onewheeldave

So a terminally ill patient is expected to take unlicensed and untested drugs which may kill them earlier than the disease would kill them? Have you not read that some trials of this drug have been stopped because of safety issues?

 

No. But, in a sane world, a terminally ill patient of sound mind should have the right to sign a legal document stating that they are aware the drug is not tested, not approved by the orthodox medical establishment, that they wish to take it nevertheless, and, not be prevented from doing so.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2015 at 09:50 ----------

 

If the cure for cancer was simple and cheap/free you can bet the "UK government" would be all over it like a rash for the savings available.

 

If there were savings available, the govt wouldn't necessarily go for it- think of the proven savings available from legalising drugs (no profits going to criminals, virtual elimination of drug crimes and the associated expenses, far less overdoses (due to the drugs being regulated and of fixed quality) etc, etc; yet they still remain illegal.

 

If the cure for cancer was simple and cheap/free you can bet the "UK government" would be all over it like a rash for the savings available.

 

Billions. time lost from work savings, family care savings, cancer research savings, cancer drug savings, cancer care savings &c.

 

But unfortunately "cancer" is not one disease, thus it does not have one cure, and it's causes are complex and manifold.

 

The cancer industry is very, very, very profitable. Some very powerfull companies earn billions from the fact that lots of people get cancer, those companies have a lot of political influence, and, it is most definitly not in their interest that people do not get cancer. Politically, those profits that would be lost if cancer was eliminated, offset the savings.

 

The orthodox approach to cancer relies on surgery and chemo/radio therapy, despite a lack of actual evidence that they are effective: and, ruthlessly shuts down pretty much any alternatives.

If working people on less than 35hrs a week are to be harassed by the DWP, how will that work?

 

Cos if it involves 'signing on'/mandatory fortnightly interviews, chances are those interviews will fall within the hours they're working- the DWP are not flexible when it comes to such things.

 

If the person isn't working for a very understanding employer indeed, then having to leave work for 2hrs every fortnight to sign on, is likely to lead to that job being lost.

why dont you people stop moaning and jst sign up for a card

its one simple form

you benefit from it

offers on in store can only be gained with a matalan card

it makes returning items easier

 

sales assistants do not now have the power to put a sale through without a card!!!!

 

this has to be dealt with through management

 

quicker and easier to get a card

sorted

Cos we don't give out our address/email etc due to the fact that it could be used for spam.

 

It doesn't make returning items easier unless you've lost the receipt.

 

You're right that purchases without cards now have to be dealt with my 'managment'- last time I was in the assistant tried to force me to get a card, which I refused. She then insisted that a manager had to deal with it.

 

After a bit of a wait while she tried to attract the attention of a large, bored looking man who apparently was a manager, who came over and insisted on also trying to get me to give my details, I gave up on the whole process and simply pointed at the item I was buying and said- "I just want to buy that", repeatedly, until he shut up and authorised the purchase.

 

Needless to say, I'll be taking my money elsewhere in future, to a business that appreciates the wishes of a customer to simply buy a product and not be hassled into giving over details that are no-ones business but mine.

 

I already spend enough time queueing in stores as it is- no way am I going to risk hanging while a manager can be found to authorise what should be a straightforward purchase.

 

The Matalan apologists/employees on this thread may wish to feed back to managment that several ex-customers on this thread, me included, are now no longer going to use there business as a direct result of their card policy.

Why am I not convinced?

 

Maybe cos no-ones trying to convince you?

 

OP asked a straight question about tarot classes, and is clearly not trying to convert anyone. Unlike you, who seems to wish to display to anyone willing to listen that you consider tarot to be a bit rubbish.

 

Tarot/divinatory systems are not necessarily 'rubbish'. Carl Jung, founder of analytical psychology, and, highly intelligent, was an advocate of the 'I ching'. Just as many other highly intelligent people make use of tarot, I ching, religion etc, etc in their spiritual lives.

 

As with most things, tarot can be used stupidly/naively, or, used as they are intended to be used, properly and productively.

