Jump to content

Suffererof1crankymofo

Members
  • Posts

    788
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

Everything posted by Suffererof1crankymofo

  1. @ Muckle Oxters. Not sure of Scottish Fire Regulations, but in England you don't have to have a sprinkler system unless a building is 30m or more in height. That doesn't mean to say it wouldn't be good practice to install a sprinkler system. Also, it's well-known that inverters used with solar panels have been known to start fires in the past; in fact, whilst there are benefits to green energy, it is also a known risk. Just because a building is fully insured does not mean insurers would actually pay out 100%; for example, many insurers won't pay out the full amount if you are away from home and a building is unoccupied for more than 2 weeks and you have failed to notify your insurers of this fact if say a flood broke out at Week 4 of the building being unoccupied. They won't just be looking at the fire report, they'll look at stuff like maintenance of systems, etc. Loss adjusters normally take more than a year to investigate and recommendations made to insurers re pay outs so how they expect to re-build within a year beats me (Didn't Dennis say that they'll have lost a year? I reckon they've lost far more than that.) There is a crowdfunding scheme for the family, the fund wanted to raise £2,000 but last time I looked, 334 people had donated over £11,000 in six hours.
  2. This is tragic; however, one can't help but wonder what part, if any, the solar panels had to play given that the original seat of the fire appears to be where they were located on the roof. No doubt the official investigations will shed more light. One would also have hoped given the wooden structure that there was a sprinkler system installed. Be nice to see a crowdfunding scheme in place should insurers not pay out; I, for one, would far rather contribute to this than the pathetic MRI scanner appeal.
  3. My ex worked on that boat a few years ago and for a winter crossing mid-week, it wasn't uncommon to get 15 people maximum onboard plus crew. So in that sense, the programme was accurate. I've also been in some restricted areas and I was surprised that they didn't show more of the boat. The extra programme on catch-up is about an interview with the director and apparently he filmed on his own from what I could gather. I thought it was pretty poor, all in all.
  4. If it's a charity, then why not state the name of the charity and the Scottish registration number? I suspect not, because the dogs are coming from Spain. Now it might well be the case that the individual is a volunteer for the Spanish organisation and there is an organisation for adopting Spanish dogs which is a registered charity in Scotland (is it the same one though?); the thing is, there is NO information on the advert to actually categorically state that it is on behalf of a registered charity. To me, there's far too many adverts for pets these days by ANY charity which really are emotional blackmail. They are run as a business; I have a friend in London who adopted from a medium-sized charity and before you know it, not only was she told which local vets to use, but also that she really should sign up for dog training classes with a specific individual ... and they weren't cheap and she ended up going to a different, better qualified dog trainer! It might well be the case that the person in Shetland isn't making a packet out of this, or, for that matter, this particular organisation in Spain but there are most definitely some adoption agencies that are basically big businesses. What does concern me are home checks and whether or not this particular organisation would take back a dog if things didn't work out; that's what is deemed good practice by decent dog breeders these days, yet sometimes I've seen people state on Facebook that they have an adopted dog and it can't go back to the adoption agency. That's strange, because with the larger UK dogs charities, it's a condition of the contract with them. Facebook doesn't permit pet sales any more (not that you'd notice!) and the Government are encouraging people not to buy pets over the internet so I can understand why some would rather not see this type of ad by what might well be an unregulated organisation here on Shetlink or it's new sidekick/whatever the pesky new ad section is called.
  5. If the pet passport scheme gets scrapped if we ever leave the EU, they'll be less dogs come over from the EU.
  6. @ Sacre Bleu Honestly, how many processes do you want? One of the Acts referred to above lists which Acts and laws are being revoked. If anyone is wanting to sabotage the Good Friday Agreement, it's the EU. They care more about their principles and their ideologies than they do about peace. Fine, we won't have a hard border; if Ireland chooses to be the EU's lap dog and do exactly what the EU demands, it's down to them to sort out with the EU, not us. Hell (oops!), the EU doesn't want to budge an inch, compromise isn't what they want to do. Who in their right minds would want to sign up indefinitely to be tied to certain EU Directives, give them a huge wad of billions of squids and not even have trade deals in place with them? NO ONE, yet they have the audacity to try to put all the blame at our feet instead of accepting they too are at fault for their dogmatic approach.
