UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk

I'm out on the parental responsibility one I'm afraid, our first is due in about ten days - give me ten years and I'll let you know!! Certainly though if I tried what have the kids on TV seem to get away with we'd have got hell of a good hiding, and we are only talking 15 years ago. It's odd how politics has shifted over the past ten years. It is wrong to discipline a child, but being under the age of criminal responsibility the police cannot get involved and (under human rights act) the parents cannot be held responsible for the actions of their child. Lets face it, without any discipline and at 'a difficult age anyway' you are going to get into and cause trouble - it's a no brainer. As I said on another post, a 9 year old kid put a brick through my grans window (maliciously), and legally no-one is to blame, and the parents (even if they want to discipline the child) are fairly restricted on what they can do (since gounding, smacking, withholding priviliges etc are all deemed to be emotional or physical cruelty these days). The police cannot even curfew them under HRA legislation anymore!! I also agree with JRT - too much is paid in taxes. New Labour = Redistribution of wealth (and it also appears a nanny state). I'd suggest we start looking at the definition of communism which I think was mentioned earlier in the thread!!

Hmm...But you can walk in the same Tesco store five minutes later and go to another till and buy another two packs, or indeed walk into Boots and by a few more there as well. It's a ridiculous law - again, someone intent on comitting suicide will find a way.

My wife is pregnant (hopefully not with an ugly bugger like Kendo!), and they've advised women for some time (it's in our pregnancy books two or three years old) to restrict tuna intake whether it is canned or fresh to one portion a week.

DavyR - It would also be interesting to know how many people leave(or are forced to leave) private schools to sit exams at state comprehensives......I am sure this used to go on(probably still does), and is a clever way of avoiding 'less academic pupils' dragging down the private schools grades.

JRT - teacher training is not what makes a good teacher. There are good teachers and bad teachers, and probably more of the latter. I had a set of very good teachers, but I also went to a school that demanded results, and was highly selective (via 11 plus). By the way I am 25, so not that long out of the education system (well, five years). Private schools can offer better wages to teachers and they are obviously going to be -very- selective about which teachers 'they pick' from the standard comprehensive and grammar school systems. Any teacher (in a private school) with students achieving poor or substandard grading is likely to 'move elsewhere of his/her own accord' (code for sacked). Hence it is logical to assume some of the (mainly) better teachers should end up in Private schools. Discipline is important, but enforcing discipline doesn't solve the problem that some kids and schools are labelled as dumb - this curbs everyones enthusiasm to work hard to make the school a better place. Give people a chance to learn i.e. by offering vocational skill training from 14 to people who are less academic, and academic based education (to a better standard than GCSE's) to those who are capable. We all have roles in society and the problem with the education system is that we all have this grade system enforced upon us at 16 which for some people is entirely irrelevant (I am an IT Manager and run my own fishing company, my brother is a builder - but I need a builder for my new extension, just as much as he needs his computer fixing...and I have never asked a mechanic, plumber or builder what his GCSE results are!!) GCSE's are unfair, because they are not the right sort of exams for 'practically minded' people who may be less academic, but are too easy for people who are. I have nothing against private schools by the way - I do not think tax breaks are a good idea, because I do think making them more affordable is potentially a licence to create more private schools and (effectively) force the middle classes into using them (thereby improving the state education system, but at great expense to a large amount of parents).

Kitchen devil must be quaking in their boots! However, I suspect Draper (manufacturer of cheap bench grinders) is laughing all the way to the bank! As usual, (expensive) research that is clearly a waste of time. You can still buy Samurai swords at most car boots and I bet any tabloid reporter could obtain a handgun in less than a couple of hours with only a couple of grand (possibly much less I'd of thought in some areas). 'Guns don't kill people, people do'. Whilst overquoted and (unfairly) taken the **** out of the NRA in America have a point. Sadly though it is true, and guns/knives are no more dangerous than a car, a beer bottle or a baseball bat if someone was really intent on causing another person damage - there is always going to be a way.