It would be a very brave government which legalised drugs in the UK. Think of how many people read and believe the newspapers they read.

There would be Headlines:

Cameron soft on drugs.

Cameron caves in to drug dealers

Cameron legalises Cocaine for his posh mates

 

Milliband loony left legalises drugs

Milliband out of touch with middle England

Milliband legalises marijuana for grass roots labour

 

It would be electoral suicide. Sensible policy, but so open to Daily Mirror/ Daily Mail abuse

A lot of voters have functioning brains these days though, and can integrate facts, reason and actual evidence into their opinions.

 

A lot of voters are also aware of the corruption and ineptitude rife among our politicians.

Which country as legalised drugs and then seen a reduction in drug use?

 

Portugal as done it, innit? (decriminalised drugs and seen hard drug use reduction)

 

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=portugal%20drug%20use%20drops

Your liver and kidneys rid your body of toxins. You can't alter how they function or in any way "detox" by altering your diet.

 

I'll stress here I AM NOT condoning this clean 9 program in any way.

 

But, your liver and kidneys do rid your body of toxins, unless, as is often the case on a diet of processed 'foods', they are overloaded till they start to malfunction.

 

In which case, altering your diet, to one containing mainly actual foods (e.g. fruit, veg and very little processed 'food') not only will improve the way they function, but, is likely the only thing that will.

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2015 at 16:48 ----------

 

Hi Hallhorses.Thanks for your comments as I am very interested in how people find the product.Though not wishing to be a pedant,the cleanse 9 is a body cleanse and not a diet.

If the emphasis is put on the weight loss I guarentee that some bright spark will comment on how expensive the cleanse 9 is for weight loss like Cyclone has tried to do.

 

In fairness dude, it's just plain expensive full stop, isn't it

 

Especially when both weight loss and improved health can be obtained simply by eating real food and cutting the processed crap out.

More city councils are considering ban e-cigarettes to youth and in public places! And some of them are talking about adding a tax on these products. I think it is ok to restrict e-cigarette to youth, but the tax on e-cigarette products may increase the price, people may be force to back to tobacco! How do you think about it?

 

If they do tax it they're idiots. Addicted smokers need all the reasons going to fight the addiction- the fact that vaping is cheaper than using cigarettes is a substantial reason, taxing directly attacks it.

 

The councils should focus on public health, not scrounging yet more bits of cash from people who are helping to improve public health i.e. smokers trying to switch to vaping.

The UK's consumption of legal drugs is significantly higher than its consumption of illegal drugs, this implies that legalising a drug is more likley to increase consumption of that drug.

No it doesn't

 

Though the large number of actual studies done on this issue do tend to show that legalising drugs (i.e. studies done in actual places that have actually legalised/decriminalised them) reduces consumption of them.

The UK also as a problem with fake tobaco and alcohol, so legalizing a drug is no guarantee that the drug you take will be safer than an illegal drug. So my opinion is that legalising drugs will increase consumption without improving safety.

And what a finely crafted opinion it is too

 

There is illegal alcohol being sold, and, occasionally it does kill or blind someone- but it's black market stuff, so, easily avoided.

 

Is there fake alcohol in supermarkets? Could be, after all, there's an epidemic of fake olive oil, and, recently the fake beef (horse meat) scandel.

 

But, if there is, it's not killing people, so it's not like it's moonshine. And, it's very much in the supermarkets interests to ensure it doesn't happen.

 

Certainly, looking at heroin where pretty much 100% is certainly cut with toxins and with zero packaging showing the strength, it's clear why many users overdose.

 

If it were regulated and legal, we'd have pretty much zero (accidental) heroin overdoses, and, in the very small number of cases where some fake stuff did slip through, the total harm from heroin would still be a fraction of what it currently is.

Maybe you should pop down to one of my outpatient days, and see just how well drugs affect recreational users. When you have the parents of a 19yr old sobbing in your office whilst their post graduate son is grabbing his mother by the throat.

Illegal drugs. Drugs generally aren't a big problem (with the obvious exceptions of alcohol and tobacco) if they're legal and available in regulated form.