  7. @ Sacre Bleu Really not sure why you've felt the need to post about the referendum not being binding; I merely replied to you posting your quoted text below, together with you enquiring as to which legislation:- "The fundamental problem is that there were no clear processes put in place that would be enacted by the result of the referendum, and the government have been 'making it up as they go along' since then." Are you insinuating that timelines, how to trigger the notice, etc., aren't processes?
  8. @ Sacre Bleu There's several bits of legislation, including the European Treaty containing Article 50 (not sure whether that's the European Communities Act 1972(?)), The European Union (Definition of Treaties Orders (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ... I didn't half have to go googling a load of that lot but do recall reading various bits of Hansard when the European Referendum Act and other stuff was debated and the relevant bills presented in parliament at the time! It was the latter, when the bills were in parliament, that our 'adorable' MPs had the chance to bicker/debate/pick to shreds the various elements. Re constitution - Right, where in the Magna Carta does it state that I have to be ruled by some prat in Brussels?
  9. Incorrect. What the Government and the EU have been doing is to ignore the legislation put in place and attempted to fudge it to suit what they wanted as opposed to just actually leaving; for example, agreeing under the Withdrawal Agreement to tie us into EU Directives pertaining to security, fishing, etc. - that's not leaving. In addition, general elections have been pretty tight in the past yet we've accepted the 'first past the post' result with them so this shouldn't be any different. How many of us thought negotiations would be about how to leave, not what 'special relationship' and tying us into existing legislation would come about; as opposed to setting up trade deals with the EU? We can still trade with the EU for a set period of time after we leave (I'm sure I read that) and the rest of the world, something like a year. Italy, Spain, Greece - their finances are a mess so of course the EU wants to delay things because they want our money. As for the likes of Nissan not producing a certain car in Sunderland but now moving its production to Japan; some say that's because of BREXIT yet no mention that the tighter, stricter EU Directives pertaining to diesel cars has resulted in a huge reduction in the number of diesel cars being sold in the EU as the company chairman pointed out. I agree that May is trying to push through the Withdrawal Agreement but given the defeat in the house and many backbenchers voted against her, it didn't make it through; May isn't the entire Government. Edit: And let's be honest here - why the hell haven't the UK and the EU agreed upon a trade deal before now? They both at fault.
  10. @ Davie P Much as though I like Simon Calder, I think there are flaws in the points he makes. For starters, he’s saying that the EU are going to permit the same number of flights in 2019 as in 2018. SC, on the other hand, is saying that British Airways have scheduled 5% more for summer 2019. Were all seats sold then in 2018? And who the hell in their right mind has BA as their first choice these days, given that their flights have soared in price compared to other airlines? (Quite often BA flights cost at least a third more than other airlines) Perish the thought that one might choose to go via Eurostar, Eurotunnel or (gasps) a ferry … Is it really too difficult for folk to fill in a likkle form on a plane, yanno, like you do when travelling outside of the EU? Yeah, there is the old ‘Have you got a pen?’ and the hunt for one ½ hour before ya land but is mega difficult? NOPE. Sure, some people might have difficulty getting work visas within EU countries but what percentage of the UK population work within the EU? Those who have decided to make the likes of Spain, France, etc., their main homes can apply for residency and/or citizenship. Are you assuming that no UK fish will be sold to EU countries? You appear to be discounting the fact fish will be sold more easily to non-UK countries; for example, the trade restraints we currently have with Russia might be lifted and we used to sell a lot of fish to them. Cadbury’s, Twinings, and Ford spring to mind. If memory serves me correctly, EU grants were available.
  11. BREXIT is a superb idea. I am sick to death of the doom and gloom from folk displaying no faith whatsoever in the UK. All this rubbish about not being able to work and travel abroad. What about people outside the EU who want to come here and set up businesses, want to do trade with us and at present don't because of the constraints imposed because of the EU? The EU is crucifying ordinary folk, just look at how our fishing industry has suffered immensely at their hands, not to mention the huge tariffs imposed on many ordinary goods meaning many farmers get totally screwed over. Support Shetland milk, do you? Support dairy farmers in the UK or rather have imported milk from Belgium putting our folk out of business? Howzabout a survey as to how many companies have gone bust in the UK as a result of unfair competition as a result of the EU or how many businesses moved to other EU countries, deliberately lured there by the EU? Nope, because that wouldn't fit with your moaning, whinging MO, would it? We're leaving, get used to it ... and start to have some faith in your fellow countrymen and countrywomen, or whatever gender you choose to go by.
