nick

oh yes we do :-)

so you are seriously suggesting that if no one voted at the next general election we would have better governance... get real!

what is really needed is a complete change in the voting system and the party system. Most seats never change hands and are actually appointed by the party, the Sunderland by election is a case in point, the labour candidate will be the next MP. Get rid of the party symbols and names from all the election materials, stop the party whip system forcing MP's to vote for the party and vote for the policy. Have multi member constituencies and STV, giving everyone real choices as to who is elected to represent the area. Make MP's work in their constituencies far more, and eat drink and make merry far less on our money in Westminster. That might make a start on putting some democracy back into the system.

but given that they would still vote even if no one else did they would still get elected, so how does not voting help?

Hi Andy, what I'm saying is it is all working fine for me, I started making web sites in 1993 so may possibly understand when a site is working and when it is not. Text is formatted, styling is applied, loads in less than a second. It's a very old fashioned looking site, but for me it is working absolutely fine.

I've been able to access it with no issues at all. Not the best looking site in the world, and I most certainly would not buy from a site that only provides a PO Box address.

one of the problems is the t&c's that are agreed to as part of the booking process: Relocation Travelodge operates a relocation policy (for more details on relocation policy click here). If a room is unavailable on arrival (except due to an event beyond our reasonable control, (see section 11.2)) then, we will either: provide a room in another Travelodge hotel and pay the reasonable cost of transport to that alternative hotel or any applicable car park; OR at your request, or, if in our reasonable opinion there is no suitable alternative hotel accommodation available, cancel your Booking and refund you any money you have paid in advance for the unavailable room(s) including related extras. If you are due to pay on arrival at the hotel we will take payment for the cost of the booking and any prepaid extras. As outlined above any additional costs over and above the original cost of the booking will be covered by Travelodge. I.e. difference in room rates, reasonable transport costs, car park charges. Total bunch of crooks, but contracts is contracts... It would however be very interesting to see this one tested in court. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 would be highly useful: 3 Liability arising in contract.(1)This section applies as between contracting parties where one of them deals as consumer or on the other’s written standard terms of business. Which applies in this case (2)As against that party, the other cannot by reference to any contract term— (a)when himself in breach of contract, exclude or restrict any liability of his in respect of the breach; or seems to the point

your forgiven for linking to that pile of cr@p newspaper as those images are wonderful

The problem is the most likely remedy is damages, and the quantum is likely the cost of the room. If they are unable to accommodate you then in general they are quite happy to refund you, So what are you going to achieve by going to court...

No but they are most certainly TOSA's

try using port 465 and tick use ssl

Many many years since I fished there but that was my thinking too Ian

not unusual at all for travel lodge. They overbook as a matter of policy. On the rare occasion when I use them I make sure I can check in as early as they allow - usually between 2.00pm and 3.00pm. If I'm not going to be able to then I use Premier Inn who don't have the same policy.

tut tut Dave H, you going all eastern european on us, taking fish away from a fishery without the owners consent...

Rob if there was any truth in what you say then the fishery owner would have been told the eastern europeans are allowed to kill and take all the carp as that is the perception of what is their culture. That is not the case. The fishery is allowed to carry on with it's rules not allowing carp to be taken. Indeed the fishery can allow who they want to fish, and impose whatever rules they want, within the law. All they are not allowed to do is stick up a meaningless sign that is offensive and misguided given that as all generalisations it is not accurate.

he only needs to take down his sign and make a decision as to who is allowed on site on a case by case basis, it's not rocket science, it's basic business management!

It does not have to be race: The RRA defines ‘racial grounds’ as being on the grounds of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. Most people think of race discrimination as being less favourable treatment on the grounds of colour or race. However, discrimination on the grounds of nationality, ethnic or national origins is equally unlawful In the circumstances under discussion Eastern European is clearly a reference to nationality (albeit a group of nationalities), and therefore it is 'racial grounds'.

what is so difficult to understand. If you make a blanket policy of for example "No Eastern Europeans" you ARE being racist. A blanket policy of "No fish thieves" is fine, there is a reasonable cause. Just because some EE might take fish does not mean that all EE do take fish. To make a policy based on the region from where they come is racist, to make a policy regarding actions of individuals is not.

I could be completely wrong, but if you can reduce the original in size to 90x90 pix and make sure it is still animated it might work when added as an avatar... completely wrong :-)

