Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About altus

  • Rank
    Registered User

Personal Information

  • Location
    Nether Edge

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well established actors may have savings they can live off and they'll also probably get residuals (think repeat fees and the like). Less established ones take on temporary 'normal' work. (Or at least jobs with a high turnover of staff.) In the past they used to spend time between jobs on benefits but with the general clamping down on that, requirements to be actively looking for work, not being too fussed about what you take, etc., there's less scope for that these days.
  2. Never received more spam at all or more from whoever sent that email? A known valid and active email address is a valuable thing to spammers. There is a market for lists of them. As the article said, if you know you gave your email address to someone and they send you an email with an unsubscribe link, it's reasonable to click it. If you don't know why the sender might have your email address it's probably a trap, don't click on it.
  3. Yes, they could have made some effort to reduce the number of invalid entries. But when it comes down to it it doesn't undermine their case for having a vote.
  4. Unlike SCC, the organisers of this, and any other future, petition don't have access to the full electoral register and so are not able to check the validity like SCC can. Notwithstanding that, in this case they presented a petition that had enough Sheffield residents as verified by SCC electorial sevices. I'm sure you wouldn't want SCC to accept petitions without checking that the entries were valid, so if there are a few invalid entries it doesn't matter, they will be weeded out by SCC. The petitioners have an incentive to have enough valid entries - imagine that damage it would do to a campaign if they presented a petition that had so many invalid entries it failed to meet the threshold for a vote. We are not getting a vote on this issue because "This gave an exaggerated impression of the momentum of the campaign." We are getting a vote because they presented the required number of valid entries - the petitioners demonstrated that there is already enough momentum behind the campaign.
  5. Mine was completely off last night and is back to normal now. I didn't even need to do a rescan.
  6. Charging £7.50 a month for it like BT do is just taking the ****. You could get your own domain name and use your DNS registrar for email for less than that. Sky don't charge - they probably realise the benefits of letting someone keep using a sky.com email address, free advertising and the residual goodwill that makes it them more likely to return in the future, outweighs the marginal cost of providing them with a service. I can't help thinking BT and TalkTalk really use this charge as a way of trying to keep people from switching. I'd advise people to use an email provider that is independent of their ISP so they can switch without affecting it.
  7. 'We stopped him from doing what he said he was planning to do therefore saying what he was planning to do is only supposition' is not a convincing argument.
  8. Indeed. Part of the "outside interference" was us taking in Jewish refugees.
  9. None of which answers who did pay for it - which was Mister Gee's question.
  10. What makes you think the Holocaust and a world war wouldn't have happened? I've given examples of the Nazi's attitude to Jews in an earlier post. Hitler's plan for a New Order envisaged him, after conquering/annexing Europe and Africa, attacking the USA. Technically it might not have counted as a world war because he wouldn't have been fighting everyone at once but would have involved fighting the same people and the death total would have been similar if not greater.
  11. It would have been worse. Given the Anti-Jewish legislation in pre-war Nazi Germany anybody suggesting it wouldn't have happened without outside interference is at best not even in denial but an out and out apologist.
  12. LOL at the brexiters wanting to set a precedent that countries should pay compensation for historic events. Given this country's imperial past, are they really sure that's a good idea?
  13. The most telling part of that article is at the end:
  • 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.