Nor should you !Rebecca wrote: I feel no guilt about being a motorist at all.
It isn't that bloody brilliant for those of us that do.pk1 wrote:Nor should you !Rebecca wrote: I feel no guilt about being a motorist at all.
I'd love the option of being a non-car driver but alas my walking inability prevents me as does my breathing inability. Some of us cannot cope without our cars & others need to accept that as a fact, not as a choice. Additionally, access to public transport is inadequate for millions of us that don't live in a city.
I brought a Dyson Upright some years ago...It was the worst vacuum I've ever owned. Used to get blocked at least once each time I used it and sometimes twice. Then it needed a screwdriver and taking the head to pieces to unblock it.From Yesterday:
@RebeccaRiots:
(By the way - I tried a Dyson vac once (not a mini one), it was damn complicated and heavy to use - I hated it and have never used one again. You are right, it would be way beyond Paterson.)
Apologies. Yes, you are right, although I think the Horne influence is more marked in Clue (especially Humph's single entendre - they never aspired to be double really, did they?).mbc1955 wrote:Actually no. It's only a few years ago that I learned that 'I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue' grew out of the demise of 'I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again', and given our similar age and your knowledge of RTH, I'd be very surprised if you didn't know of ISIRTA.TheGrimSqueaker wrote:I was simply admiring Lonewolfie's usage of the word on his Twitter profile. Massive fan of Round The Horne and Beyond Our Ken (less so of Stop Messing About, his absence is keenly felt); even now when you listen to it some of the jokes sail close to the wind, so how did they get away with them back in the 60s? And, yes, I'm Sorry I haven't A Clue (I assume that was what you meant) owes it a great debt.mbc1955 wrote: Gruntfuttock?
Let me recommend you to any repeats of the Sixties radio comedy show 'Round the Horne', starring Kenneth Horne, and including the great Kenneth Williams amongst its cast. RTH was wriien by Barry Took and Marty Feldman and was a delightfully surreal (if traditional) comedy half hour with a bewildering cast of characters and a depth of filth unheard of at the time. It's best known for Williams and Hugh Paddick as Julian and Sandy, two very OTT and camp gays (in an era when homosexuality was still illegal), and Williams' folk singer Rambling Syd Rumpo.
But Williams also played the muttering J. Peasemold Gruntfuttock (a-ha!), the world's dirtiest dirty old man.
I am delighted at any opportunity to plug a great show that wasn't as dissimilar to the acclaimed 'I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again' as the latter liked to think.
It was a great radio comedy sketch show that grew out of Cambridge's Footlights and the show that went to the West End as 'Cambridge Circus', in the wake of 'Beyond the Fringe'. It starred Tim Brooke-Taylor, John Cleese, Graeme Garden, David Hatch, Jo Kendall and Bill Oddie, and it's a still great collection of surreality, silliness and some of the most atrocious puns you've ever heard.
One of my favourite sketches was the performance of Brer Rabbit interrupted by Animal Equity demanding parity for its less popular members so that the story became Brer Bandicoot, and you simply have to hear John Cleese and the Lovin' Pruneful singing the Ferret Song!
Here it is: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Serious establishment jitters. They've played all their cards and errr realise they don't have the foggiest of a Tory majority in 2015, even with the Yellow ones.StephenDolan wrote:I think I need to make an opticians appointment.
This morning I read Hunt's speech regarding public schools and their charity status. It seemed a reasonable step in the right direction. However venturing BTL and reading the numerous comments at the G for example, it would appear that what Hunt's speech had really said was a call to arms in the class war, that the politics of envy is stirring up unnecessary hatred towards those born to rule.
And today Crosby will be saying [excuse me] That fucking, fucking, FUCKING Miliband what's it going to take.refitman wrote:Good morning. Labour lead at 4 points on Yougov:
Latest YouGov / The Sun results 24th November -
Con 30%, (-3)
Lab 34%, (+1)
LD 6%, (-1)
UKIP 18%; (+2)
Grn 6%, (no change)
APP -30 (-8)
And that's exactly what the idiots have got!PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Serious establishment jitters. They've played all their cards and errr realise they don't have the foggiest of a Tory majority in 2015, even with the Yellow ones.StephenDolan wrote:I think I need to make an opticians appointment.