Phone, as you are either incapable of or unwilling to click on a link which would help you to understand the law as it stands in England I have copied the content of my earlier link here the paragraph in italics is of particular assistance: What is Race Discrimination The RRA sets out the circumstances in which discrimination on the grounds of race is unlawful. It defines four types of discrimination: direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimisation and harassment. Direct Race Discrimination Direct discrimination occurs when a person treats you less favourably on racial grounds than he or she would treat, or treats, some other person. The RRA defines ‘racial grounds’ as being on the grounds of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. Most people think of race discrimination as being less favourable treatment on the grounds of colour or race. However, discrimination on the grounds of nationality, ethnic or national origins is equally unlawful. Thus if a workplace contains Afro-Caribbean and African employees and the employer treats the African employees less favourably by allocating them the menial or less interesting work, that could amount to less favourable treatment on racial grounds. Similarly, if a Japanese bank offered its services to Korean customers on less favourable terms than those offered to other customers the bank’s actions could constitute less favourable treatment on racial grounds. It is equally unlawful to treat someone less favourably on the grounds of another person’s race, so that it is discrimination to treat a white employee less favourably because he or she has a black partner. Similarly, if a white employee were dismissed for refusing to obey his or her employer’s instructions to refuse to serve Asian customers, he or she would have a direct discrimination claim under the RRA. Sometimes direct discrimination is very obvious, but it can be more subtle. The following are all examples of direct discrimination: Racist name-calling or abuse. Refusing to give someone a job or promote him or her because of stereotyped ideas about his or her abilities or conduct, based on his or her race. Refusing to give someone a job or promotion on the grounds that customers will not like being served by a person of that race. A pub or club operating quotas to prevent black members or customers from exceeding a specific number or proportion. Generally, you need to point to someone compared to whom you have been treated less favourably, called a ‘comparator’. However, if you cannot do this, the court or tribunal considering your case should construct a hypothetical comparator for you. The intention and motive of the discriminator are irrelevant to the question of whether a person has been subject to unlawful direct discrimination on the grounds of race. Moreover, race does not need to be the sole or even the principal reason for the way someone is treated for the treatment to be discriminatory. Discrimination can be made out if race is a contributing cause in that it is a "significant influence" on the treatment in question. Segregation on racial grounds is defined by the RRA as a particular type of direct discrimination. Providing separate washing facilities for white and Asian employees, even if the facilities are of the same standard, might be an example of segregation on racial grounds. Similarly, only employing ethnic minorities in ‘back room’ roles where they have no contact with the public but allowing others a full range of roles and duties might be an example of segregation on racial grounds. Indirect Race Discrimination Indirect discrimination aims to challenge practices and procedures which on their face apply in the same way to everyone but which in practice have different, unfair effects on certain groups. Indirect race discrimination is defined in the employment context and several others as being the application of a specific provision, criterion or practice, which places a racial group at a disadvantage, in a way that cannot be justified. You can only bring a complaint if you suffer the disadvantage yourself. The following are examples of indirect race discrimination: A policy that requires all employees to be clean-shaven, as this would put Sikhs in general at a disadvantage. A practice of excluding job applicants who live in a certain area of a city where that area is occupied by a higher proportion of ethnic minority people as this would put ethnic minority candidates at a disadvantage. U nlike direct discrimination, indirect discrimination can be justified. If the person doing the discrimination can show that the provision, criteria or practice is objectively justified on grounds other than race, then the discrimination will not be unlawful. There is another, older, legal definition of indirect discrimination which refers to a ‘condition or requirement’ rather than a ‘provision, criterion or practice’. Although the new definition applies to claims of discrimination in employment, education, services and certain public functions such as healthcare, the old definition will continue to apply to other sorts of discrimination, which makes the law in this area complex. Therefore, if you consider that you have been indirectly discriminated against you should consider seeking specialist help. Victimisation Victimisation occurs when one person treats you less favourably than he or she treats, or would treat, someone else in those particular circumstances because you have done any of the following 'protected acts': Alleged that the discriminator or any other person has committed an act which (whether or not the allegation so states) would amount to a contravention of the RRA. Brought proceedings against the discriminator or any other person under the RRA. Given evidence or information in connection with proceedings brought by any person against the discriminator or any other person under the RRA. Otherwise done anything under or by reference to the RRA in relation to the discriminator or any other person. The same also applies if the discriminator knows that you intend to do any of those things or suspects that you have done, or intend to do, any of them. If bringing a claim, it is not necessary for you to show that the alleged discriminator was consciously motivated by the fact that you had done a protected act. Allegations of discrimination must be made in good faith in order to be protected by the victimisation provisions of the RRA. An example of a situation in which a claim of victimisation might arise is where an employee accuses his or her boss of discriminating against him or her on the grounds of race and as a result of the complaint is demoted or disciplined. Alternatively, if a white colleague suggests that a manager has treated a black employee unfairly and then finds him or herself ostracised or subject to unwarranted criticism from that manager or his employer, this too might amount to unlawful victimisation. Racial Harassment Regulations introduced in 2003 amended the RRA to make it unlawful for an individual to harass you on racial grounds at work, in education, services and some other areas such as healthcare. Harassment is defined as unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating your dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for you, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins. This should be a useful tool for those who have been subjected to repeated bullying at work, as it is a more straightforward definition than that of direct discrimination. It should, however, be noted that, for technical reasons, harassment is only unlawful if it is on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins and not nationality or colour.

yes quite simply it would. Have a read: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-to-receive-equal-treatment/race-discrimination/what-is-race-discrimination.html

I too have a very nasty feeling about the situation in NK. Reading a piece today which suggests that China are pretty pi55ed off with them too. I think that is the only bright spot on the horizon on the whole situation. One thing I am pretty certain of is that if they can, and are stupid enough to, launch at nuke there will soon thereafter be a hole where NK used to be. Hopefully the US will be sensible enough to use their conventional weapons systems which are quite capable of doing the job.

that was woolworths own brand gear, no idea on value, but it was the basis of my kit for years

doubtful, that would make it far too easy for the DIY'er and we can't let that happen. What you want for free could be a £120 job for some dealer garage...

if you use the e-petitions website: So they will be considered for debate over 100k, but that does not mean any notice will be taken of other e-petitions (such as change.org)