As someone who benefitted from grammar school in many ways I do appreciate that in the present setup they are a necessity (and for that matter private schools). However, I do think that comprehensives let their standards slip because they are not expected to achieve. My school had an exam statistic that 99% of students achieved all grades between A and C for GCSE. My brothers school, a nearby comp. considered a single C to be an 'excellent result'. Comprehensives, especially in areas where there are grammar schools, often display poor results, probably because of various factors (division of close friends in teen years, the fact you are labelled as thick by everyone - including the education system etc). I am not an idealist (otherwise I'd be yelling for communism), but I suspect in our area the grammar school gets better funding, better support from the LEA, a more involved management team. The comp. because it cannot achieve, has poorly motivated students, poorly motivated teachers and with it discipline problems. The catch 22 is it also probably gets far less funding, so is unable to get itself out of the hole. If any comprehensive had the set of enforced rules we had at our schools (no leaving school premises ever, very high rates of suspensions and expulsions, humiliating public displays of detention/other punishments) it would probably have a dramatic effect - In many comprehensives, no one cares, and they spiral downward to the state we recently saw on television (I think that Channel 4 programme). I am all for selective schooling if it is done fairly. At present it is not. Brainy kids are given better facilities to learn. Less academic kids are expected to achieve the same targets with fewer resources. If we have state funded grammar schools a proper opposite should exist which has no academic targets and teaches vocational training (if anyone tells me vocational work is not as important as academic then try fixing your own car, repairing a burst pipe in the middle of the night or even worse, hanging a door!). If you cannot provide for the less academic children then frankly it is wrong to cater for those that are academic (at least to a state funded level). I disagree with tax breaks for parents opting to take their children out of the education system. Not because I am against anyone who has done well enough to afford to do so (and I believe we all would consider it if we had the money), but because the private sector (if made more attractive) would undoubtedly lead to more private schools taking more of the better performing teachers (there is only a finite amount of teachers). At £21,000 per year for a three child family the poor would end up at the worst of schools ever imaginable and the richer kids would end up at higher class schools with better facilities. This then makes the system not based on ability but on the size of your parents wallet, which means very academic, very bright children with lots of potential could end up achieving nothing simply because they came from a less wealthy background.

I went to a grammar school (one with several hundred years of history, not one of the modern ones), and the standard of education was excellent, discipline was harsh (but fair mainly), and more importantly it was free. That said I would happily see the end of selective grammar schools in favour of better education across the board - putting people into boxes actively encourgaes brighter kids to work harder and less brighter children to give up.

I personally favour the banning of religous attire in schools, but then I also believe all British church schools should also be reformed as well. Whilst religon is important I think recent events prove some people (albeit a small amount) are quite impressionable, and imposing any views (catholic, church of england, islamic) really are not relevant to education as such. You cannot help but feel that a church school might be less liberal (which you can argue for or against) and slight biased when it comes to social issues (which might be reflected in various curriculum subjects). More to the point, I feel the freedom of choice for the pupil is removed, and you are assumed to be Catholic, COE etc for the duration of your study - an assumption which is really nothing to do with the school and to a certain extent your parents or anyone else! {rant over}

My point about elderly folk is that -SOME- can have serious medical conditions yet refuse to inform the DVLA. This ultimately requires legislation. I am not giving them a hard AND some may be capable of driving - I suspect most people over 70 though would fail any test based on sensory awareness and/or reaction timing. Police ignore these people and they are a hazard - as much so (potentially) as a drink driver or a tosser on a mobile. If a policeman saw me driving badly or excessively speeding I would have no real objection to it. What I object to is people can get away with worse offences on the road, and yet all efforts seem to concentrate on speeders - many of which are not guilty of doing more than 3mph above the speed limit. It is a bit rough justice you have to admit...

