ECCOnoob

What part of RELEVANT information and INVESTIGATING AUTHORITIES dont you understand. We are not talking about someone's entire personal history being thrown around to everyone and thier mother. Now, in answer to your queston - YES I would hand my phone over. If I for one second considered that evidence on it would enable a fair and true investigation and bring justice as quickly as possible - without the risks of delay, adjournment or collapse due to some technicality. I cannot think why any TRUE victim would think otherwise. If you are telling the truth and have nothing to hide - what's the problem? You bang on about "gross breach of privacy" well what about the accused. Since when was it guilty until proven innocent. Why does an alleged victim get more rights to privacy than an alleged accused? Why is it perfectly acceptable for an alleged suspect to be named and shamed, dragged through the mud with every inch of their life pulled apart for all to see.... but the accusor can maintain their annonymity and scream victimisation if anyone tries to look into their history or even access their data. Fair and balanced? My backside it is.

ALLEGED "victim" ALLEGED "suspect" Fair justice works both ways and so should police investigatons. Some people say that the contents of their phone "...is no business of the police and even less of the defence...." But I would like the investigating authorities to decide that fact. Who says its no business of the police. Its clear that nobody seems to give a toss about privacy of the accused even when they are proved innocent but try to do a bit of digging on the alleged victim and people scream the house down. It stinks. In an allegation as serious of rape any potentially relevant information should be made available to investigators if they so require. That includes access to what is, lets face it, one of the most comprehensive information sources that we all carry around in our pockets.

You seemingly missed the new units on the moor, the light complex and additional office developments all over peace gardens.... Just ignoring the multiple apartments and student living developments that have been created over the past 18 years are we?? Jesus christ. Negativity all the time even when something good is happening.

Sorry to burst your bubble - but I wouldn't get too excited. Today's PPI cold calling and mass marketing is just yesterday's personal injury claims. Tomorrow's cold calling is already being developed - Data Breach Claims will be the next big thing. After that, already simmering on the back burner is pension misselling.. The calls are set to continue im afraid. Its an ever evolving process.

You are going to have to be patient. In a former life I used to deal with such claims and some of them will rumble on for 3+ years with still no guarantee of the payout. Unless there is an absolutely cast-iron medical causation position, most companies will quite happily put up a fight against noise induced loss claims even if they breach their duty.

My god this thread has well and truly come off the rails. The antagonists are are so desprate to give a wind up they have started arguing with themselves. WiseOwl182 I admire your attempt to try and maintain sanity to this debate but we lost him man..... Just chuck a blanket over it..... it's gone.

I dont say its correct - the Highways authority do. They set the maximum legal speed limits which they have deemed safe to drive at by competent trained licenced drivers in normal road contitions on on that particular section of the parkway - it is set at 70mph all the way from J33 motorway exit to the Handsworth slip roads. We appear to be at crossed wires here. I dont know why you keep bringing up the 50 section because that it not the issue. The issue is people repeatedly making these ludicrous suggestions that people driving at 70mph in the 70mph zone are somehow "speeders" "driving too fast" "dangerous" That is simpy not the case. You appear to be advocating that it should be reduced without providing any reason or knowledge. You appear to be overlooking section 20: On test you needed to show that you can drive at a realistic speed appropriate to the road and traffic conditions. You needed to approach all hazards at a safe, controlled speed, without being over cautious or slowing or stopping other road users. You should always be ready to move away from junctions as soon as it is safe and correct to do so. Driving too slowly can frustrate other drivers which creates danger for yourself and others.

....In your opinion. An opinion which is totally ludicrous when we are talking about the equivillent of 30% slower the legally set limits. If your driving test took you onto a dual carraigeway with a 70mph limit and your slow speed was causing a hazard to others or making them conduct a dangerous overtake unnecessarilly then YES it would be a fail. This has been pointed out to you several times now and you have been shown the evidence for it within a driving test mark sheet. Why is this so hard to understand. People do fail tests for NOT MAINTAINING PROGRESSION.

