Justin Smith

They're poor and stupid, therefore not well travelled.

 

The BBC told me so :hihi::hihi:

Well it is statistically proven that the well off and the more educated were more likely to vote remain. I`d have thought they would be the people more likely to travel as well, surely ?

Then there`s my own experience, of the people I know who travel a lot, most voted to remain. Most of those who relatively rarely go abroad voted to leave. Though there were a number of exceptions in both directions.

Lastly, I`d have thought it rational that those who travel more would tend to be less nationalistic, and more bothered about the travel advantages of staying within the EU.

It's the parents who want to go abroad, children are happy on a beach happily digging and paddling no matter what the weather any where around Britain.

Don`t agree with that at all. My 3 year old (now just 4) won`t even swim in Tenerife in January (water temp approx. 20 degrees), there`s absolutely no chance of him swimming in the sea anywhere around the UK. We've just come back from Barbados (we spoilt ourselves because we've just moved house) and on his 4th birthday he went swimming with turtles, a fabulous life experience I`m sure you`ll agree, and probably one that very few 4 year olds have ever done.

I`d agree that, in reasonable weather, most toddlers and very young kids would just as soon play on the beach in the UK as anywhere else, but that begs the question from what age do you start educating them, culturally I mean ? Older kids obviously get more out of travel abroad. Sadly missing school becomes more of an issue then, so it probably balances out.

That's a rather sweeping statement, have you done a survey to find that information out? They might travel as much as anyone else but not to the EU countries, the world is a big place.

Of course it`s a sweeping statement, it`s a generalisation. It`s unlikely that leaver voters travel just as much but out of Europe because traveling to countries outside the EU is usually a lot more expensive for the simple fact they`re further away. It`s a statistical fact that the better off were more likely to vote Remain.

I shall refrain from adding to this for fear of annoying SGK.....

Rules are different in the EU vs the USA.

 

EU I've been offered cash and a flight the next day, or a lot more than the cash equivalent in vouchers for the airline. They wanted me off a flight returning from the Hebrides to Manchester - it was basically a free flight if I took a morning redeye to Edinburgh and then to Manchester. Plus free hotel overnight - since I wanted to be in Edinburgh the next afternoon I just cancelled the train ticket I had and leapt at the chance!

 

USA it seems its vouchers only, and a crappy hotel if you are lucky. If you are not going to fly with them anytime soon it's an empty offer.

 

Of course post Brexit I suspect we will slide towards the US standards fairly quickly.

Of course, generally speaking, those who voted to leave the EU tend to travel less, so will stand less chance of being affected by it. It was the same when I mentioned to some one who voted Leave that they probably wouldn`t get an EHIC any more, they said they don`t go abroad so aren`t bothered....

They can, they chose not to. The initial offer was $400 which they upped to $800 (in vouchers, you don't get hard cash).

That`s naughty, are all airlines like that ? That wasn`t implied on the BBC news.

He didn't initially accept the offer. Only one person accepted (not him), they then randomly seleted three passengers to leave the flight two of which complied.

 

On the one hand the cabin crew have the legal right to chuck anyone off the plane they like, on the other using armed police to drag a 69 year Doctor out of his seat smashing his face in the prossess (and possibly knocking him unconscious) is a little heavy handed. Especially as they could have just ferried the extra crew to Louisvillein a taxi and have them arrrive in plenty of time.

I thought the airline then just kept increasing the offer till they had sufficient takers ? That`s certainly how it`s supposed to work.

Yes overbooking is common practise, but they should bump people at the gate or at check-in.

 

This guy wasn't dragged off the plane to give another passenger a seat, he was dragged off so another flight crew could take his seat.

Apparently they needed to get to work the next day more than he did.

I was shocked to find that a passenger was bumped out of the plane (as opposed to a check in). Quiet apart from anything else don`t they then have to get his luggage off ?

As the travel correspondent on the BBC said, if any airline gets caught out over booking there is only one reasonable solution, throw money at it. Which is what I thought they usually did. Keep increasing how much money they`re prepared to pay (for a passenger to get the next flight) until someone accepts.

In answer to the thread title, it`d put me off using United. I`m not saying I`d never use them, but they`d drop down the list. Just like BA. I hate the fact they (not a low fares airline remember) charge to prebook your seat, even in Premium or Business class. That wouldn`t totally stop me using them, but their offer would have to be significantly better than the competition. This is an interesting example of "brand value". Brand value is when customers would, on the margin, prefer to use a company or product. To me, United now join BA, as having "negative brand value".

So you are saying that cost is the only reason for every single parent taking term time holidays?

