion for 'ready to use' screen-wash. It's way too dilute for the temperatures we are getting at the moment.
  8. We both know that this 'failing' EU will call pretty much all the shots in the forthcoming negotiations because the UK is negotiating from a point of incredible weakness. May's concessions to 'realism' today is an early acknowledgement of this. Think of Teresa May as the turkey who voted for Xmas going to negotiate with the farmer whether the turkeys will be gassed or have their throats cut. Some choice! And 'land of milk and honey'? What deluded planet are you living on? Show me one credible economic forecast which says that the UK leaving the EU has anything but a negative outcome.
  9. I'm not sure that you do. That is three times I've seen the straw man accusation made on this forum and all three posters don't seem to know what it means.
  10. I still have seen no evidence for this. You seem to be predicating your argument on the fact that a judgement would automatically be made if a civil court action went unopposed. You can't spend CCJs, but it does cost you money to obtain them. I don't know what the exact costs are but I do know that those dodgy legal firms who make spurious claims usually against local authorities, rely on the fact that it costs a council a multiple of £00s to defend an action. Below a certain value, they will pay out a claim rather than fight it because even a successful defence does not guarantee that court costs will be awarded. Spending good money obtaining CCJs against people who have already demonstrated a reluctance to cough up makes no sense at all, especially when you have thousands of other cases to choose from. I know this is just one story of many but an ex of mine had a cousin who because of mental health issues could no longer deal with the real world. Her car was registered at their grandmothers address and when she died we found hundreds of unopened letters to do with that vehicle including over 70 parking invoices from the same firm for the same car park. As her sister was planning to move into this house she was worried about any implications for the credit history at that address. So we went through ALL this correspondence looking for any summonses or other court papers. There was nothing other than computer generated 'reminders'. Yes that is just one example but if there was a case that the parking firm would be interested in pursuing, it would be this as the total outstanding amount was in the £1000s. No guarantee about anything I know, but I still maintain that the odds against being pursued in the court if a parking invoice is completely ignored, are high and likely to remain high while the cost of obtain a CCJ exceeds the original amount.
  11. I actually know someone who used to pursue cases for a debt collection agency and would only pursue cases when they had some contact/acknowledgment from the debtor. Those who made no attempt to contact them were put onto an automated system where a standard letter was sent out after six months and then again after a further year. This is borne out by the fact that almost everyone I know who has binned the communications from the parking companies have received at most two further threatening letters and then nothing and yes, this is post 2012.
  12. That is not what I am saying or inferring. What I am saying is this is probably the single most important decision the UK has made for decades. To do it when only 31% of those eligible to vote could be bothered to go out and vote for it, and then claim some form of democratic mandate is an act of gross political cowardice. Although Teresa May pretty much sat on the fence as far as the referendum campaign was concerned, she did categorically say that it was not in Britain's interest to leave the EU. So why on earth is she trying to negotiate something she knows is deeply damaging? Shouldn't she have resigned as Cameron did,rather than doing something she knows to be wrong. If 3% of Welsh voters had voted remain instead of leave, the overall UK result would still have been narrowly in favour of leave but would be composed of England voting to leave but Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar voting to remain. In this scenario would Brexiteers still be claiming that the people of the UK had voted to leave so leave we must? Real democracy is about FAIRLY reflecting the needs of the population, not just counting votes.
  13. The majority of the UK population (74%) did NOT vote to leave the UK. Every reputable economic forecaster in the world predicts an overall negative effect on the British economy for at least the next twenty years as a result of leaving the EU. Many of those surveys predict those areas who voted most heavily to leave the EU will be hardest hit and first hit by the economic downturn. Anyone who still thinks Brexit is a good idea really needs to give their head a wobble!
  14. So you agree with me that the majority of people in the UK did not vote to leave the EU?
  15. Your own figures show that less than 1% of these tickets issued end in court action. With millions of tickets issued per year they cannot all be pursued in the civil courts. So how are those less than 1% of cases chosen? They are all cases where the person who has been issued with a ticket engages at some level with the company which issued them. Cite me just one case where someone who has put the parking invoice straight into the bin has ended up being pursued through the courts.
  16. No, a slight majority of those who voted in the EU referendum voted to leave. 39% of the electorate voted to leave. 31% of those eligible to vote voted to leave. 26% of the UK population voted to leave. Claiming that 'the country has voted to leave', as a democratic argument is nonsense.
  17. Adult population of UK about 51 million. Those who voted for Brexit 17 million. Those who didn't vote for Brexit 33\51 x 100 =64.7% I say again, they MAJORITY of adults in the UK (64.7%) did NOT vote for Brexit!
  18. Are people still discussing this? Police/local authority parking tickets are enforceable. Any other private parking ticket, bin it and you won't hear from them again. If you do, put it in the bin again. Do not respond to them because by doing that you are acknowledging their right to issue the ticket and they will chase you for it.
  19. Fair play to John Major. He may be a Tory but he is one of the few public figures in the last 18 months to say that the majority of people in the UK did NOT vote for Brexit! "The country voted for Brexit!!!" No we didn't!
  20. No. An outpatients script has to be cashed at the the Hallamshire or Weston Park pharmacies. Similarly a script written by your GP cannot be cashed in a hospital pharmacy. Something to do with health trust accounting regulations apparently.
  21. Why do people insist on ringing numbers that they do not recognise or were not expecting a call from? It's something I've never understood. Like email scammers, these people can make a number appear as something other than where it originates. Some of these can cost up to £10 per minute and by the time you have listened to a message long enough to realise it is a scam, you are into the call for £20-£30. And when this appears on your bill you will be expected to pay it as you made the call voluntarily.
  22. I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't saying that Automaton's wiring skills are deadly just that we all have to go sometime.
  23. Possibly. People voted Labour in 1997 because they were fed up with 18 years of the Tories, not because they were promised the earth. Remember, Blair didn't actually promise anything other than a change of emphasis but business as usual with more or less everything that Thatcher had done, left in place. It is no real surprise that the gap between rich and poor increased between 1997 and 2010.
  24. That largely depends on the timescale. If the Tories manage to push through a hard Brexit without having to face a General election, then if the predicted economic decline starts to hit those Labour heartlands sooner rather than later, a significant number of those Brexit voting Labour supporters will: a) Wonder why they are worse off rather than better off as they were promised. b) See the situation as being largely the product of the Tories in general and May/Davies/Johnson in particular and c) See Labour of having clean hands on the final Brexit deal although they were complicit in triggering Artcle 50. So it may cost Labour less votes than people imagine. It may not do Corbyn a lot of good personally though, as for the first time perhaps ever, many of those who support him are using the word 'unprincipled' for the first time.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.