This morning I read Hunt's speech regarding public schools and their charity status. It seemed a reasonable step in the right direction. However venturing BTL and reading the numerous comments at the G for example, it would appear that what Hunt's speech had really said was a call to arms in the class war, that the politics of envy is stirring up unnecessary hatred towards those born to rule.
Honestly, I feel they are losing it. Talking class warfare is exactly what the Bullingdon boys don't want.
Not impressed myself, either. I expect that the W&P Select Committee will find that this latest round of publicity/information/etc., has been misleading (again) and that tomorrow the NAO report will contradict much of what has been announced today – but they will not get as much publicity. I doubt very much that any of the current deadlines can be met. And I object to the principle of rolling all those different areas of Social Security into one monthly payment. There were very good reasons why the previous single-payment scheme was spun back out into separate payments – and why people were given at least some facility to continue with fortnightly (or even weekly) payments when the option of monthly payments was first brought in.ephemerid wrote:HindleA wrote:Morning.
@LadyCentauria
from DWP :
"The last new claims to legacy benefits will be accepted during 2017.
Following this the stock of remaining legacy claims will progressively decline, and the department will migrate the remaining claims to Universal Credit. Should there be no change in the labour market outlook or the pace at which claims are migrated, the current business case assumes for planning purposes the bulk of this exercise will be complete by 2019."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/welf ... -by-spring" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This latest piece of guff says that "Support worth up to 70% of childcare costs will be available regardless of hours worked" which sounds really good; later it says "Working families on UC can claim back 70% they've paid out for childcare", which doesn't.
So the childcare has to be paid for first - which is not going to be easy for people who have no money; on top of that, there is a cap on how much that 70% can be, at £532 for 1 child and £912 for two or more. Monthly.
The average cost of a nursery place is about £150 a week; if you have two children, that'll cost £1,300 a month. 70% of that is £910, so the cost to the parent is £390 - assuming that they get the money back when they claim for it.
If you get a job and have 2 under-school-age kids, you will have to find £1,300 up front and claim back the £910 later; whatever your wages or UC award is, you have to factor in the £390 you have to pay in childcare every month.
The splendid Brian Wernham has been Tweeting about what he calls the "media blitz" this week on UC - the next NAO report on it is due and it looks like the government wants to get its propaganda out first. DWP has published reams of new guidance for UC in the past few days - it looks like its getting its excuses in before the report is published.
In the link HindleA provided and in various soundbites from IDS, we are told that UC is such a roaring success that UC claimants are "working more over a 6 month period - 69% under UC compared with 65% under JSA"
This means that a handful of people who find work when on UC are doing a tiny bit more than their JSA equivalents. That's not very impressive at all when you consider the demographics.
There are, we are told, about 11,000 people claiming UC. These are all single people with no children, no disabilities, no complications who are claiming only the JSA-type component of UC. If they are entitled to Housing Benefit, this continues to be administered by their local authority at the moment. They are all "new" claims.
They are the single group of claimants most likely to find work quickly; 80% of all new JSA claimants find work within 6 months. So it should be expected that a similar level of people who would normally have an uncomplicated JSA claim will behave in the same way if the have a new uncomplicated UC claim.
The "working more" thing is very misleading. These figures suggest that, over a 6-month period, 4% more of UC claimants than JSA claimants are doing more work; but it doesn't say how many of those people there are.
It could be 100, it could be 1,000, it could be one. The work could be anything from one hour upwards, but not ull time or there would be no entitlement to UC as the claims are all JSA-replacement only.
All this means is that whatever the number of people is, 4% of the ones on UC are doing more work than their JSA counterparts; if you claim JSA you cannot work more than 16 hours, and in practice as 11.5 hours a week at NMW is more than JSA if you did 12 hours you'd have to come off it anyway - on UC you can work a bit more before DWP closes the claim.
