ECCOnoob

You haven't given any details of specifically what the issue is but you could try some local solicitors to see if they will offer an initial appointment or some preliminary telephone advice. At the very least they might be able to tell you straight whether or not you have any grounds for a case in the first place. The days of an initial free half hour don't seem to be prominent these days but some of the the larger firms do have enquiry lines which you might be able to get some initial guidance from. I don't want to go into default lawyer mode but I'm very sceptical of any of these free online services and even more wary of obtaining generic advice from anonymous people over internet forums. It's an unfortunate fact but proper legal advice does cost money. It is a skill and you need a suitable professional with training and qualifications to give it to you. In terms of help lines Irwin Mitchell, Thompsons Solicitors and maybe Unionline are ones that spring to mind. As I say, they can at least give you some guidance on whether you have any sufficient case before you start spending money.

What on earth are you talking about. We the public won't vote on the deal - that is for our elected representatives to decide. We the public have voted on the elected representatives we choose to represent us as best we see fit. We the public voted on whether or not we wished to leave the EU. We the public have now verified that decision further with a clear rejection of any party who sought to overturn the referendum result. The technical specifications and exact narrative of the terms on exactly how we leave the EU was never going to be up for public consultation. It is down to our elected representatives to decide. Good god to have a system involving the former - things would never ever get done You really do need to wise up about the basics of how parliament works you make yourself look so silly. As for your other point, if anyone wants to read the exact wording of any of the agreed bills going through the house all they have to do is get off their backsides and do so. It's all available online on the parliamentary website as are all the recordings and transcripts of every single committee and debate. People can go knock themselves out but I bet they won't because it's boring and dull. That comes back to the problem we always have in this sort of debate. Nobody cares enough. Nobody actually wants to put the effort in and become informed.

To me the answer is stop. The road markings are there before the lights so I can't think of any reason why you would continue around. Surprised is not been an accident if people have been ploughing through.

Fully agree with that.

Can someone point me to why cash free in London is illegal?

This election was only ever going to be about one thing. Everyone could see it. You could see it from space. The only person who didn't seem to see it was a dithery weak old man leading the opposition party and his deluded obsessive disciples. Face facts. He failed in his campaigning. He failed to set out what he actually stood for. He failed to reach out and engage with the actual people in their parties heartlands. Chucking out endless sweeties and wedging yourself firmly on the fence to try and please everybody doesn't work. It makes you look desperate to the electorate and that's exactly how he came across. Now rather than accepting their defeat and facing the consequences they are throwing out the excuses and banging on about media bias, an ill-informed electorate - blaming everyone and their mother for voting the "wrong" way. Even the old man himself has not done the decent thing and stood down. He is still there desperately clinging on until such time as the momentum morons find another useless leader who suits their agenda - rather than one that the electorate actually want to vote for. Within this thread you have had plenty of judgmental little barbs about the Tory voters and them seemingly being totally oblivious to what they were voting for. Well about time you deal with the fact they knew exactly what they were voting for. YOU just don't like it.

Labour for a start. They jumped all over it no sooner had happened and started the finger pointing at the Tories for their cuts to services.

See above.

The Joseph Rountree Foundation did this in 2002. Its not hard to find if you were that interested. https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/calculating-operating-costs-care-homes They concluded back then that:- On the basis of UK average wages and land prices in 2001, and a 16% return on capital, the study estimates the full cost of operating an efficient, good quality care home meeting all national minimum standards at £459 per week for nursing care of older people and £353 per week for residential care. So, 17 years later what do you think it should be. The National Minimum Wage alone has increased by nearly 95% since back then. How much do you think supplies, equipment, premises, utilities etc have gone up by since that date. Average life expectancy has also gone up by another 2 years since that date too.

So you think our tax monies should be spent sending nurses and carers all over the country and world to visit patients living in exotic hotels or on board cruise ships rather than dealing with several patients in a single, purpose built, sufficiently equiped facility.

Of course it costs less. Care Homes have to provide so much more. Anna lets just stop and think for a moment shall we. Firstly you are completely ignoring my first and most important point. Cruise Passengers have to have a certain level of mobility and cognative function to get on board. They have to be insured through travel insurance and if they dont get it, they would be suicidal to go without. You talk about 'passenger assistance' as if its some perfectly equiped mobile retirement home. It isnt. Cruise Ships dont have facilities for poor dementure patients who could just wander off out of their rooms and go overboard. They dont have teams of medically trained staff on hand to look after one passenger who needs daily medication dispensing or minor treatments. The infirmary on board ships and the staff within them are for the entire passengers and crew. They are not designed nor stocked for continual use by special needs patients. Ships dont have employ 24/7 carers on board to cater for passengers who need to be constantly supported to go to the toilet or be fed or put in and out of bed. Their staff arn't paid - let alone trained to spend their days escorting passengers around the entire ship all day in case they fall over. Those excursions you talk about with its special facilities and escorts cost money. Quite a lot dependant on the location and type. Add that onto the bill shall we. Yes I have seen the inside of a care home thank you. My brother is in one. It is a sad sight to see people sat around not talking. Its the same with mental health homes not just elderly care homes FYI. However, that can be part of the condition they are suffering and not anything to do with "not being encouraged" I think that is complete nonsense. Its not perfect. Not at all. But to try and compare a cruise ship with the sorts of responsibilities, costs, regulation and facilities that a care home is required to provide is ludicrous. Look beyond the numbers.