 

Illegal drugs however, are a big problem as they are cut with toxins, of unregulated strength (hence the overdose issue) and require mixing with criminals to obtain.

 

Even with a genuinely very harmful drug like alcohol, note how since it's regulated, it's considerably less harmfull than it was when it was illegal during 'prohibition' when, in addition to the unavoidable harmful effects, users also frequently died due to the toxins contained in moonshine. At least when it's legal, it's possible to use the stuff responsibly.

 

Nobody has any idea of what these dealers and part time club captains are pushing,

Exactly. Whereas when it's legal and regulated, buyers will know exactly what they're buying.

 

When heroin users overdose, it's not cos they've chosen to die, it's cos they never know the strength of the batch they're taking- if it was legal and regulated, there would be very few heroin overdoses.

 

But the usual reason for accidents involving cycles is cyclists running red lights.

This is not true. Many, many cyclists have been hit/killed without any traffic lights in the vicinity.

 

Many, many cyclists who were the type to obey lights religiously, have been hit/killed.

 

When a motorist operating his/her mobile phone runs into a cyclist, or, passes too close and causes them to come off, it matters not whether that cyclist always obeyed the rules of the highway code.

 

But, mainly, this-

 

But the usual reason for accidents involving cycles is cyclists running red lights.

is not true. And the really sad thing is, some people believe rubbish like that.

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2015 at 18:51 ----------

 

How about

 

7. any cyclist filmed running a red light - long ban from cycling. Repeat offence - lifetime ban ?

 

If-

 

Well, you've asked so

 

1. wouldn't alter bikes- they're now evolved to be the perfect form of short-medium distance transport. They're not flimsy in the slightest- (as long as they've not being crashed into by 2 tonnes of motorised metal driven by a blind obese ape), they're exactly the right compromise of sturdiness and lightness.

 

2. alter the road system- start to move cars out of residential areas so they do what they're suited for- long distance travel on big roads. On small roads in residential areas, give priority to bikes (obviously, this is a long term goal)

 

3. Any time a car kills/maims a cyclist, a full on investigation to establish the facts. If driver not to blame, he/she walks away scot free. If they're found to be at fault, a prison term and lifetime ban from driving.

 

4. any driver filmed using a mobile(illegally, while driving)- long ban from driving. Repeat offence- lifetime ban

 

5. Just as with the VERY successful approach to smoking, a ban on advertising of motor vehicles, combined with heavy promotion of cycling from primary schools upwards, with the facts about cars negative effects on public health a big part of it.

 

6. financial incentives for anyone choosing to cycle to work.

 

That's off the top of my end- I think you can see the general direction?

 

to the extent that roads are genuinely equally safe for cyclists as they are for motorists, then yes.

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2015 at 18:54 ----------

 

It gets worse, you want them in FLASHING mode too?

 

We're done with the lights Squiggs. Turns out they're illegal, and, someone did post proof of it. So I admitted I was wrong to suggest people put £shop lights on their trailers.

So to equalise it, would you have bikes made bigger/heavier/harder or cars made out of cardboard?

(false dichotomy, I know)

 

Well, you've asked so

 

1. wouldn't alter bikes- they're now evolved to be the perfect form of short-medium distance transport. They're not flimsy in the slightest- (as long as they've not being crashed into by 2 tonnes of motorised metal driven by a blind obese ape), they're exactly the right compromise of sturdiness and lightness.

 

2. alter the road system- start to move cars out of residential areas so they do what they're suited for- long distance travel on big roads. On small roads in residential areas, give priority to bikes (obviously, this is a long term goal)

 

3. Any time a car kills/maims a cyclist, a full on investigation to establish the facts. If driver not to blame, he/she walks away scot free. If they're found to be at fault, a prison term and lifetime ban from driving.

 

4. any driver filmed using a mobile(illegally, while driving)- long ban from driving. Repeat offence- lifetime ban

 

5. Just as with the VERY successful approach to smoking, a ban on advertising of motor vehicles, combined with heavy promotion of cycling from primary schools upwards, with the facts about cars negative effects on public health a big part of it.

