Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

Justin Smith

Closed
  • Content Count

    3,894
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Justin Smith

  1. 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 ---------- Very probably, particularly the older ones who grew up when jobs were probably a bit more plentiful but, more significantly, paid better.
  2. It`s interesting that the same people who complain about immigration, are those who moan most about foreign aid......
  3. It`s all ******** isn`t it ? Why don`t people simply regard the "man" part of whatever word they`re thinking of, as short for human. Then there`s no problem. In fact that`s what often happens, e.g. Jacob Bronowski`s famous TV series "The Ascent of Man". That was never regarded as sexist (or was it ? ! ? ), the man was accepted as being human.
  4. I`m appalled by the Supreme Court ruling, though (unlike the Daily Mail in the case of the Brexit Article 50) I don`t blame the judges, they`re just deciding on a point of law. I blame the government. So long as ones kids have a good, preferably very good, attendance, I don`t see the problem in having a week or so off, other than in the run up to an exam. It`s even more ridiculous for infant or junior school kids, it`s totally unnecessary. In my view travel is as important as school in a person`s education. Foreign travel should be encouraged full stop, there`s even an argument foreign travel for school kids should be on the curriculum. Think about it, less chance of any wars and this Brexit farce would never have happened if people had more of an internationalist outlook. In some ways I`m pleased Theresa May has come out in favour of these fines, she`s keeping up the percentages, I dislike everything about that woman and her accursed party. Incidentally, it`s funny how she says education is so overwhelmingly important for all kids, yet she wants to bring back Grammar Schools so 80% get a worse education.....
  5. In some ways I agree with you that the chemical attack makes no sense, but your last comment has been debunked. In addition on R4`s Today programme the presenter was saying a Guardian journalist was actually in the vicinity and says no damage (from a conventional bombing attack) was found.
  6. I have to say this is the first thing Trump has done I agree with. Assuming it was Assad`s forces which undertook the chemical attack. Everyone seems to be saying that they did, including a British Journalist on site, so it seems cut and dried. But I can`t help wondering (as the Russians said) what has he got to gain by such an attack ? Particularly when he`s winning anyway.
  7. Do we mean with cones, or just with the red "X". Actually, that may be a silly question, I can`t see Highways Agency staff subjecting themselves to the same level of risk that it`s apparently fine for the rest of us to be exposed to. I`d have thought some cones would go out straight away...... Which leads me to a follow up question. If you have some cones in your car, or (as is a requirement abroad) a warning triangle, what are the rules of you using them / it ? Would the HA or anyone else try to prosecute you for walking back along the motorway and trying to cone off the inside lane ? ! ? Furthermore, would the AA or RAC count that as the lane being closed ? If so, why don`t they bring some cones out and do it instead of copping out and throwing you to the HA for a potential charge ? ! ?
  8. This exchange took place in another thread about fly tipping, but, I feel, is just as relevant, if not more so, on here. One week later :
  9. I feel dreadfully embarrassed. I have to admit I actually approve of something Trump has done, namely bombing the Syrian airbase which was reputed to have launched the chemical attack. Of course it`s actually going against another of his campaign promises (don`t get involved in foreign wars) so does that increase or decrease the chances he`ll serve his full term ? Or increase or decrease his popularity ?
  10. Actually, something happened today to indicate I`m right in my theory. I was driving up Parkside road, a dark grey "customised" Land Rover was in front of me. It had a very loud exhaust, and, worse, when he floored the throttle it puthered clouds of noxious smoke out of the exhaust. I assume it`d been "tuned" for more power at the expense of more pollution for everyone else to breath in. He then turned his stereo on at very great volume, I could hear it in my car despite having the windows wound up and my stereo on. What are we up to now ? Is it three types of anti social behaviour * ? But he then makes it a big FOUR (or five), by throwing his litter out of the window. My son was in the car with me and pointed out he was "a naughty man", and my lad is only 4 years old, but he`s been bought up "right"........ And our mate in the Land Rover had a silver Union Jack emblem on the back of his vehicle. He loves his country does he ? Not enough, it seems, to stop him despoiling it. * Four if you count flooring the throttle in a built up area in busy traffic. If you think about it, managing to do that in the rush hour whilst in a huge queue right up to Leppings Lane requires an exceptional degree of poor driving.
  11. I read that too, plus the woman from the AA said that. The point is, what does "closed down a lane" mean ? Does it just mean saying it`s closed on the roadside signs (remember the signs are no longer even directly over the lanes). Or does it mean that the AA / RAC require the Highways Agency to send out a vehicle to park further up the lane with all its lights flashing ? I have to say if I was an AA / RAC patrol man I`d want the latter !