For most JSA claimants, it's not worth bothering with a temporary job which is part-time on NMW, because the hassle of sorting out HB etc. and re-claiming after a few days is such a pain, and now they have to wait for 7 days before the new claim is even registered, so they lose at least a week of JSA (or more if their pre-claim jobsearch isn't up to scratch)
I suspect that, assuming this 69%/65% thing is true, the UC claimants may be doing odd bits of work in a way the JSA claimants can't.
Thanks to the draconian jobsearch conditions for UC, it is worth the claimants' while to do this - if they don't, they will be sanctioned and the penalty for "refusal of employment" is 26 weeks for the first offence.
Even if all the claimants on UC now had got some bit of work in 6 months, the number is still very small - 11,000. If there were also 11,000 JSA claimants who had also found a bit of work in the 6 months used as the comparison, all this tells us is that 440 UC claimants got a bit more work than their JSA counterparts, which could be anything from one hour to twelve hours on one occasion or more.
Not impressed.
Excellent footnotesStephenDolan wrote:McBride latest. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I had a think earlier of how much class war has been directed against the likes of us the last 35 years, wasn't difficult to come up with numerous examples, but of course they are always making things more competitive, makings things fairer, making a good model for businesses to flourish in, and letting markets dictate.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Serious establishment jitters. They've played all their cards and errr realise they don't have the foggiest of a Tory majority in 2015, even with the Yellow ones.StephenDolan wrote:I think I need to make an opticians appointment.
This morning I read Hunt's speech regarding public schools and their charity status. It seemed a reasonable step in the right direction. However venturing BTL and reading the numerous comments at the G for example, it would appear that what Hunt's speech had really said was a call to arms in the class war, that the politics of envy is stirring up unnecessary hatred towards those born to rule.
Honestly, I feel they are losing it. Talking class warfare is exactly what the Bullingdon boys don't want.
Please don't ever feel guilt, Rebecca, how can you change what you can't change? - I apologise. I asked in order to find out if public transportation could alleviate stress, not cause it. Blessings on your home, give my love to your daughter. Her comfort & safety are most important.Rebecca wrote:It would take my daughter being reliably able to use public transport,by which I mean agreeing to get into a bus or train,then when in not having a meltdown if a child laughs/cries/shouts or she hears another sudden noise.Or punching the driver.She isn't and i drive her around.Having said that my mileage is under 3000 a year and I feel no guilt about being a motorist at all.citizenJA wrote:What would it take for you to feel comfortable contemplating with equanimity giving up your car? Let your imagination soar.Rebecca wrote:Morning.
What a lovely,cold,frosty start to the day.Had a beautiful walk with the dogs and have even put the heating on for an hour for the first time this morning.
Thanks for the pan haggerty recipe Lady C,I have a very skinny vegetarian friend who loves spuds so I shall cook it for her next time she comes for lunch.
Good to see the polls,though there are too many of them now imo.
My car is going for its mot tomorrow,does anyone else dread this yearly torture or is it just me?I even have it done early to get it over with.I can't think of anything worse,it is cruel and unusual.
I don't own a car & I know it's near impossible for others to do the same given the public transportation system as it is now. I'm not able to apply for some care working gigs because I don't own a car.
Please know I'm posting this without judgement, without an agenda beyond what I've asked.
Exactly.pk1 wrote:Nor should you !Rebecca wrote: I feel no guilt about being a motorist at all.
I'd love the option of being a non-car driver but alas my walking inability prevents me as does my breathing inability. Some of us cannot cope without our cars & others need to accept that as a fact, not as a choice. Additionally, access to public transport is inadequate for millions of us that don't live in a city.
Agreed wholeheartedly. The UK could have the finest public transportation system in the world. It's currently inadequate - expensive, hard to navigate, easy to stranded.mbc1955 wrote:It isn't that bloody brilliant for those of us that do.pk1 wrote:Nor should you !Rebecca wrote: I feel no guilt about being a motorist at all.
I'd love the option of being a non-car driver but alas my walking inability prevents me as does my breathing inability. Some of us cannot cope without our cars & others need to accept that as a fact, not as a choice. Additionally, access to public transport is inadequate for millions of us that don't live in a city.