 

6. financial incentives for anyone choosing to cycle to work.

 

That's off the top of my end- I think you can see the general direction?

Take the soapbox elsewhere your records is stuck.

 

No. I'll say what I want. For those not wanting to listen, the appropriate action would be to not read my posts. Other than that, you're stuck with it.

 

This is about correcting a system which is causing unnecessary deaths and suffering, yet because it's 'the way things are' many are blind to the facts.

 

Another neurotypical trait I'm now very ware of since being diagnosed as aspergic- they have an almost hawk-like ability to spot potential flaws in proposed solutions, whilst remaining utterly blind to the vast number of existing problems in the existing systems that they're used to.

 

Our road/motor vehicle system is riddled with gross flaws and is the cause of much death, even just directly (cyclists/pedestrians killed). When the effect on national health is figured in, the cull is appalling.

 

So, I will continue to speak of it. Until it goes away.

I'm not going to say things like that in future it's tempting fate, but that's exactly what happened to me this morning at the lights on the way to work.

 

Sat there, waiting for them to change, cyclist approaching and there was a sudden thump at the back.

 

Cyclist nil, BMW one.

 

New bike for Christmas... cheapo steel rims.. wet conditions. Didn't stop as expected.

 

Don't be down about it Obelix- was clearly the cyclists fault.

 

Sadly, it often happens the other way round, and, despite it being the fault of the driver not looking, in those cases it's generally-

 

Car scratched, cyclist maimed/killed

 

That's the fundamental inequality of our current road system

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2015 at 10:31 ----------

 

On a brighter note- I just stumbled across this blog with an entry showing how community can spring up when the roads are shut down for the day-

 

https://craftybikegirl.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/tdf-shows-how-life-community-spring-up-when-streets-are-places-for-living-not-just-for-driving/

 

---------- Post added 05-01-2015 at 10:32 ----------

 

And another from the same blog talking about how traffic has cut a community in half (Hillsborough)

 

https://craftybikegirl.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/sheffield-communities-cut-in-two-by-traffic/

Now we are saying that everyone who doesn't cycle is obese...

 

...no...

 

Many who drive are overweight/obeses, and, few who cycle are overweight/obese.

 

And, scientific studies/evidence shows that cycling is a very effective means of preventing obesity.

 

Dave of course cycling prevents obesity but so does eating healthy & going to the gym and general exercise.

 

Good, we agree that cycling prevents obesity (as do with other things of course).

 

In conjunction with the fact that the state of our road systems and car policies put people off cycling we can see how that translates to increasing obesity and thus to the dire state of our nations health.

 

(and the consequences don't stop there- millions of people being treated for (mainly preventable) diseases like heart disease and diabetes, means, in an underfunded and overstretched NHS, lack of time/resources to cope with other diseases, and, lack of time/resources to focus on preventative health care, thus forming a viscious cycle of declining health provision leading to even more illness.... etc, etc).

 

Now there are many reasons why many people can't access other forms of exercise like going to the gym (they're working too long hours to have sufficient free time, can't afford the fees etc).

 

Thing about cycling is that the exercise benefits are but a side effect to the cycles main function, as an excellent form of short-mid range travel.

 

Not only do you get to work and back (if you're commuting by bike), but, you get a good dose of obesity preventing exercise, at no extra cost in terms of time, and, no extra cost in terms of £ either, if fact you save cash compared to running a car or using the bus.

Ubermaus- I'd suggest putting your hands up to making a statement that could be interpreted as absolute, point out that what you meant was that many more car drivers, proportionally, are overweight/obese whereas very few cyclists are.

 

Then remind everyone that it's a scientifically established fact, backed up by many, many studies, that cycling is very effective at preventing obesity (and thus, all the chronic diseases associated with it i.e. heart disease, diabetes etc, that are epidemic in our car obsessed culture).

Its motorists that essentially cause a lot of obesity as not only are they fat themselves but they prevent would be cyclists from gaining traction in taking up a low impact lifelong exercise.