Sportsman I am 25 - statistically I might be more likely to have an accident, but the fact I never had in 8 or 9 years of motoring (I rode a motorcycle for four years prior to obtaining a car) means I am reasonably confident in my abilities as a driver - again - I am not saying I drive fast, but like chesters says, more of the villages around here are petitioning for ridiculously low and unjustified speed limits, and the minute one is approved the police make it an accident hotspot! It is though very possible to cause a VERY SERIOUS RTA by driving at 20mph dangerously, hence my point about the grey army (AND WE'VE ALL SEEN SOME ELDERLY FOLK THAT SIMPLY SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING). Speed doesn't help in an accident, but the elderly guy who pulls out of junctions in front of oncoming cars, and who cannot see more than twenty yards or hear his own wife nagging, even though she is in the passenger seat is just as guilty as any speeder BUT THERE IS NO WAY TO CATCH HIM AUTOMATICALLY!! More ought to be spent on tax dodgers, dangerous driving and wreckless driving and yes, speeding might be a problem, but we need to put it in perspective - I personally feel it's just the easiest target!! SandTiger - Never ever changed a double glazing window and am not at all practical. I did board it up, but it's about the best I can do (I am the son of a joiner, but never paid attention!)...

I have a bivvy with a chair and a bedchair in it - I'm calling my work of art 'A husbands retreat' - any takers at £250,000!

Back to my grans broken window, when we rang Skeggy police station (30 miles away from our police station which was only rebuilt at great expense a few years ago...) they couldn't ring her back to discuss the matter until 10pm - the window was broken around 4pm - 6 hours, not too bad I suppose...{b*llocks} 10pm! She is an elderly lady - and most normal people are relaxing or going to bed. Surely it cannot be cheaper to have police responding to vandalism calls at 10pm than it would be at 10am....Why was a town like Louth (with 12,000 inhabitants and an encatchment of 20,000 plus) left without a bobby on the beat, at the station or even a support office at 4 or 5pm in the middle of the week? Anyway (they call, and eventually someone visited after about a week) - She only saw a community support office, who basically gave the kids a bid of a telling off because they are under the age of legal responsibility for vandalism. That's fine, but when the parents cannot even give them a clip (I'd have had a bloody good clip at that age if I had done that I'd tell you), then there is no way for them to learn. The parents aren't even responsible for their kids actions by law - so the mother or father do not have to pay. Morals would dictate that you'd offer (if only to show your kids the problems they have caused) but nothing... So who is responsible - my gran, at 70 odd, with a broken window. It's all ****ed up if you ask me, and her insurance will double next year as a result no doubt!!

I am sure bits drop off all the time, count the rivets on your next aeroplane wing that are missing.... Seriously they probably never paid attention to crap like this - and to be honest never had much trouble. What we all have to remember is that it is a dangerous thing to do (space travel) and even when it all become commercialised in the future (if I suppose), accidents will still occur (as they do with planes, tranes and automobiles)!

Luncheon meat and/or corn, it works on nearly every venue. The cheaper (and oilier) the luncheon meat, the better I find it tends to fish (Kwik save cheapo stuff - about 25p a can or something!!) Boilies, hookable pellets and the like are all worth a go, and do outperform the above on some venues - but - I've not found many venues where at least some carp will not take spam/corn.

Buy cheap spinners and crush the trebles, it is easily done in seconds with a pair of pliers and it becomes hard to tell (if crushed properly) the hook was ever barbed

Calling them junk is a bit unfair. Sure you might not want a 1970's car, but half the commercial airlines in the world are flying retorfitted Boeings dating back to the late sixties or mid-seventites. It's a bit like those 30 year old buses that look brand new, it is amazing what a bit of panel beating and a new paint job can achieve (ooh and nearly all our trains in the UK as well)! The Stealth Bomber was developed in the late 70's and throughout the 80's yet we are not calling that 20 year old junk - it is still one of the worlds most advanced aircraft. Basically space exploration is important, there are a lot of scientific benefits. It helps us understand our world better, it's origins (I am not a religous person, hence do not have much time for 7 day stories), and potentially if the same set of events could have happened anywhere else (I am not a big alien believer, but if random events conspired to make our planet as it is, it is a possibility you simply cannot just reject). I bet you people moaning about the waste of time and money spent on space exploration don't think twice when using the Internet, Phone, SKY TY, GPS (in your boats).....