Coulson?letsskiptotheleft wrote:Oh dear, DFH in his latest outpouring of bile has been told, by a non Labour supporter that his links ''to Labour are both tenuous and old'' btw, he's a writing a booking, I wonder what or who it's about, I'll give you three guesses?
Hunty.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Excellent footnotesStephenDolan wrote:McBride latest. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Actually I enjoyed the whole thing. Thanks.
Still cold Stephen! Watching Daily Politics, Charlotte Vere, of the Independent Schools Council just asked why private schools deserves tax breaks "because they've charities, and have been for generations, and to suddenly take away this is a nonsense" so that's makes it alright then.StephenDolan wrote:Coulson?letsskiptotheleft wrote:Oh dear, DFH in his latest outpouring of bile has been told, by a non Labour supporter that his links ''to Labour are both tenuous and old'' btw, he's a writing a booking, I wonder what or who it's about, I'll give you three guesses?
Brooks?
Jim Murphy?
Am I close?
(my bold)letsskiptotheleft wrote:Still cold Stephen! Watching Daily Politics, Charlotte Vere, of the Independent Schools Council just asked why private schools deserves tax breaks "because they've charities, and have been for generations, and to suddenly take away this is a nonsense" so that's makes it alright then.StephenDolan wrote:Coulson?letsskiptotheleft wrote:Oh dear, DFH in his latest outpouring of bile has been told, by a non Labour supporter that his links ''to Labour are both tenuous and old'' btw, he's a writing a booking, I wonder what or who it's about, I'll give you three guesses?
Brooks?
Jim Murphy?
Am I close?
John Vidal
Tuesday 25 November 2014 14.19 GMT
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... port-shows" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Britain has 10 of Europe’s top 50 “super-polluting” power stations and factories, helping to cost it more in health and environmental impacts than any other countries, except for Germany and Poland.
New air pollution figures from the European environment agency (EEA) suggest that a handful of power stations and industrial plants together cost the National Health Service and the wider UK economy over £10bn a year.
Of over 14,000 major industrial plants identified in Europe’s 27 countries, Drax power station in Selby and the Longannet plant at Kincardine in Scotland were ranked respectively 5th and 10th between 2008-2012.
citizenJA wrote:(my bold)letsskiptotheleft wrote:Still cold Stephen! Watching Daily Politics, Charlotte Vere, of the Independent Schools Council just asked why private schools deserves tax breaks "because they've charities, and have been for generations, and to suddenly take away this is a nonsense" so that's makes it alright then.StephenDolan wrote: Coulson?
Brooks?
Jim Murphy?
Am I close?
There it is.
Late last night after reading Hunty's latest, I realised the implications. Thank you for helping me understand more now.
Teacher recruitment falling short for third straight year
Missed trainee targets could lead to larger class sizes, Labour warns
Daniel Boffey
Sunday 23 November 2014 06.00 GMT
The coalition is serially failing to match its own teacher recruitment goals, prompting critics to warn that there will be 27,000 fewer teachers in three years’ time than will be needed.
For the third year in a row the government is set to miss its target for trainee teachers across primary and secondary schools. Just 30,510 trainees have been placed in teacher training so far for 2014-15 – more than 4,000 short of the target and 7,700 fewer than were recruited in 2010.
If the government continues to fail to recruit teachers at the required rate or higher, the potential shortfall would force headteachers to increase class sizes, according to shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... -coalition" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You're very good to me, thank you. My spouse & I decided against paying for the television license & I'm unable to watch this live. I don't feel deprived. I think I'm bordering on sanctimonious though so I'll leave this post here.letsskiptotheleft wrote:citizenJA wrote:(my bold)letsskiptotheleft wrote: Still cold Stephen! Watching Daily Politics, Charlotte Vere, of the Independent Schools Council just asked why private schools deserves tax breaks "because they've charities, and have been for generations, and to suddenly take away this is a nonsense" so that's makes it alright then.
There it is.
Late last night after reading Hunty's latest, I realised the implications. Thank you for helping me understand more now.