 

That's very well put, I'd not really thought of it like that, but it's true.

So in these less advanced countries it's down to cycling that people aren't obese and not down to good old fashioned "lack of food"?

 

Have you thought this through?

 

No, I'm referring to the less developed countries who aren't starving.

 

Of course part of their lack of obesity and their low levels of diabetes/heart disease is due to the fact they tend to subsist on actual food, as opposed to the processed rubbish consumed here, but, the fact that they are active and can/do move some distance without the assistance of a car, is definitley a big part of the reason.

 

As we'd expect to be the case, of course, based on science.

Very interesting links. Cycling really is healthy. I certainly hope more provision is made for cyclists to ride safely in the future.

 

---------- Post added 04-01-2015 at 14:14 ----------

 

 

Its low impact and part of a cross fit regime which helps with her sport.

Much better on the joints than running. Just a shame our roads are so busy.

 

It is.

 

Running is good exercise for those who are in good shape and have done the gradual build up necessary for the body to adapt to the demands of running.

 

Unfortunately it is fairly inappropriate for those who aren't in good health, especially those who are overweight, as they are going to be very prone to joint/tendon issues.

 

(Walkings very under-rated, but for improving health without risking the joint damage common in running, is very good exercise).

 

Cycling has all the cardiovascular benefits of running without any of the risks to joints etc- if the roads were clear and safe, cycling would be perfect for curing the overweight and unfit. Sadly however, unless they're experienced cyclists, it's usually a case of huddling along at the edge of the road in the gutter/'cycle-paths' being intimidated by the over aggressive motorists who pass perilously close. The poor newbie overweight cyclist, already self conscious cos they're completely out of their element, is unlikely to persist to the point they start to ride confidently.

 

So they try running, end up with joint issues, and, resign themselves to remaining out of shape and overweight.

 

In less 'advanced' countries, where cars are rarer and cycles are used as a main form of transport, obesity is rare, and, illness tends to be caused by inadequate sanitation/poverty, rather then the epidemic of chronic 'lifestyle diseases' that are epidemic here (diabetes/obesity/heart disease).

Drove up mowbray st yesterday but didn't see your shop , whereabouts are you ?

 

It is hard to spot, I went up and down Mowbray st 4/5 times and couldn't see it.

 

It's on the same side of Mowbray st as the riverside pub, and, not that far down from it. It is on the street (i.e. not in the courtyard areas) and I believe there's no number on the door.

 

However, number 45 has got a number on the door, and the pet shop is next door to that.

 

I believe, but can't say 100%, that it was very close to the climbing place as well.

 

Hope that helps.

Folk have nothing to learn from you old chap.

 

Not true. While me and cyclone may be at odds when it comes to the red light issue, the links he posted are actually very informative when it comes to supporting the fact that, overall, despite the risk from that segment of the motorist community that can't drive properly, overall, cycling extends life and health.

 

the links being-

 

http://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/...microlife.html

 

http://nwurban.wordpress.com/2010/12...fe-expectancy/

 

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1185.html

 

While some folks may have nothing to learn, due to the fact that they like to preserve the opinions they're comfortable with, rather than having them challenged by facts and reason, it's certainly not all folk.

Yet despite being told at about post 78 where the law was, despite being told again where it was, your "infinite" patience meant I had to dig it out and show you, and even then you still complained it wasnt evidence of what was being said until people literally shoved it in your face.

 

You had no intention of finding out the truth, and went out of your way to avoid it, purely because it doesn't find your blinkered agenda.

 

Well I'm sorry but you got it handed to you this time. You were not man enough to acknowedge your mistake until people showed you, you didnt have the grace then to say so and waffled about a 1m rule (which doesn't actually apply to side lights either) and then bleated on and on and on and on and.....

 

Grow up dude. I admitted the error, was totally upfront about it, which, on sf, is probably a first

 

If that's not enough for you then fair enough, not my problem.