This point needs making again and again. Relative to the cost argument few people seem to make it, but I`d wager it`s almost as important overall, and, in fact, for us, more so.

A very sage post if I may say so.

It's also worth adding that Thatchers recovery in the polls preceded the Falklands issue a little as I tend to put it more down to her finding her feet on economic policy.

Er no. It was the Falklands and the fact that Labour had Michael Foot in charge at the time. An error they`re making again, not with Michael Foot obviously, but you all know what I mean.

It's only an obstruction if you are obstructing, so if you parked across a garage you'd only be causing an obstruction if the owner of the vehicle wanted to get his car out of the garage, at which point you'd either need to move your car or risk getting towed by the police. None of this is rocket science guys...the only confusion is around whether there is a dropped kerb or not, and I'm saying that it doesn't matter, that if you cause an obstruction to someone wanting to get to the highway then whether there's a dropped kerb has no bearing on that, but hopefully the guy driving illegal over the pavement will also get a nice bill from the council to fix the damage to the pavement.

Sorry, possibly a breakdown in communication. I just wanted to clarify the fact that if one parks across an empty driveway but with a garage behind it, one may still be liable to prosecution for obstruction. Theoretically anyway, how much the police would actually do is debatable. The police can issue parking tickets though can`t they ?

Of relevance to this thread is this one (particularly if you`ve got a flight to catch....) :

What would you do ? : unknown car across your drive at 7.00AM

There was a relevant article in The Times yesterday. The Govt is proposing :

Fines of up to £150 for dropping litter from a car, and, critically, it`d be the driver who`d get prosecuted. This is very significant because it makes prosecution [possibly with cameras ? ] very much easier.

I`m all for it.

A ban on councils charging residents for the disposal of domestic waste at sites.

Do any councils charge residents (for domestic waste) now ?

Offenders on community sentences, including those caught fly tipping, help councils clear up waste.

Don`t they already do that ? If not why not ? ! ?

Creating a "green generation" by educating children to lead the fight against litter.

I`m all for that too, but am a bit cynical whether it`d work. Surely kids get their moral lead on such things from their parents ? And if their parents are scrubbers I`d have thought the teachers would be really up against it trying to give the kids a less anti social attitude ?

I was with you until you started saying that no one in their right mind would go to Australia in our Summer and their winter...at that point you kinda lost all credibility about it being a cultural holiday for your lad to learn! Also, have you ever seen the weather in Australia in their winter? It's pretty much hotter across the board than our Summer, Summer in Aus is oppressive in most parts except the very south. I don't have an issue at all with parents taking a pragmatic view of holidays as long as they consider the impact to their childs education and plan for that by having some time each day for schoolwork or genuine culture or education visits whilst on holiday, or at the very least a catch-up plan agreed with the teachers for when they get back to be done in YOUR time and not the schools.

 

I do agree with your second point though that all kids should be allowed to take a certain number of days off per year for any reason the parents chooses, anymore than the 10 does indeed need exceptional circumstances that does not include a holiday for ANY reason.

We`ve been to Oz and NZ in Jan / Feb and it was fine, not too hot, though we didn`t know that Brisbane (we stopped off on the way to NZ) is subject to very wet weather at that time of year......

The UK is at its best in the summer, it`s like a different country from the winter when it`s dark and wet and cold (ish). I`d never criticise anyone for wanting to get away from it, it`s so soddin` depressing.

Basically I don`t think kids should be taken out of school willy-nilly, but holidays, particularly abroad, are education as far as I`m concerned. That said, it should also depend what school stage they`re at, nobody will convince me it`d adversely affect a child`s overall education if you take them abroad whilst they`re at Infant or even Junior school. Secondary it starts to become more of a problem, particularly near exams. What`s so unfortunate is that kids will get more out of foreign holidays as they get older, so it`s a balancing act. I remember being dragged round a load of ruins in Rome when I was seven, and I have to say most of it was lost on me !

So, if his car isn't [on] the drive you can block it. If the car is in the drive you cannot .

What if the house has a garage in which a car may lurk undetected ?

Don't go down the route of asking for parking permits - you are still not guaranteed a parking space, the number of spaces on your road will go down compared to what you have now and you get to pay for the privilege.

That`s one side of it.

On the margin, depending on the price of extra permits (they`re usually, and rightly, far more expensive than the first one), it may put some people off having multiple cars. Plus it may well increase the available number of parking places if it stops non permit holders from parking on your road.

Obviously both depend on strict enforcement.

Don't forget that cost is not the only consideration for people taking tem time holidays.

 

Thousands of parents are employed in the holiday industry and struggle to get time off in school holidays.