Very nice I'm sure but bear in mind that is probably over a quarter of someone's weekly shopping bill. I don't see it being very feasible. I've seen people in my local supermarket buying food for a family of at least three or four for less than £30. This is always the problem with ethical organic, free-range and/or hipster style food. It always comes with a ridiculous and out of reach price tag. If these trendy startups want to really break the mould they need to stop going after the niche and high-end markets and put their efforts into finding and developing an ethical and well sourced product which can have an accessible price tag. I suspect if you actually went and asked people they are not eating battery hens because they hate wildlife they are simply doing it because it's all they can afford. To be fair if you worked in any kind of professional food preparation environment (even high-end ones) most people will be appalled and disgusted by the processes. You cannot make 50-100 thousand batches of a product without the process being artificial, pre-made and sometimes even pre-cooked. Even posh hotel kitchens where there are catering for 200 to 300 people paying £70-100 a head still get mass-produced, machine processed, pre-prepared and often microwave food during service.

Proposals like that are all well and good but it is on the massive assumption that the passenger is perfectly fit and mobile and does not require any specialist care or treatment. Yes there are doctors and nurses on board the ships but they are not the NHS and have a hefty bill attached to any treatment received. Even getting a simple prescription or a quick check up has a charge. How much are all those travel insurance policies going to cost to cover the costs of the same and any other eventualities. There is also the big concern that if anything did happen one could be thousands of miles away from home. How about the consideration of loneliness. Yes they are other passengers but they are not friends and neighbours or a support group day in day out. I doubt everyone will be able to cope with having their family on the other side of the world and unable to pop round once a week for a visit. I have seen it done as described above but the people generally doing these things are rich elites who can afford to do so for months and years time without any financial worries about how the bill is going to be picked up at the other end. They can afford the private doctors. they can afford to have their family join them on a regular basis. I really don't think it is that simple as people make out.

Might have avoided the deaths of est 70-80 million people if we did. Now stop behaving like a child and changing the subject when you run out of coherent argument. Back on topic with you. You have been asked at least twice now what your solution to the problem would be. Its obvious that you totally disagree with rehabilitation for such offences. It is also blindingly obvious that locking up and leaving people to rot is simply not realistic in view of the already overpopulation, conflicts with human rights laws and a reported £63k per year price tag for each incarceration. So I ask again, what would your solution be?

One of whom was a ex prisoner out early for day release who was previously convicted of murder. DO YOU GET THE POINT NOW.

Yes and as shown by tinfoihat at post #46 if they had done it with James Ford he would not have been there to assist in trying to stop and ground the attacker. See. Nothing is black and white. You don't throw out the whole system just because of one single incident to do so is a hysterical overreaction.

Another alternative thought would be to look at seeking out the root cause of what converts these people into considering such extreme acts in the first place. Whenever these tragedies occur the reactionary pitchfork brigade always start demanding they should lock them up and throw away the key. The reality is that does not solve the problem. America have a death penalty for god's sake. One could say it's the ultimate preventative measure for reoffending. However we all know in reality that does sod all to stop the constant violent crimes, shootings and terrorism happening in the country. It's just too simplistic. The response from the father is a very noble given the circumstances but in my opinion it is the right position to take. It's balanced and gives consideration to the wider picture. Times are turbulent enough without knee-jerk reactionary decisions primarilly fuelled by the hysterics and certain types of media.

Yes great petition away but what is the actual solution to the problem. Exactly the same with the whole Hillsborough debacle - quite rightly grieving families get angry and upset. All they want is a single thing or single person to place all the blame onto. However, in the real world that is not always possible or even right. Just because one nut job has reoffended after being released does not mean that the entire system should be thrown out.

You mean when it actually won elections. How odd.

Yes correct. It was an overlooked typo. The abbreviation was meant to say Morning Star.

Oh for goodness sake my comments where about so called bias between the number of right and left leaning publications. This is nothing to do with the numbers of copies are sold and distributed. The argument boils down to the fact there are several publications which are right leaning and several other publications which are left leaning. If the right-leaning ones happen to have more readers which leads to increase circulation number than that is sod all to do with a minipulated bias and far more about the actual political choices of the majority of the nation. Left clearly doesn't sell as much as right and therefore their distribution is smaller. If the wider population suddenly stopped reading the Sun and all switch to the Daily Mirror then the opposite effect will apply.

So that means that us consumers are choosing to buy more right leaning publications than left wing. If that is the case then Labour's direction of travel is completely bonkers.

Stop moving the goalposts. Nobody mentioned circulation. It was a simple left v right argument. SW is prinited through the might of Trinity Mirror resources anyway so circulation (or lack of) is their own problem. The point is for every bunch of so-called "right wing biased" publications there are plenty of so-called"left wing biased" publications.

Mirror, Guardian, Observer, The i, Morning Star.....

I am not talking about just anti-semitism. I'm talking about the deluge of campaigns, anti-campaigns, smears, scare stories, tittle-tattle, fairy stories from 'anonymous' sources, shadowy fringe groups chucking their opinions in.... This is not new. You must be naive to think it is. It happens at every election there is always going to be people singing praises of one candidate and people throwing mud at another candidate. The media are not trying to sway the electorate in any direction. They are doing what the media does. Stop this constant crap about a media bias. I think it's very clear given that headlines right now are corbyn anti-semitism scandal immediately followed by Tory party and it's islamophobia scandal demonstrates there is no such bias that you seem to drone on about. Papers don't count because for every right wing paper there are plenty of left wing papers too. Add on 1001 blog sites, opinion pieces, forums, social media posts, and professional argument sources just like this very website and there's even more range of opinion across all spectrums. If you are really seeking some difference between the good old days and now it's just the speed of information. Surely it should be for us to use our own instincts and judgement about who we choose to vote for on the range of information we are presented with. In my opinion anyone who is so easily influenced that they blindly follow what a certain newspaper or website tell them really doesn't deserve a vote