ECCOnoob

That is quite a list. 

My lawyer head is churning away and I'm just thinking out loud but it is making me wonder how many potential loopholes and disputes are going to come from this. 

Take for example. Coca-Cola.  Obviously promoting the drink that we all know and love along with its many other soft drinks would be banned under the rules. But the Coca-Cola company has a thousand one brands under its possession. Some of those include bottled water which can't be argued isn't healthy as long as you don't have any additives  - it's just water.  So would they be able to advertise with its logo and its brand but only show pictures of water or no pictures of any products at all. 

Similarly, about say, Mars corporation. Obviously the first thing that springs to mind is chocolate products, but Mars also owns things as far-reaching as pet foods to rice.  Again, if they were smart and didn't show any unhealthy products, would they be able to splash their logo all around.  Every time they ran a whiskers advert flash up a massive Mars logo. Just to remind people.  Is that breaking the rules....

The more I'm reading about this, the more I'm starting to think this is going to tie up the courts and the government. Really really interested to see what impact this actually will have and how strictly the government will get away with holding the rules. 

1 hour ago, The_DADDY said:

Too much technology  

Not enough build quality. Modern cars are crap in my opinion. 

Ha.  You joking right.

You want to refresh your memory about most of the crap that came out of Leyland Motors particularly during the late '70s and '80s.  You'd be sometimes lucky if you got one with the engine wired up or all the door fittings in place. 

Some of the early generation of budget hatchbacks were appalling. Something as basic as an ashtray was deemed an optional extra and built so poorly that if you slammed the door too hard the whole car would shake.  

These days, dependant on the brand, even a entry-level model hatchback can be found with power steering, Bluetooth, electric windows, climate control, reverse camera as standard with at least some faith that the gear lever won't come away in your hand every time you go into fourth.

Think some people are getting a bit of rose tinted nostalgia.  Of course, a classic Jag or some other type of historic luxury car in well preserved condition is something to admire, but let's not get too hung up on it. There was plenty of dross out there. I'll be surprised if as many people would be going gooey over a  'classic' Austin Allegro, Princess or Lada Riva. 

2 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

That’s an absolutely bonkers way to load your car boot. Even ignoring the fact that your trolley will partially obstruct the road in front of your car, why on earth would you want to do shuttle runs from the front to the back of your car?

 

Its no more difficult to reverse out of a space than it is to reverse into one. Reversing into one, makes it much more difficult to load your shopping. 

Shuttle runs? I'm loading a car not an 18-wheeler. It's barely a few feet. The shopping trolley doesn't block anything just like it wouldn't if it was alongside the boot of my car. I'm not leaving it in the middle of the carriageway. 

It really isn't a big deal.  It's a three or four bags.  

25 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Our lads got one with an electric  button for the handbrake .  Give me a good old handbrake any day 

I am curious as to why. Is it a tactile physical thing, somehow you feel more assured by a manual lever rather than pushing a button?  After all, the way the car is held is pretty much the same, whichever the method. 

I do wonder if some of this is all about the lack of physical actions, physical buttons, physical switches that people default to somehow a lack of trust in technology. 

However, I bet most people on here here wouldn't be wanting to go back to the days before power steering, ABS, starting our vehicles with the starter handle, manual choke etc...

37 minutes ago, Resident said:

As someone who likes the act of driving, rather than just being a steering wheel attendant, I'd take the old Fiesta all day long. 

I believe that there is a correlation between the rise of technology, with particular reference to screens in cars, especially digital dashboards, and the descent of driving standards

1980s Audi dashboard: Simple, necessary info only. Speed, fuel level, Engine RPM.

2020 Audi Dashboard: Cluttered, overcomplicated map display, radio station, range, speed, gear, driving mode, door status. Lots to take focus off actual driving

 

If you are attempting to drive with a vehicle door open I would think that essential information a driver should know not a distraction. 

Personally, I would also consider range, speed, driving mode, gear , navigation to  be all useful information which thanks to modern tech can is now displayed all within a driver's glance - each to our own i suppose.

32 minutes ago, crisispoint said:

And loading your car boot?

Never had a problem opening and loading a boot.  Just need to leave enough space back and sides.   In the supermarket I take the trolley up nearby the car front and then take the bags out the short distance between front and open boot.   I can cope without having to push the trolley right up to the boot edge most of the time. 