 

Nearer to home I've done work for two firms who have maintenance contracts with local education authorities who, understandably from a Health & Safety viewpoint, demand that the maintenance work is carried out at schools when pupils are off site.

 

Workers at both firms are asked not to take holidays when schools are off; they have no option but to take holidays in school term time.

Absolutely.

Two other examples :

We want to take our lad to see the carnival in Tenerife, we think it`d be a great cultural experience for him. Ironically it was due to take place during the school holiday, but the latter was moved so they no longer coincide.

We can`t really afford it at the moment (possibly never again in fact ! ) but we`ve got family in both Australia and S Africa and we`d obviously love to take our son over. Not just to see the family but also to see totally different countries. Nobody flies all that way for only a week, or in the case of Oz, two weeks. Their winter is our summer. Nobody would fly out of our summer to go and spend time in winter somewhere else, the very idea is ridiculous. You`d fly out there in our winter. But the schools don`t have long holidays in our winter.

---------- Post added 11-04-2017 at 09:22 ----------

Schools need guidelines, at the moment they are being told that holidays cannot be 'exceptional circumstances', this is wrong.

I think the Welsh system sounds about right. If I`ve got this right the kids can have up to 10 days a year out.

But the insurance company will pay that so it's ok! It is awful how places charge insurers more than they would the public. I have some surgery done privately a while back and for whatever reason didn't mention it was going to be covered by insurance. They gave me the bill and I asked if I just forward this to my insurer as they seemed to want me to pay for the treatment then and there...they then said 'oh, it's insurance covered, hang on.' and produced a new bill which was at least 10% higher than the one they'd just given me. I'm not even sure this is legal? Anyway, an O/T aside there...if it's insurance you'll get done over and I'm pretty sure it's stuff like that that makes our insurance high rather than compo claims.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2017 at 09:46 ----------

 

 

As I say, someone pays. An insurer will pass on the cost of that lane closure to us through our premiums.

I agree, it`s very wrong that more and more companies try to get out of paying for stuff they should by saying "claim it on your insurance". Some one was telling me the other month that an airline (was it BA ? ) were trying to do that in the case of a lost item of luggage, even though the airline were obviously liable. Even if it doesn`t out up the customers future insurance premiums (which it may well do), as you say, it`s the insurance industry`s customers who are paying these bills.

No doubt there will be bungs to farmers and vehicle manufacturers, but at least the latter will be located in the UK and may benefit the national economy. There is a tremendous amount of wasteful spending through the structural funds and the CAP and most of this never comes to the UK.

What about the promised £350 million a week to the NHS ?

[nobody, even Brexiteers, think Brexit will save us money]

Yes. Brexit directly and indirectly saves us money.

It may in some ways indirectly cost us money too.

It has yet to be seen which of these effects is greater

You seem to be saying even you aren`t sure. I`m not usually a betting man, but I`d put £100 on it that the UK will be spending at least as much on bungs to Farmers, Nissan, BMW/Mini etc as it ever did to the EU. I`d put £100 at odds that the NHS doesn`t get its promised £350 million a week.

More to the point, if the voting public had known this we wouldn`t be leaving the EU. I have a strong hunch that within a year, possibly two, there will definitely no longer be any majority in opinion polls for leaving the EU. What do you think ? And should we take any notice of them is that`s what the polls say ? If not why not (bearing in mind you are linking to polls now) ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39492767

it seems from this they are already being conned, and indeed have been for some years. These guys are running rings round them, but they don't care, as long as it is not them who are paying for it.

It is cronyism writ large, and the poor working man is paying for it all.

 

Done up like a kipper, as Del Boy used to say.

A quote in that news piece :

"After all, Brexit is supposed to save us money."

I don`t think anyone thinks that do they ? Even the Brexiteers, if they`re being honest.....

Funnily enough Arnott the UKIP guy was on Any Questions last night, answering a question about farming subsidies. He got out of it (saying many farmers could go bust with the withdrawal of subsidies) by saying "we`ve always subsidised farmers and will continue to do so". I thought Dimble missed a trick when he didn`t then ask him "how are you going to do that and give the NHS its £350 million a week ?"......

Even if there is a drop down kerb they do not have rights of access, only egress

if the drive is empty. you can park across it

if the drive is full you cant block anyone in.

 

thats how the law is. might upset your neighbours though

What about if there`s a garage (so you can`t actually see if there`s a car there).......

I think most of us would say that parking across someone`s drive, whether there`s a car there or not, is bleedin` ignorant.