Can I say going to town today a woman behind me driving while on the phone moving slowly through traffic attempting to jugle what with her chatting away on phone.. 3 times breaking last minute.. How silly are you !! My camera has your registration number and can see 10 to 15 cars behind and same for the front.. When connected up to the big 55 inch tv.

 

Do the world a favour and pass it onto the police. Or get the clip to me and I'll happily do it.

I cant see it ever being any different. The whole world and his brother owns a car. I think one of the disadvantages of cycling is that its not conveinient for families shopping trips/day trips etc. It is popular with commuters who work within a reasonable distance to work, but not for a lot who work many miles from home.

A debatable subject that will go on and on for ever, with no winners, which is indeed a real shame.

 

In the interests of inspiration/hope, I'll repost that excellent documentary link again-

 

For anyone interested in seeing what is possible when sanity prevails, here's a short documentary, on both youtube and vimeo (Groningen: The World's Cycling City)

 

 

 

I think one of the reasons it's worth watching is that it covers all the objections and dire warnings of financial collapse that were raised in opposition to the plan- clearly now it's been enacted it's obvious that making a road system cycle based can indeed work very well.

You didn't originally mention any one metre issue, but just suggested illegally putting red lights all the way down the side. Then abused people for being incorrect when they said that would be illegal... Despite them actually being correct.

 

Stop moving the goalposts. You know your original posts were about lights all the way down the side of the trailers. Trying to wriggle out of it by suddenly saying you only meant within a meter of the back is something I thought would be beneath you. Mind you I thought you'd be man enough to look it up yourself as well.

 

I originally didn't mention the 1 meter rule cos I wasn't aware of it.

 

Then some posters claimed that lights on the side were illegal, so I asked for links to evidence. As usual, no replies to that for quite a while.

 

Then we got a link saying that red lights were only legal within 1 meter of the rear.

 

From that point I acknowledged the fact, and, often mentioned it when suggesting putting red lights on the side.

 

I certainly never 'abused people for being incorrect when they said that would be illegal'- what I did was continue to ask for evidence of their claims, as I will always do when people make claims i.e. back them up with evidence.

 

Like many aspergics I have an infinite patience when it comes to finding the truth, and know from long experience that people often make claims without actual evidence (and often make false claims).

 

As recent events show, when evidence is presented that shows I'm wrong, I'm very happy to admit it- everyone is wrong at times, there's nothing to be ashamed of in being wrong, as long as we face the truth when it's presented and proven.

 

Also an aspergic trait- I'm honest. So, much as some of you seem to think I'm here to play ego games and/or wind people up, fact is, it ain't true. You can believe that or not, it's no skin off my nose, and, the fact that some people jump to that conclusion, probably says more about them, and their world view.

 

---------- Post added 03-01-2015 at 19:38 ----------

 

The hope that the rider will not encounter a crazed motorist is, at most just that. A hope.

This is why I gave up cycling, and im sure im not as fit as I used to be because of it. I just woke one morning, and thought of the many MANY near misses I have suffered, and thought to myself that my personal safety is much MUCH more important than my right to cycle, regardless whether I was in the right or wrong. I understand cycling seems important to a lot of people, but at the end of the day, no matter how much cycling lobbyists plead with the Government for change, they will never eradicate the crazy motorist, which puts the odds of safety well in favour of the motorist.

And to say that I should ignore the safety aspect, and carry on cycling, just to put two fingers up at motorists is as crazy as the silly guy who ran the red light. Having the "moral right" highground will not feed my family, should I be killed whilst protecting my right.

I can relate to that- just yesterday some fool in a car decided to pull out as I was passing (legally and visibly in broad daylight) in front of him. Luckily he stopped inches from me.

 

Equally, cyclone is right-

 

Overall (health benefits vs risk) cycling is healthier than not cycling. And that includes the risk of injury or death.

But it's your choice- if I had a real scary near miss or got hit, I suspect I'd probably not want to cycle any more.

 

It's a real shame this nations car fixation is killing the nations health and it's a viscious circle, cos the more obese/diabetic/chronically ill people get, the more they become even more relient on the car.