  12. Are you saying the AA said they`d definitely recover your car on the inside lane of a "smart" motorway ? Are we sure they knew we are talking about the budget version smart motorway, not the original M42 version ? If so that`s the opposite of what they told me, well not the opposite exactly, but not the same.
  13. You don`t have to answer these questions, they`re more for you. How long have you been seeing him ? Why in particular does he want to get married this year ? Does he want kids ? Do you want kids ? If so how old are you, leaving it too long is a bad idea. Marriage and kids go together, or should do, particularly if you have a boy. Forget political correctness, just look at the statistics. ---------- Post added 05-04-2017 at 13:37 ---------- Not sure about that. My wife and I got married just over a year after meeting, and we`re still together 13 years later. And we`re definitely not splitting up now : one we`ve got a child, and two, it`d cost too much money ! !
  14. I have to say I think that`s an absolute disgrace The soddin` Highways Agency decide to convert motorways to cheapo type "Smart" motorways in order to save money. Then, because ones recovery company will no longer attend, they charge you to tow your vehicle to somewhere where they will sort it out. Is it any wonder people are disillusioned.
  15. Just to clarify, the lady at the AA didn`t sound 100% sure to me ! That said, you`re right, what are they going to do ? Leave the vehicle in a dangerous position because the driver hasn`t got any money !
  16. I have just phoned the AA to clarify the situation. For a start there was a bit of a grey area about what is a live running lane. The M42 where the inside lane is a hard shoulder by default does not count as a live running lane, assuming it`s shut with the red "Xs". The grey area was with the newer "smart" motorways (where the inside lane is by default a running lane), to be frank she didn`t seem to know 100% if that still counted as a live running lane if the red X was closing it. It doesn`t help that the X is no longer directly over the lane, but that`s another issue..... She did confirm that if the Highways Agency was in attendance the AA would call out. If not the Police will attend and remove the vehicle to a safe place where the AA will then attend. She said she didn`t think the motorist got charged for that, but again that was a grey area, she implied they didn`t get charged if the motorist was actually wanting the AA to call out. Lastly she confirmed that the AA wouldn't attend a breakdown on, say, the A1 where there`s no hard shoulder, unless the vehicle was in a safe place. The obvious supplementary question (which I forgot to ask and she probably wouldn't know the answer anyway) is why, if the AA will not attend a breakdown on a live running lane on a motorway or dual carriageway, they do attend one on a single carriageway road which by definition, is a live running lane ! The speed limit is 10mph lower, but, the Highways Agency are supposed to lower the speed limit when there`s a stranded vehicle anyway, though, as we all regularly see, they don`t in many cases. Plenty of food for thought there I feel. Does anyone know anything else ? ---------- Post added 05-04-2017 at 09:36 ---------- We were discussing this very point at work and, at first, thought it the best policy. However, there are two arguments against that : 1 - You may well knacker your wheel. 2 - More importantly, as you limp along at some very low speed you`re incredibly vulnerable to being rear ended by the other traffic moving at between 50 and 80 mph..... At least if you beach the vehicle and get out you`re not going to get killed or injured if it`s hit. I would say if you do decide to limp along I`d do so on the extreme left of the lane (wheels almost touching the kerb ! )* so it`s even more obvious that your vehicle is in trouble, plus there`s more room for any vehicle to get past if they don`t see you till the last minute, particularly if there`s another vehicle in the next lane out preventing them changing lanes. More refuges : good idea. Better still how about a continuous refuge which is only used as a running lane when necessary and there`s a 60mph, or preferably 50mph, speed limit in place under those circumstances ! It`s actually back to where we started, which is more important, safety or cost or reducing congestion ? * Unlike that absolute CRETIN on the M1 that time.....