5 hours ago, hackey lad said:

Something I never do . Much easier and quicker to drive in and reverse out . 

Couldn't agree less.

To me, I find it much easier and safer to reverse into a space. When you have immovable parked cars either side, solid white lines, a wall or garage to keep an eye on.  Plus I find once you start reversing in, vehicles and other hazards stop because you are blocking their path.

That's surely better than driving in and then have to try and reverse out into a busy carriageway or main road with cars, pedestrians the goodness knows what else getting in the way and who may not even see you until you are at least halfway or so into the manoeuvre.  

There must be some science to it, because I have been to car parks and even work places where there's mandatory rules to reverse in to parking spaces. 

I admit it takes a bit of practice but so does any manoeuvre being done correctly. But once it's tried it should become almost second nature.

4 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

I thought we already had a ban on junk food ads years ago before 21:00.

 

Presumably this means on ITV?  It was only a couple of months ago that a report was put out that most pre-teens & above don't watch mainstream tv so how effective is a ban when it won't apply to streamed media content? 

 

The best way to stop children eating junk food is simply for their parents to say "NO!" 

 

I do seem to recall some discussion about it a long time ago.

To be honest, another point that just come to my mind (which shows how useless this government initiative is going to be), is the fact that the majority of the younger folk don't even watch linear television anyway. What about all the junk food adverts all over YouTube, TikTok, Twitch, Facebook and all the other social media which the young people spend their hours watching far more than television. I'd like to see how the government proposal will work with that considering lots of these social media companies aren't even based in the UK and the algorithm technology makes it very difficult to control exactly what and when adverts are going to be put with which video.

As I say earlier, a pointless gesture just to be seen to be doing something rather than actual practical reasons.  

1 minute ago, hackey lad said:

I bet you’re fun at parties. 

Extremely.  I have a sense of humour, quite a few tales to tell and liven up debates because I'm more than prepared to call people out when I see nonsense and have the knowledge to generally back things up with some solid counterpoints.

4 hours ago, lavery549@yahoo said:

Only in this day & age , do we find this happening . I despair , I really do 

What the hell are you talking about?   

Just how many census questions do you think might have been misinterpreted or misunderstood back in the day.

If it wasn't for the "trans" angle, which seems to be catnip to journalists (and certain people on this very forum) looking to make a meal out of something - this shouldn't even be a discussion point. 

What exactly is the big story here. They found some potential anomaly in the collected data.  They have corrected it and redefined the wording in their results summary.  End of story.  

My thoughts are you seem to be making assumptions and appear to know very little about the technology you declare "OTT". 

Firstly, not all of these systems and gadgets are supposed to be used directly by the driver or whilst driving. 

Other parts of technology, auto braking, cruise control, speed limiters, hill holds, park assists, reverse cameras, collision radar detection systems are all contributing in making cars increasingly safe.  

The more premium cars now is all linked with voice technology. So again, not necessarily distracting or having to take hands off the wheel as people would assumed.  I would rather talk to my GPS and get audio instructions than back in the day when trying to drive, look out for junctions and half read a map at the same time.

Having driven both old bangers from back in the day and modern cars, I can tell you which one I prefer and you certainly isn't my old original fiesta with no power steering, crap breaking and very little in the way of tech.  

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

 

It's a start, lets hope they do more. Can they make us all healthy eaters, probably not.

But surely the Government can make things better.

The sugar tax on fizzy drinks reduced the sugar content, it worked in a small way.

But if they do that with other foods, companies will use sweeteners.

They already do use sweetners and 101 other chemicals to make up for the lack of sugar which some would argue have potential health concerns just a much (if not worse) than natural sugar, 

"it worked" is debatable in my opinion.  

The desperation from the Trump fanboys....

Do they really think being proven liable for sexual assault by means of inserting fingers into a women's vagina without consent is seriously that much better than doing exactly the same act with a penis and thus falls into the narrow definition of rape under NY state law. 

It's pathetic.  Any act of committing a forced penetrative sexual act upon another person is colloquially called rape. As has been pointed out by several academics and judges, if it occurred in another state, it would likely be defined as rape. Regardless, the legal language technicalities are irrelevant in the bigger picture and view of the wider electorate.  Whichever way people try and spin it, Trump was liable for a multi-million civil assault and deformation action. One of many, many court actions he is going through and repeatedly losing. Lets also not forget he has now been found in guilty of criminal offences multiple times for his fraudulent behaviour. 