  12. @ Colin - Shame on you, you've forgotten all those women hidden away preparing the food - how could you?
  13. @Windwalker - Allegedly here if the internet holds out: https://www.uphellyaa.com/
  14. Moving messages to Njord was a bad idea, much rather preferred them on here, really annoying that I have to click on the classifieds tab just to see if I have messages or not.
  15. I thought we always had to stop for pedestrians in the road (saves on carnage ). I recall several years ago in London and think I've mentioned this before on here ... ... A mate was a motorcycle courier. He was driving along Clerkenwell Road and ended up in the doorway of a magician's shop because a pedestrian had stepped out onto a zebra crossing without looking. He wasn't speeding and was driving in accordance with the road and weather conditions, etc. The pedestrian started to have a go at my mate (who had several hundreds of pounds' worth of damage to his CX500 and I think, if I mind right, he'd broke his leg). Thankfully, there was a police officer who witnessed the entire thing and nicked the pedestrian!
  16. The first roundabout in the UK was installed in 1909 ...
  17. John Lewis deliver to Shetland and have a sale on at the moment.
  18. Were they referring to the weather and not the shops?
  19. Well, he certainly seemed to be capable of telling the EU how it was gonna be! Perhaps he could give May a few tips?
  20. @Davie P Key points were made about this by both sides prior to the referendum and during the debates in parliament, and it was argued then when remainer MPs after the referendum result when they were arguing for the right to vote on any exit deal that it had already been discussed under the bill during said debates. I think they also discussed one Act to revoke laws (basically to change the references to EU Directives) and didn't that get passed? Any future changes would be passed through parliament in the normal way. So it's nothing new. It isn't anything which hasn't already been debated in parliament. Indeed, David Davies said right at the beginning that his department was already going through the EU Directives that had been enshrined in statute, so they've already been working on it. What is new is the PM and the Withdrawal Agreement referring to us always having EU Directives enshrined in our laws. Solicitors have been making a fortune regarding EU law for years already because there's so many existing contradictions within current EU Directives.
  21. No, I'm not moving the goal posts. Seriously, do you have to be so passive aggressive as to repeat a sentence twice? Chances are we wouldn't have had such legislation in place if it had not been for the EU Directives. Edit: It's not all EU Directives either that we'll be subject to once we've left, just some but the point I made is that once we have left, it is nothing to do with them. How the blooming heck you consider that to be moving the goal posts, I've no idea.
  22. @mikeyboy - see DavieP's comment re trade deals. I think you're missing the point; whilst EU Directives were put in statute (if we didn't comply, there would be fines), many voted leave because it's those very EU Directives that they don't like, plus the point I'm making is, is that it is NONE of the EU's business at this stage if we decide to drop, for example, those EU Directives pertaining to the Environment. If parliament decides to keep them, that's our business, and sweet FA to do with the EU.
  23. Civil servants do the background work regarding goods/services, taxations and tariffs, safety thresholds for products, etc. Embassy staff have traditionally promoted British firms/goods but it's been the individual firms themselves who have bid for the majority of contracts, got their goods in shops abroad, etc. The problem we're faced with is that those previously working at the DTI got re-deployed to Brussels. The other problem has been the amount of manufacturers who have lobbied the EU for changes in legislation/EU Directives that made things more favourable for them. I do object to May pampering to the EU and promising that we'll adopt a load of existing EU legislation, like on the Environment, into our laws before even negotiating on trade; it's none of their business! You don't see Japan/Australia doing that when they negotiate a trading deal. You don't see Japan/Australia agreeing as to what standard goods should be manufactured to that aren't going to be sold outside of each of those countries. May should have told the EU where to go jump and let us decide later which bits of legislation re the Environment, for example, to keep, with due process through Parliament. There's another post doing the rounds on Facebook, one that reckons we can trade with the EU for up to 10 years under WTO rules should we leave the EU without a deal ... so if that's true (and heck, who knows, anyone?) then why the hell are we attempting to set up trade deals now? It does work both ways, and whilst the EU might collectively together be our largest individual trading partner (44%), that still leaves 66% elsewhere. Had we had any backbone and said that we were leaving without a deal and prepared for that from Day 1, I don't think the EU would be being as bullish as they are now.
×
×
  • Create New...