At no point have I said any such thing. What I have tried to establish is what makes you such an expert and your opinion so valid over and above qualified and experienced professionals in the highways authoirty who set the maximum safe speed limit on such part of the road to 70mph. Perhaps if you actually drove on the 'Rotherham bit' you would actually have a clue what we are talking about. Just because you say its too much and "60 is plenty" doesnt make it correct.

Oh really. So on your planet people driving at 30% BELOW the legally deemed safe limit is "about right" for a competent driver in a normal vehicle in normal conditions. So, lets just break that down further shall we. You think its "about right" for built up areas to be filled with cars and buses trundling along at just barely 21mph and trucks and coaches on motorways to be drifting along at 39mph?? Why not go further into looney town. What about those suicidal trains eh? I mean 100mph + and people aren't even strapped in and sat down. What about airplanes 600mph - sheer madness!!!. Think about all those other planes they could bump into. Get a grip.

says who? Please do furnish us with your expert knowledge in highway control and your qualifications. You clearly know more than the qualified professionals at the highways agency who set the safe speed limits.

Well then you are completely selfish. What you deem "a better environment" is impacting others. Do you ever stop to think that some of us would like to get to our destinations promptly, using the roads to their full safe and legally deemed limits and driving with the competence and confidence as we were trained to do and measured upon within our driving licence tests. Just because people like yourself cannot seem to handle such limits and laughingly deem them unsafe does not give you the right to prevent nor preach others who are driving at speeds which are perfectly legal as assessed by professionals with a damn sight more knowledge and experience than you have.

Devonshire Chippy is a take away outlet. That is not what I meant by fast food venue and you know it. I am talking about any venue that has seating inside i.e. Mcdonalds, KFC, Subway, Starbucks etc... The point remains that a vast majority of people in the city centre will be visiting, travelling through, attending or working in somewhere that has ample public toilets. Why then, should dwindling taxpayer resources be used to fund such things when money can quite clearly be better spent.

You would be surprised. Dependant on how much the business wants their money they could be lots they could do. Does she own a house? Car? Other assets? Does she have savings? Is she working, if so, how much do they earn, how often? I have known companies get Judgments to take £1 a week off people to maintain the upper hand and pettily satisfy the claim

In 2019 there is little need for precious taxpayer monies to be spent on dozens of council facilities. People dont generally go milling around the streets for hours on end. If you are in the city for a legitimate purpose you will have access to multiple toilets. I have said before and say again.... If you are eating out - every restaurant, cafe and fast food venue has one. If you are drinking - every single pub, bar and club has them. If you are shopping nearly every department store or shopping mall has them. If you are travelling, the station and both interchanges have them If you are on business every office block, business centre, council office and hotel will have them If you are studying, there are dozens all over the university buildings. If you are here for leisure - every cinema, bowling alley, theatre, museum, gallery and library has them. If you are one of those unfortunate people who just happens to fall through the gap of any of the above then be a devil and sneak into somewhere. There are even registered places on the community toliet scheme which allow public access irrelevant of purchases or purpose.

clip clop clip clop..... time to get back under your bridge.

Well, I would say it is important to the debate particuarly when responding to some troll who feels they are high and mighty because they choose to drive deliberately and unnecessarilly slow. One driver test sheet coming up for those who still choose to pretend it is not an issue. Google found it in less than 5 seconds. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/659103/dl25-driving-test-report-form.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/driving-test-report-forms/driving-test-report-explained I will even be nice and highlight it so everyone is clear. Section 20: On test you needed to show that you can drive at a realistic speed appropriate to the road and traffic conditions. You needed to approach all hazards at a safe, controlled speed, without being over cautious or slowing or stopping other road users. You should always be ready to move away from junctions as soon as it is safe and correct to do so. Driving too slowly can frustrate other drivers which creates danger for yourself and others.

Asking a question like that proves my point.