There is nothing to be proud of supporting such a person.  The fact that he can still be considered a credible candidate for presidency just boggles the mind 

8 minutes ago, pfifes said:

The ‘heavily manufactured ice cream slab made to look continental and exotic’ is bringing to mind a Vienetta 😂. The height of sophistication in the 80’s!

Bingo.  Or even something like Birds trifle mix. Oh look at mummy making her fruity dessert for the kids.    Yet, I bet there's just as much chemicals, sugar, fat in that 'homemade' dessert than any McDonalds milkshake. 

Funny how only one seems to get the constant stigma and criticism though. 

6 minutes ago, Mister M said:

To be honest I'm not sure the ban on junk food adverts will do much goo.

It was only last week I was in the city centre, and the amount of fast food takeaways on the High Street is shocking. 

 

I wouldn't say shocking. Just a sign of how the world is moved on. 

We are in the era of convenience. Everything instant this, instant that.   Why spend time slaving away in a kitchen when at the press of a few buttons someone can cook generally better and easier than one ever could. 

People always seem to tar all fast food as the unhealthy declining of society. But I'd argue that's not always the case. Some of these restaurant chains, particularly new wave of independents or premium bands or food court are dishes cooked to order using real ingredients and not particularly unhealthy compared to anything else someone will make at home.

Let's be frank here. Even mummy cooking away at home, even 40 years ago doesn't automatically mean healthy.  Plenty of mothers would be there cooking away their potato waffles and deep fried in lard chips with various slabs of processed meats accompanied with some sort of processed watery tinned vegetable.  That of course will be followed by some instant chemical filled whipped dessert. Or maybe a special treat some some heavily manufactured ice cream slab made to look continental and exotic. 

Unless you were very privileged, the majority of home cooking can hardly be deemed haute cuisine nor fit for the menu of a health club.  This whole home cooking is better. It's just a myth. 

Personally, I found the whole junk food thing, just some lazy political posturing. It's more about the government being seen to do something rather than actually tackle the main problem with the NHS, which is it's over funded, overstaffed, flabby, wasteful and expensive pit.  Too little of them work  their full capacity. Too much wastage, too  overused, too abused and too taken for granted.  

Forget all the nanny state like banning advertising and bringing increased sugar taxes, let's see some hard line approach to people failing self responsibility. If you can't control your diet and get too fat, the state won't treat you. If you are diagnosed with some condition like diabetes and fail to follow doctor's advice repeated times, that's it. The state stops your medication. That might soon get people to liven up their attitudes to their own welfare far more than shoving McDonald's ads till post 9pm.  

Most people already know that eating burgers five times a week, three times a day is not good for you. Most people know drinking gallons of pop is not going to keep your teeth healthy. Doesn't mean we don't like the occasional treat to ourselves. Doesn't mean that legitimate businesses shouldn't be able to advertise it.  For those exceptions who don't follow such basic common sense, that's their freedom of choice and their own problem to fix when it goes wrong.  

If people actually saw the real value of healthcare instead of it being handed to them on a plate to take for granted, then let's see how healthy they might start living 

Always the same with this stuff, everyone takes it for granted when spending other people's money. As soon as the burden is on themselves, you watch how quickly people's attitude changes.

7 hours ago, The_DADDY said:

Trump was bang average.

Harris was as terrible as usual.

Roll on November 5th🙄

'Bang average' is massively overstated. 

Trump looked, sounded and acted absolutely deranged.  He blew it without Harris even having to deliver any substance.  

Harris played him spectacularly. She knew exactly what nerves to touch and he fell for it every time. 

4 hours ago, Draggletail said:

There are still older people who don't have computers or smartphones who rely on letters for their NHS hospital appointments.

 

I think we are a bit beyond the whole simplistic "what about the elderly" 

Email and the use of mobile phones has been in existence for more than a third of the average lifetime. There are plenty of elderly, more than capable and proven users of basic internet functions, text messaging, emails, smartphones.... Yes, there might be a very small number of exceptions who may still rely on hard copy post - but I simply don't believe that the NHS needs to be sending out the volume of letters it does particularly for confirming appointments and circulars when the majority of population, even significantly older persons would not be befuddled by getting a text message or email instead. 