Here it is JA, be warned though it also contains Kelvin McKenzie, who reckons the 93% of kids who don't go private receive ''a shocking level of education'' Brennan stood his ground well enough, Vere though failed miserably where her political sympathies lie, no great surprise I know.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... s-25112014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
About 6 minutes in.
I'm always reminded of the saying: 'Sucking on the tit of the State', when I read statements like that.letsskiptotheleft wrote:Still cold Stephen! Watching Daily Politics, Charlotte Vere, of the Independent Schools Council just asked why private schools deserves tax breaks "because they've charities, and have been for generations, and to suddenly take away this is a nonsense" so that's makes it alright then.StephenDolan wrote:Coulson?letsskiptotheleft wrote:Oh dear, DFH in his latest outpouring of bile has been told, by a non Labour supporter that his links ''to Labour are both tenuous and old'' btw, he's a writing a booking, I wonder what or who it's about, I'll give you three guesses?
Brooks?
Jim Murphy?
Am I close?
Me neither.pk1 wrote:Nor should you !Rebecca wrote: I feel no guilt about being a motorist at all.
I'd love the option of being a non-car driver but alas my walking inability prevents me as does my breathing inability. Some of us cannot cope without our cars & others need to accept that as a fact, not as a choice. Additionally, access to public transport is inadequate for millions of us that don't live in a city.
Mr Ohso will shortly qualify for us being spared paying the license fee. One more payment in Jan. and that's it. Unless of course it gets changed. Just our luck if it does. It's so rubbishy now that I'll be glad not to contribute.citizenJA wrote:You're very good to me, thank you. My spouse & I decided against paying for the television license & I'm unable to watch this live. I don't feel deprived. I think I'm bordering on sanctimonious though so I'll leave this post here.letsskiptotheleft wrote:citizenJA wrote:(my bold)
There it is.
Late last night after reading Hunty's latest, I realised the implications. Thank you for helping me understand more now.
Here it is JA, be warned though it also contains Kelvin McKenzie, who reckons the 93% of kids who don't go private receive ''a shocking level of education'' Brennan stood his ground well enough, Vere though failed miserably where her political sympathies lie, no great surprise I know.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... s-25112014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
About 6 minutes in.
when there are no words...
...I love this smiley.
Well I never - who'd have thought it. (For my sins I was once recruited for a health position via KPMG ... I changed my mind about taking it up and moved to Wales to be with Mr Riots instead. Never regretted it.)Stephen Dorrell, the Conservative former health secretary and former chair of the Commons health committee, has announced that he is standing down at the election to take up a job as a health consultant with KPMG.
Yes, absolutely safe, talking of seats, the list of PPC's for the Cynon Valley has been announced, Clwyd who thought she could just walk back in has challengers, good luck, to everyone of them.rebeccariots2 wrote:From AS politics blogWell I never - who'd have thought it. (For my sins I was once recruited for a health position via KPMG ... I changed my mind about taking it up and moved to Wales to be with Mr Riots instead. Never regretted it.)Stephen Dorrell, the Conservative former health secretary and former chair of the Commons health committee, has announced that he is standing down at the election to take up a job as a health consultant with KPMG.
What's Dorrell's seat like ... an absolutely safe one?
Do you think IDS' brain would explode if he actually heard the word evidence?Sticky99 wrote:It will be interesting to see the National Audit Office's "assessment" of Universal Credit tomorrow.
The following exchange between a Tory backbencher and IDS is so telling of how well scrutinised policies are under this administration:
"Philip Hollobone, a Conservative, asks what evidence there is that UC is changing job-search behaviour?
Duncan Smith says people are doing many more job searches, and are going into work more quickly. That confirms his belief that people want to work, he says."
What exactly does many more mean? How is that in anyway quantifiable? Similarly the claim of people are going into work more quickly is not substantiated in anyway. It is sad but not surprising that a secretary of state for such a critical department like DWP can make such cavalier claims without backing them up.
What is also striking is how UC is only being introduced to parents less than a year before the general election. I suppose this will be more of a test of the IT's robustness, but with it being rolled out to a sole region in the country it still won't be representative of all families in the country.