Jesus, is there anything Corbyn can do before you stop blindly supporting him. These people were on camera named and identifiable on national television. What makes you think a court will throw out the case on the grounds that they were not sufficiently "named" As soon as it was broadcast the party's official statement from the party's own press office published that these people were "disaffected former officials" and stated they "always opposed Jeremy Corbyn" then it continued to publicly attack them by stating that they "worked to actively to undermine" and that they "have both personal and political axes to grind" and finally without detailing any supportive evidence they chucked out there that the party had "doubt on their credibility" That is quite a response from a party's official press office to take. Hope they can back it up or an adverse Judgment will just be more fuel poured on a burnt out shell of a party. Today's papers have reported that the ECHR investigation is being rammped up with at least 30 (YES - THIRTY) more people are ready to give evidence. Peers leaving the party, MPs turning against him and he still sits there pretending he is doing a good job and everything is all under control. Not everyone has consumed the Corbyn Kool-Aid. Some of us are starting to form our own opinion of exactly the sort of person he is and the sort of party Labour is becoming under his dictatorship.

A travel agent is just a "middle man" between hotel or airline and customer An estate agent is just a "middle man" between seller and potential purchaser. A comparison website is just a "middle man" between insurer and policyholder. Should be running scared from those organisations too because we allegedly dont know where the product is coming from? Its pretty obvious that you CHOOSE the restaurant and CHOOSE the food you want to order through just eat which is nothing more than a convenient service which allows for digital order processing and electronic payments to a range of small take away businesses whom otherwise would not have offered it.

Showing him your skills as you put it is demonstrating that you can competently drive at an appropriate speed for the road conditions. Do you think that examiner would be impressed by some deliberately being overcautious and driving slowly? How exactly is that demonstrating competent driving skills? What about if said learner was being over cautious and decides to trundle along at 40mph on a 60-70mph dual carraigeway? I take it that is perfectly accepted on your planet. Good for them. They are 6 cars ahead at the next junction and could likely get through the next set of lights one change ahead than they otherwise would have done which will mean they can get through the next set one change ahead and soforth. Getting those 6 cars ahead may get them in front of that bus which is almost ready to depart or that truck which was just about to start its reverse into a side road orthat level crossing which was almost ready to come down..... What exactly is the problem?

Strange or not in your opinion, it IS a testing point that an examiner will look at and people (including myself) have failed for not maintaining progression and driving at an inappropriate speed. That will of course depend on the speed limit, road conditions and examiner. A driver doing 30mph in a 30mph area is not "racing around" as you stupidly put it. They are driving at the limit as allowed to do so along with the vast majority of other traffic in the area. A driver who is doing early 20s mph in a 30mph limit is unlikely to be keeping pace with other traffic and thus is also likely to be causing other cars behind them to be forcebly slowed down and build up. That may be seen as a hazard. That may be seen as a failure to maintain appropriate control and speed. That may be deemed a failure point. Yes of course there are exceptions for bad weather or large trade vehicles or heavy loads etc... but a driving test is supposed to be about testing competent and safe driving skills for a normal driver in a normal vehicle in an average road condition. The key point in all of this is driving at an appropriate speed. Too fast is of course dangerous but, despite what idiots protest, also just as dangerous is too slow. Its a real shame that the minimum speeds are not more widespread in this country as they are on the continent. That would solve a lot of these issues and put certain 'high and mighty' dawdling wheel shuffler types down a peg or two.

Pity the silly old fool didn't do it 24 months ago - might have had some meaning. To many it just looks like a last ditch load of hot air to try and get into power. Dont trust a word he says.

Wow. A surprisingly rude childish response from someone who is at least approaching pensioner age. It clearly explains so much. I am not prepared to waste any more time on you.

Driving at 20 miles an hour below the limit on a motorway without good reason is impeding traffic. As has been pointed out to you several times now. Not maintaining progression is a driving test failure and inconsiderate driving is an offence and something which you could be penalised for if you are deemed to be causing a hazard to others. Not exactly difficult to pick bones out of it was it. You may enjoy your high and mighty selfishness at the moment but tick tock tick tock....