Just sounds like too much of a cop out to me. I don't want to learn and adapt is very different to I can't learn an adapt.  This is not newfangled tech anymore.

Home email programs were becoming commonplace by 1995. Text messaging by by 2000. Even the first generation of the iPhone has been in existence since 2007. 

Plenty of the older folks miraculously were able to cope with NHS apps during covid and QR codes. They learnt. Is it really so hard for them to get an appointment letter by  electronic means.   They coped perfectly well when pensions changed to electronic payments. They managed to cope with their plastic cards replacing passbooks, ATMs replacing bank cashiers, chip and pin replacing cheque books......

Times move on. 

3 hours ago, Draggletail said:

There are still older people who don't have computers or smartphones who rely on letters for their NHS hospital appointments.

 

. 

1 minute ago, Prettytom said:

Maybe you’d like to quantify “a very lot”.

 

And also consider that all of that “very lot” are getting a pension rise in excess of  twice the benefit cut.

 

When you’ve done that, do let us know how we balance the books after your mates gave all the money away to their mates.

You mean like our current government have just done.  Caving in to their union puppet masters with their ludicrous pay rises to their precious public sector. 

How much taxpayer money has been peed away on that.   

1 hour ago, Slighty batty said:

My first job out of uni was with the DHSS. We did occasionally give claimants vouchers for things like school uniforms, children’s shoes, rail travel to visit partner in prison etc, even food in some cases, but often they just sold the vouchers on for cash. Then they would come into the office pretending that they’d lost them, and demanding replacements. 

Just perhaps another example for even tighter controls then.   Mandatory ID checks, proper administration of the vouchers, maybe even go as far to have mandated centres where welfare claimants collect their supplies. 

With all the long technology these days it can't be that hard to run it.  Make it biometric if need be, other things are now. 

Amazon has entire shops where someone walks in automatically gets logged, tracked and walks out with their goods. I don't see why similar stuff can't be applied to welfare. 

Could go even further, apply the delivery tech available now.  A government mandated box of perfectly balanced supplies to get a family through a week . Forget all this free school lunch and breakfast club stuff, expecting teachers for feed malnourished kids.  It could all be tied in with the healthy eating drives the governments keep pushing for.  A mandated box of perfectly healthy balanced meals for a family of one, two, four, etc. no ifs or buts. If you're on welfare, that's what you get because that's what the government has decided you need. 

Seems a win win for a government and it's voters who seemingly strive  for more state control, state ownership, boo hiss the greedy private sector. Boo hiss neoliberalism, capitalism and global markets.  

If you are living off the government means surely right the government will decide exactly what you need to live on eat and how you will receive it. 

Bring something like that and let's see how many claimants for welfare then. For those who genuinely will need it or have no choice but to survive on it, they will be grateful for any methods of support. However, for those serial long-term unemployed and wasters expecting the state to fund their lifestyle, you watch how quick they would magically find some work if that's all they were being offered. 

40 minutes ago, geared said:

 

I bumped into a couple of old dears moaning about it the other day.

 

"I use that money for Christmas presents for the Grandkids"

"I was going to give it to xzy for some Holiday money"

 

Yes love this is the problem, it's to heat your home, not buy gifts.

 

Perhaps if it was given as some kind of credit via your energy company, it wouldn't have been seen as an easy target for cuts?

 

The same arguments could be applied to lots of other state benefits and allowances.  Why provide people with actual money at all.   

Why not fully control the whole system through direct to supplier payments, offset credits or vouchers to make sure Claimants are legitimately using a benefit for the purpose its supposed to provide.   You cant feed your kids..... here is some supermarket vouchers with restrictions on what can be purchased - no monthly direct payments, no lumps of cash in the bank to risk temptation of being spend on other things or falling into the wrong hands.   

You need rent support....   right here is a credit direct to your landlord/housing provider.   No messing around persuading a landlord to accept UC or risk tenants spending it on other things.   

You have someone with severe addictions, special needs or unable to manage their affairs.... controlled vouchers and payments for specific suppliers for rent, energy, travel and food. That's it.  No lump sum monies for them to have to manage, no long-winded administration and assessments to ensure a suitable guardian is in place, no risk of monies being used for drugs/substances/fraud.  Just a simple process of direct from government to supplier to end user.     