Even without the delays it is the very premise of UC I disagree with. Work already pays, that is why the vast majority of the public are in employment. It is silly to introduce a system designed to tackle fraud when DWP figures show fraudulent payments are as low as 0.9 % of the DWP budget.
Still the most laughable aspect of UC is that people working part-time will have to attend the job centre, attend the Work Programme or even do workfare. Even if their part-time work interferes with DWP appointments, they'll theoretically have to miss those working hours in order to attend the DWP activity. Unless I've missed something and provisions have been made around this?
I would probably have a similar stance if I lived nearer or in the town centre. Streets are understandably much tighter, a lot of streets need parking permits, there is a battle for parking spaces without permits and the general volume of traffic and silly road layouts would make vehicle ownership less appealing.adam wrote:I don't drive, have never lived in a household with a car and live with someone who doesn't drive and grew up in a household without a car and whilst I totally respect the absolute necessity in a good number of cases for all sorts of reasons, I also think that for a lot of people the necessity of car ownership is more of a construct, something that's always happened and is built around. I would find it astonishingly strange and unusual to have a car, having built all of the routines of my life around the simple fact of not having one.
I was in the same position (except Mr Riots has always driven, but not always had a car) when I lived in London. The idea of owning a car there seemed really really strange to me - just about everywhere was so accessible by public transport. The knowledge that I would have to drive when I moved here ... was one of the things that made me keep postponing the move. Thank god I already had a licence - I don't think I'd have done it if I had thought I'd have had to put myself through the driving test. But - you'll be glad to hear - I did go on an intensive refresher course after I got here and realised - yes, having a car was going to be essential. I spent 5 days in Abergavenny chuntering about the tiny country lanes in Monmouthshire in a canary yellow Mini. My instructor was a retired sheep farmer - what he taught me about sheep and driving has stood me in very good stead since.adam wrote:I don't drive, have never lived in a household with a car and live with someone who doesn't drive and grew up in a household without a car and whilst I totally respect the absolute necessity in a good number of cases for all sorts of reasons, I also think that for a lot of people the necessity of car ownership is more of a construct, something that's always happened and is built around. I would find it astonishingly strange and unusual to have a car, having built all of the routines of my life around the simple fact of not having one.
*Walks away from feedline sadly shaking head*rebeccariots2 wrote:....... what he taught me about sheep and driving has stood me in very good stead since.
True! It is always amusing when IDS starts a sentence with "there is evidence"...but there is nothing of the sort.gilsey wrote:Do you think IDS' brain would explode if he actually heard the word evidence?Sticky99 wrote:It will be interesting to see the National Audit Office's "assessment" of Universal Credit tomorrow.
The following exchange between a Tory backbencher and IDS is so telling of how well scrutinised policies are under this administration:
"Philip Hollobone, a Conservative, asks what evidence there is that UC is changing job-search behaviour?
Duncan Smith says people are doing many more job searches, and are going into work more quickly. That confirms his belief that people want to work, he says."
What exactly does many more mean? How is that in anyway quantifiable? Similarly the claim of people are going into work more quickly is not substantiated in anyway. It is sad but not surprising that a secretary of state for such a critical department like DWP can make such cavalier claims without backing them up.
What is also striking is how UC is only being introduced to parents less than a year before the general election. I suppose this will be more of a test of the IT's robustness, but with it being rolled out to a sole region in the country it still won't be representative of all families in the country.
Even without the delays it is the very premise of UC I disagree with. Work already pays, that is why the vast majority of the public are in employment. It is silly to introduce a system designed to tackle fraud when DWP figures show fraudulent payments are as low as 0.9 % of the DWP budget.
Still the most laughable aspect of UC is that people working part-time will have to attend the job centre, attend the Work Programme or even do workfare. Even if their part-time work interferes with DWP appointments, they'll theoretically have to miss those working hours in order to attend the DWP activity. Unless I've missed something and provisions have been made around this?
He seems to have gone beyond not knowing what it means to not hearing it at all.
Just a thought and don't want to scare you, but I thought I read that even if you only watch BBC programmes on a computer you need to pay the license fee. Does anyone on here know? Hope I'm wrong.citizenJA wrote:My desktop computer's operating system is Linux - the UK Parliamentary website uses Silverlight to view media - it doesn't cost anything but I've not been able to download, open & use it for watching Parliament TV. Chronic error messages. I'd thought I had success last week using AdobeFlash but that option is no longer available.