  17. No decisions in the affairs of nations are based purely on economics. I would suggest hat most people, even many Brexiteers, know that UK PLC would actually be richer in the EU. The ardent ones wanted to leave for other reasons. The thing is the ardent Brexiteers don`t even make up a majority of those who voted to leave. ---------- Post added 04-04-2017 at 22:28 ---------- Originally Posted by NigelFargate : It should only be startling to those with little understanding of economics and those of a rigid and dogmatic frame of mind. In a nutshell, migrant workers are demand-creating as well as supply-filling, so that there are huge externalities and hidden costs in importing labour, such as additional congestion, pressure on housing, schools etc. Moreover, importing cheaper labour from abroad hardly creates a level playing field for indigenous workers. Also, 'free movement' encompasses people who do not come to work, but to take advantage of the superior social and economic benefits, in comparision with what they would receive in their home countries. It is not surprising that the EU is the only trading bloc which free movement and that no other set of countries has followed the EU along this path. Excellent answer. Basically the USA is the richest country in the world not in spite of the fact it`s populated by immigrants, but because of it. Immigrants have more about them than natives. They`re far more motivated and in most cases work harder. Very few move for social security payments. Would you ? If people have the gumption to move countries for a bit of social security they almost certainly have more ambition than to live off the state. ---------- Post added 04-04-2017 at 22:31 ---------- For the reasons given in my post above, welfare payments are more or less irrelevant for all but a tiny percentage of migrants. Basically it`s a red herring, the kind of thing the Mail or Express bangs on about, and therefore not worth taking any notice of.
  18. Oh come on UB, that`s not worthy of you. ---------- Post added 04-04-2017 at 16:44 ---------- That`s what I like, a straight answer. I`ll take "free access to the single market" to mean "tariff free (and basically barrier free) trade", including financial services. As I`ve said before, if that`s what the UK gets, and they put the promised £350 million a week into the NHS (rather than Farmers pockets, or any other group who lose out due to Brexit), I`ll have some respect for the Referendum and admit I was wrong on its validity. You can quote me. If not, I shall not be quiet, not for a long long time !
  19. Couldn`t agree with you more. What`s the soddin` point of going to work if you can`t take the mickey and have a laugh.......
  20. This bit : "They [the Leave campaign] say that because of the strength of the UK economy and the need for EU countries to continue trading freely with the UK, Britain would be in a very strong position to get a deal that exempted the UK from free movement and single market regulations while allowing free access to the single market." Can I just check, are you still saying that ?
  21. Oh yes, this is it : Quote from the BBC website during the campaign : "They [the Leave campaign] say that because of the strength of the UK economy and the need for EU countries to continue trading freely with the UK, Britain would be in a very strong position to get a deal that exempted the UK from free movement and single market regulations while allowing free access to the single market." Can I just check, are you still saying that ? Lastly, even if one was to accept your position that giving the UK access to the single market without paying in anything or accepting free movement wouldn't mean other EU members would want the same thing, what would Switzerland and Norway think ? What would they then demand ? Or are you still saying the same (rather arrogant) thing the Leave lot said in the campaign "we`re more important than those countries", so we`ll get what we want.
  22. I know exactly how you feel. I was screaming at the phone when it cut me off for the 5th time. Basically : Any company which forces its customers to talk to a computerised phone system with more then 2 menu levels is providing bad service. Any company which doesn't, relatively easily, put you through to a real human being, is providing very bad service. Any company which doesn`t even give you the option to speak to a real human being is providing such shockingly bad service it doesn`t deserve to be in business,
  23. Justin Smith said : No NF, that is not what you said before. Every man and his dog said the EU wouldn`t be of a mind to give us a good deal, it`d be illogical for them to do so. But you said in a post last year* that the UK have always been semi detached from the EU so were actually fairly pleased to be rid of us, so, contrary to logic, we`d get a deal as good, or almost as good, as being members. * Very annoyingly I can`t find the original post, is that because the topic has been closed so the search functions don`t work fully ? Anyway, it was in response to me saying there`s no chance of a good trade deal (heavily implying more or less a free trade deal), and never was. So everything Leave said during the referendum campaign was another very serious lie. No Nigel, that is NOT what you said. Months ago I made the point that there is no way the EU will give us a deal anywhere near as good as we`ve got now and gave a whole load of logical reasons for why that was , plus the fact they`re, let`s be honest, ******off with us. That`s just human nature, who can blames them ? Your answer was something like : On no, it`ll not be that bad, the UK has always been the least enthusiastic member of the EU and in some ways they`ll be pleased to get rid of us. Obviously I do not agree with all this guff about "entangled" and "shackled". I would more say "sheltered" from companies like Google and loose cannons like Donald Trump.
  24. I am on record as saying I don`t think Brexit will be a disaster. For what it`s worth I think, in the long term, the country will "only" be slightly worse off, but more so in the medium term. If that turns out to be true I`m reasonably confident that enough people would have voted the other way so as to reverse the Referendum result. I would point out that economics is not the only reason that I feel the UK is better off in the EU.
×
×
  • 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.