Moist Von Lipwig

I've no issue stepping aside if the area around is clear, although will hold off if I feel they are able to go around me. What I really object to is they come up behind dinging their bells. If I tried a similar thing with them when in my car I'm sure I would get some choice words shouted at me with accompanying gestures.

I know there has been much discussion about the interaction of cyclists and cars but I am now suffering a slightly different issue. I have taken to a dailyish walk which covers mostly paved areas but includes a section of narrow pathway through a wooded area. The path is mostly very narrow, just enough to for a person to walk along at times the overgrown sides have nettles and such growing (about elbow height) close by such that if I am in a tee shirt it is a close call before getting stung. I have now had a variety of cyclists who use the path dinging their bells and wanting me to step aside so they can proceed. None of them want to dismount and wait for me to pass or want to dive into the grass/overgrown areas to pass when coming from behind. Now if I was a driver behind a cyclist and I started to sound my horn how would they generally take that? I doubt it would be taken too well. What is the protocol for this? Am I supposed to jump into nettles at the sight of a cyclist or just ignore them in the way they generally ignore cars? M

Personally when I was looking for a job a few years back I signed up with various agencies which either dealt specifically in the areas I wanted to get into or had an understanding of ex-service personnel. I also trawled the various job sites and companies I wanted o get into and applied directly. I know that the companies pay these recruitment agencies good money to find appropriate staff and certainly where I previously worked most of the jobs were advvertised internally and through recruitment firms initially. If the result is you get the job you want at the money you want then does it matter how they found you? Use every means possible to get your foot in the door and these recruiters have good contacts and keep on at the employers for updates and information.

A few miles can make a difference. According to this site below, you are in a highest risk area! http://www.motorcarinsuranceuk.co.uk/post-code-ratings.php

Depends on the excess and your driving history. Some firms will have a bottom line they will get down to and may be at or near that with the current one, try somewhere else. Worth checking what category your postcode is to see how reputable it is! Sure I've seen someone post a link to a site on here somewhere.

Last report I saw yesterday said that the police had yet to receive any official complaints, which I find quite odd given the threats that the press were quoting! Hopefully they will be investigated and prosecuted where appropriate as there sounded some quite nasty stuff being threatened!

Interesting wording in some of the news stories I think. The main topic appears to be the 'threats to staff and families' that has forced the u-turn but then they also mention issues from various sponsors as well almost as an aside! I do wonder how much is about the commercial aspect and trying to be seen to withdraw for the right reasons as well?

Glad to hear that it is going as well as it can be. Hopefully he will be stabilised and out of hospital soon. All the best for 2015.

I've seen some limited accidents with dogs in houses, but this is more generally when their tail just swipes everything off the table. I have always had large dogs and have never had a problem with them or their tails, despite regularly working them as gun dogs in the past as well. But have seen some nasty instances where things can happen to dogs put into poorly considered situations by their owners and genuine accidents such as a spaniel that lost an eye due to getting a twig through the roof of its mouth. In my view the longer that people continue to undertake unnecessary mutilation of animals in the name of aesthetics the longer the practice will be seen as acceptable. Importing a dog from Ireland just to get round the UK ban just perpetuates the false image that many people have in their mind of how these animals should look. There was a programme on a while back about the Kennel Club breed standards which pointed out that many flaws had been deliberately brought in for aesthetic reasons, many of which caused significant issues for the dogs. Since then they have updated the standards but it is going to take many years to change people's perception of what the different dogs should look like, such as the bull dog and the ridge back (which shouldn't have such a ridge!). Speaking to a friend to breeds and shows dogs, some of the worst people in this are the old school breeders and judges who refuse to acknowledge the new standards and still want the original variants!

Not sure about the huge uproar around this particular case as I feel the media and probably some specific groups are leading the charge which no one is willing to stand up against. However maybe it will start to install some form of moral compass into these overpaid people so that they understand the public impact that their actions have and what could happen.

You don't like it because of the look! Get over it. Dog breeders and purists have been deliberately putting flaws into breeds for years as they look aesthetically pleasing while doing the dog no good. Tail docking is no better and by continuing it you just encourage more people to want it rather than seeing how the dog should actually look.

There was a story/tale about this years back, whether it is true or not I really don't know.Not based on a motorway so slightly different but the story goes that someone passes 4 cameras on their journey and gets flashed by them all. He is sent NIPs for them all individually, which would total 12 points and therefore a ban! So he challenges and takes to court arguing as he didn't slow down it was just one offence. The prosecution indicates that this would therefore be dangerous driving as speeding over a protracted distance! As I said, not sure if it is true or not or what the outcome was if it was true

Not sure if it is still he case but a few years back it was said somewhere in the press (I think) that the limiting factor on how many tickets they could churn out from digital cameras was the need to manually verify the details before sending it out. This was the expensive and time consuming part of the process, however they may have got over that now and automated the process!

I can't, sorry! I do believe that police forces have had issues with tattoos in the past and are only recently starting to relax the rules in certain cases and possibly in certain forces. There is still a stigma linked to tattoos and unfortunately I do not believe they are protected under the Equalities Act 2010 (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28758900) whether this is fair or not is a different matter. As above I agree that they are within their rights to turn away people with tattoos if they so wish as they are not protected by the Equalities Act 2010. Morally is a different matter and as I said before I believe people from certain cultures and the Armed Forces, which have a tradition of tattoos, have been accepted with tattoos in normally prohibited areas. Whether this is a balance of the benefit they bring from the previous experience or acceptance of the reason the had the tattoo I do not know.

I'm not a fan of them but can appreciate good ones as an art form. However what I really dislike is when people with particularly visible or potentially offensive ones expect to everyone to just forget about them at certain times. They clearly got them done for a particular reason yet when it suits them the want people to forget that. I really mean the facial and neck stuff. Sleeves and hands are pretty much mainstream now and socially acceptable although I do understand that the armed forces and police have issues with them as will other employers no doubt. Not sure if they are really covered under discrimination but I'm sure some police forces have made exceptions for ex service personnel where there was a tradition of certain tattoos which could not be routinely covered.