You got the full version for businesses I think, not the freebie!

Price for the boat, engine and trailer please and location - please PM Cheers

Does anyone have police recruitment figures for the last five years and information as to the amount of additional vehicles they have aquired. I suspect not. We keep getting told there are more police - I suspect most sit on the roadside all day and do little other than pursue motorists. Round here policing has got worse I feel (our police station is no longer manned in the evenings, and nearly all beat officers are now Community Support Officers, not proper policeman/women).

Sportsman, I made no reference to Top Gear - in fact, do not particularly like the program (I assure you I am not a car fanatic - remember, I own a Micra and a Zafira). My point about cameras is by definitiion they MUST be in a place that is deemed to be a hazard - they are there for safety not income (fact). However, this is rarely the case these days and there are a lot of cameras in money making places. If cameras are safety equipment then surely any device that detects them must also be class in the same way - It's chicken and egg, but if you say no, then you cannot justify putting the camera there in the first place!! Basically I am concerned I will get bagged in some lowly old place that shouldn't have a camera because the local coppers have run out of cash. This happens (it's true) and we nearly all are guilty of speeding in such areas - even by a couple of miles per hour (at times). We are all allowed to make mistakes in life. However, speed cameras do not allow for this and the punishment (frankly) is excessive for the crime (potential loss of job etc). Speed doesn't kill, because people capable of driving to the conditions will not speed if it's not appropriate. Poor driver education, poor testing (my test lasted less than 20 minutes in 2001 for a car and it was a joke, my motorcycle test lasted almost an hour and was bloody difficult by comparison), and no legislation as to the power of automobiles (you can jump in a 3litre BMW the day you pass your test at 18 - you simply cannot do that with a motorcycle, you are restricted for two years).

I am with IANR, sounds good to me, heres a good list to work through though for alterntives! bedews begets berets besets betels bevels bezels ceders celebs cereus defers deters fevers gelees hewers hexers jewels kevels lepers levees levels levers melees meters nereis newels peters pewees rebecs rebels recess refers rehems rekeys relets renews repels resets revels revers reweds seders semens sevens severs sewers tenets tepees vexers webers xebecs zebecs

Right, so speed camera things are bad yes? Speed camera detectors fulfill the same job as a speed camera themselves (to warn you of potential accident spots in the road and control driving speeds) hence they are AT LEAST EQUALLY AS JUSTIFIABLE AS ANY FIXED CAMERA IS!!!! If not, then the cameras themselves are not justifiable (since if they are not there to prevent accidents, they are there to generate revenue). I have never been nicked for speeding, in fact I drive a 1.2litre Micra (and a Zafira occasionally, but mainly the Micra), which is capable of doing 90 but not a great deal more. My concern is that one day I'll be on an airport run for a family member or somewhere I do not know the roads and get hit once or twice by some computer which has neither the skill, competenance or desire to examine the safety aspects of my driving on that day. I believe I am a safe driver, but your driving license these days can mean your life (job, career, following on house, family etc), and £80 is bloody cheap insurance in my opinion. We've all gone over the limit in these crappy twisty little 40mph villages by four or five miles an hour (paying attention to the road or traffic or whatever) - if you get nicked in one of these there are virtually no grounds for appeal and you could lose your licence after a couple of 'accidental' but 'safe' breaches of the law. Chesters, all facts in your post may be true, but stopping distances today are shorter, much shorter that was all my point is/was - though I agree, if you got hit by an older car from behind or in fact drive an older car my argument probably doesn't apply.

On that subject, someone smashed my grans window few weeks ago - it took 10 days for a copper to visit and then it was only a CSU [ 26. July 2005, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk ]

Pirahna