However, you even attempt to suggest such a strictly controlled welfare system and you can hear the screams, outrage and objections from a mile away. 

On 30/05/2024 at 12:30, pfifes said:

TNT Express was an international courier delivery services company with its headquarters in Hoofddorp, Netherlands. It was acquired by FedEx.  The likes of TNT don’t have to deliver UK letters for a flat fee regardless of destination.  That is the difference.  I’ve no issue with courier service btw, many are excellent, but they are what are and can choose the most profitable services for their business. Unlike Royal Mail who at present anyway  have deliver letters for a flat fee.  And it is case of ‘miss it when it’s gone’ if you think about on more than a superficial level. Even quite recently I can think of an instance where we needed to produce an  original (I.e. not downloaded and printed personally) statement/bill for ID/legal purposes. I guess this type of requirement will phase out gradually but the point I’m making is that we do take a lot for granted with regards to mail.

These I think are key points that keep being overlooked.   Even on this thread the gripes from people about Royal Mail mostly seem to be about parcels not letters.   Its all too easy to be saying Amazon is better or UPS leave my package where I ask them too...    But, as you quite rightly point out, none of those companies have to worry about a statutory obligation to deliver of a single piece of paper potentially from Lands End to The Shetlands for as low as 85p. 

There is no doubt that regular letter mail is dwindling, particularly in the business world.  I certainly remember the days of my office having sacks of incoming mail each morning, all to be sliced open, date stamped, sorted into our pigeon holes.  Piles of hard copy items to wade through each day, dictate and type responses to be printed, signed and sent out in similar huge sacks of outgoing mail each evening.   Now I can sometimes go at least 2-3 days without receiving a single piece of hard copy business post despite working in the legal sector which is still antiquated in many ways - Other types of industries are virtually post free and have been for some time. 

None of the 'courier companies' are going to want to touch the fixed priced letter post with a barge pole.  It has to be questioned how long its really is sustainable without some great reform.  People moan about the service taking longer and becoming more expensive but that's not surprising given its ever dwindling use.  Of course there are some exceptions of things which still require urgent hard copy delivery but there are now a range of services which could provide that not just RM.    For the rest of the generic bulk mail - one would suggest if its really that desperately urgent to still be clinging onto the rose tinted totally uneconomical methods of fixed price first and second class timeframes.   Certainly looking at the personal post I receive these days at least 3/4 goes strength in the bin and i'm sure i'm not alone with that - so makes me wonder why bother.

Would it be time for RM to bite the bullet and simply make general post once weekly instead?  Would it be time to split out the classes further and making first class delivery an ad hoc booked timed service like a courier with regular 'stamped' post just being once a week to x areas like say bin collection?     Perhaps its about time that some of those organisations clinging on to their antiquated systems sending letters for everything need dragging into the modern world (the NHS is a prime example of sending letters for the sake of it).  Maybe there needs to be more consideration on the real costs of and even any necessity of maintaining such a universal fixed price system. Particularly now with its massive drop in usage and massively increased (even previously non-existent) competition. 

4 hours ago, High Chaparral said:

What position of power does she have?   Sir Keir Starmer cancelled his planned holiday during the riots because he is the one who has the power

Only the fact that she's a cabinet minister and second in command to the PM.

You don't think that's a position of power?  The term applies to more than one person. You can't seriously think Kier Starmer runs the country solely on his own.  

1 hour ago, lavery549@yahoo said:

You are invited to your friends house for a meal . The meal comes & there is something you hate . What do you do ? 

Surely if they are friends long enough to reach having dinner with, they should have a  basic knowledge of things that you hate to eat.

OR, if they are friends, you should have no problem being able to apologise and politely decline you cant eat it because.....

It if neither of those things can be applied then you have to ask if you are actually at the friends level with them.  

4 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Really?

Try reading Alan Clarke's diaries - he begs to differ with you - and he was there.

Hardly a verbatim record of fact are they.  The serialisation of diaries from a flamboyant politician who was known for their sense of humour and dramatisation. 

Come on, you can hardly argue Thatcher was some delicate little flower filled with femininity and womanly charm.