---------- Post added 08-04-2017 at 12:44 ----------

Well, that's not always the case that people know the situation when they move in. Things can change like new employers, shops, new blocks of flats etc... we lived next doo to a family where as the kids reached 17 they all passed their driving tests. The family had 3 kids and they all had a car each. Mum and dad had a car each. Dad had a van for his business and sometimes the son bought has work van home too. This was a street with only on street parking and one house went from 3 vehicles to 7 vehicles at times.

I have to say I think that`s a wee bit ignorant.

---------- Post added 08-04-2017 at 12:51 ----------

Some of my other neighbours are fed up of it as well

You may be surprised at how many of your neighbours don`t want a permit scheme. The council proposed a permit scheme for the road I used to live on, mainly because of its proximity to the Hillsborough football ground. Yet, apparently, there was a majority against it. I have to say I was, on balance, in favour of it, but also a bit cynical as to how much good it`d do. As an example cars were frequently parked on the double yellows at the entrance to the street (such that it was impossible to turn into the street without driving ion the wrong side of the road), yet as far as I know, no car ever got a ticket for it. Or if they did it was so uncommon that it didn`t stop the practice.

Goebbels used to love that attitude in people.

How so ? I`m an idealist. I see innocents being gassed, particularly children, and I think some one should be doing something about it. Trump did, nobody else has. Had he not done that, and my antipathy for him was at its previous level, I was planning to go on the inevitable anti-Trump rally in London, even if it would involve a 330 mile round trip. But I don`t feel quite the same way any more. I wouldn`t vote for the man though.

I don't think it's a matter for prosecution.

The HC (Rule 275) is very clear, though, in saying "do not use warning triangle on a m/w". (If your car can't be seen from 400 metres, say, parked up up with hazards on, what chance is there of drivers spotting your warning triangle?)

The hard shoulder is the most dangerous lane on the m/w so we should spend as little time as possible on it. Taking time placing cones on it is not a good idea, therefore.

I get your point, though, as we were speculating above, does that also mean limping along in it is also a bad idea ? I`d have thought you`d probably be even more likely to get hit if you`re actually moving, certainly if doing so in the middle of the lane as opposed to far over on the left of it. One has to remember not all drivers concentrate 100% of the time, in fact, no driver concentrates 100% of the time. That would be the reason any warning triangle 100m back would make me feel less vulnerable, even a driver not concentrating would start doing so if he hit a warning triangle......

Only as irony. I have no respect for the man whatsoever, and not much more for most of the electorate who voted for him. If and when he makes his infamous (and totally unwarranted) state visit to this country I`m hoping to go on the demo, my first political demo. But to me it won`t just be about Trump, it`ll be about the rise of populistic nationalism generally, as I think it will be for most who attend.

Since ordering the bombing of the airfield which (as far as everyone knows) carried out the chemical attack, I have to say I`ve rather lost enthusiasm for going on any anti-Trump demo. Don`t get me wrong, I`m still for from a Trump fan, but I don`t dislike him quite as much as I did. Not enough to travel 165 miles to demonstrate against him anyway !

That's because many people are racist and both these things (attacking immigration and attacking foreign aid) is perceived to harm johnny foreigner.

 

Clearly Anna B is not criticizing foreign aid in principle but rather the corruption of foreign aid.

I honestly don`t think many people are that racist. I think, I know, a lot of people are mildly racist, but not enough for them to think like that. I just think, as Frankie Boyle "joked", the trouble with the English is loads of them have very strong opinions based on no (or very little) evidence whatsoever.

---------- Post added 07-04-2017 at 16:52 ----------

And I wonder if it's the same people who complain about foreign aid, and how 'charity should begin at home', are the ones who grumble the most about feckless British people 'scrounging of the state', or 'not pulling themselves up by the bootstraps'....

Very probably, particularly the older ones who grew up when jobs were probably a bit more plentiful but, more significantly, paid better.

An interesting video, which makes sense.

 

But he ends with 'Let's help them there (in their own country.) And therein lies the rub.

 

We don't 'help them there,' do we? We throw a bit of aid money (a very little bit) in their direction most of which is lost to corruption.

 

They are poor largely because rich western civilizations went in and raped their countries in days of Empire and took over their natural resources, and enslaved the people. These are countries awash with natural wealth. Who owns all the minerals and gold mines? Who owns all the diamond mines? The Oil. And just about every other major resource?

 

The people may no longer be slaves but unfortunately the natural resources/wealth stay largely in the hands of the Western Corporations and a few individuals.

 

When these are given back to them there might be some hope, but I can't see the Rothschilds and the Rockerfellas et al, with their $trillions of wealth doing that any time soon.

 

Instead we connive with corrupt dictators, give the people crumbs, then take it back as third world debt.

 

Nice.

It`s interesting that the same people who complain about immigration, are those who moan most about foreign aid......