She's nobody's fool is she.Margaret Hodge MP @margarethodge 47m47 minutes ago
IDS will have seen tomorrow's NAO report on UC so will know huge risks to value for money remain esp if further delays to digital service
Interesting. It is a useful skill to have and a change of home, job or family circumstances can mean that driving and car ownership can suddenly become awfully useful.rebeccariots2 wrote:I was in the same position (except Mr Riots has always driven, but not always had a car) when I lived in London. The idea of owning a car there seemed really really strange to me - just about everywhere was so accessible by public transport. The knowledge that I would have to drive when I moved here ... was one of the things that made me keep postponing the move. Thank god I already had a licence - I don't think I'd have done it if I had thought I'd have had to put myself through the driving test. But - you'll be glad to hear - I did go on an intensive refresher course after I got here and realised - yes, having a car was going to be essential. I spent 5 days in Abergavenny chuntering about the tiny country lanes in Monmouthshire in a canary yellow Mini. My instructor was a retired sheep farmer - what he taught me about sheep and driving has stood me in very good stead since.adam wrote:I don't drive, have never lived in a household with a car and live with someone who doesn't drive and grew up in a household without a car and whilst I totally respect the absolute necessity in a good number of cases for all sorts of reasons, I also think that for a lot of people the necessity of car ownership is more of a construct, something that's always happened and is built around. I would find it astonishingly strange and unusual to have a car, having built all of the routines of my life around the simple fact of not having one.
Happily you are wrong. If you use iPlayer to watch a programme that is being broadcast at that moment you need a licence, if you watch anything on catch up it is not needed.ohsocynical wrote:Just a thought and don't want to scare you, but I thought I read that even if you only watch BBC programmes on a computer you need to pay the license fee. Does anyone on here know? Hope I'm wrong.citizenJA wrote:My desktop computer's operating system is Linux - the UK Parliamentary website uses Silverlight to view media - it doesn't cost anything but I've not been able to download, open & use it for watching Parliament TV. Chronic error messages. I'd thought I had success last week using AdobeFlash but that option is no longer available.
Respect. (In all sincerity.)John Woodcock @JWoodcockMP 10m10 minutes ago
My open letter to the people of Barrow and Furness about Mandy and me splitting up. http://www.johnwoodcock.org/an-open-let ... d-furness/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
My mum's dad worked for Ford in Dagenham, and she had five brothers and a sister (hands up who can guess where this story is going). He taught all the boys how to drive and helped get them jobs at the plant if they wanted one, and left my mum and her sister to their own devices. My dad lived and worked in central London until he was in his 50s (save for a few years during WWII in the med on a boat) and never felt the need.Sticky99 wrote:Interesting. It is a useful skill to have and a change of home, job or family circumstances can mean that driving and car ownership can suddenly become awfully useful.rebeccariots2 wrote:I was in the same position (except Mr Riots has always driven, but not always had a car) when I lived in London. The idea of owning a car there seemed really really strange to me - just about everywhere was so accessible by public transport. The knowledge that I would have to drive when I moved here ... was one of the things that made me keep postponing the move. Thank god I already had a licence - I don't think I'd have done it if I had thought I'd have had to put myself through the driving test. But - you'll be glad to hear - I did go on an intensive refresher course after I got here and realised - yes, having a car was going to be essential. I spent 5 days in Abergavenny chuntering about the tiny country lanes in Monmouthshire in a canary yellow Mini. My instructor was a retired sheep farmer - what he taught me about sheep and driving has stood me in very good stead since.adam wrote:I don't drive, have never lived in a household with a car and live with someone who doesn't drive and grew up in a household without a car and whilst I totally respect the absolute necessity in a good number of cases for all sorts of reasons, I also think that for a lot of people the necessity of car ownership is more of a construct, something that's always happened and is built around. I would find it astonishingly strange and unusual to have a car, having built all of the routines of my life around the simple fact of not having one.
