Completely OT- Legal tender

No, I think you're right, but I forget the firm involved. This lot took the biscuit, though:

formatting link

Reply to
John Laird
Loading thread data ...

Yes. But it says they're similar. The difference is the words malice & villainy respectively.

You are now. You started off saying Hanlon, so you've learnt something.

I didn't/don't. You need to re-read what I did write.>

Reply to
Aidan

Which is no difference in this context.

I merely said Heinlein to placate you - I'll carry on using Hanlon everywhere.

You wrote:

"You assumed the stamps were binned through incompetence (Hanlon's), I assumed they were stolen (villainy, so Heinlein). "

So, why are you ascribing to villany (stealing the stamps) what can be explained by stupidity (binning them)?

(why are you ascribing to malice what can be explained by incompetence?)

clive

Reply to
Clive George

You only think? And here I was, assuming from your posts that you knew everything.

I don't feel the ned to look over my shoulder. That way lies paranoia.

>
Reply to
Mary Fisher

formatting link

this very note, here is a useful link

formatting link
appears that Mr McGuire won his appeal. Sadly it doesn't say what happened to the firm and individuals involved.

Reply to
Andy Hall

Well, yes, there is that, although it could be said that the former may well aspire to the attributes of the latter as a job perk. That and bus inspectors, although at least they are protecting legitimate revenue for their employer.

Reply to
Andy Hall

not to mention those proposing and legislating

Reply to
djc

I suppose it appeals to a certain type of person, sounding as it does as if it's a fruit machine paying out a "jackpot".

You could make quite a fortune at that rate by simply standing in the street and asking passers-by for 1uk pound, for which you'd give them

90-odd pence in return.

In fact, aren't fruit machines supposed (in theory) to pay out at about 90%?

Reply to
Frank Erskine

Surely they are placed to *avoid* an accident blackspot. Why wait until the horse has bolted before you close the stable door?

Reply to
Frank Erskine

There are some odd folk about.

HMRC is well practised at this.

Ah but is it gambling?

I'm reminded of the Python merchant banker sketch

City Gent: Ah, Mr Ford isn't it?

Mr Ford: That's right.

City Gent: How do you do. I'm a merchant banker.

Mr Ford: How do you do Mr...

City Gent: Er... I forget my name for the moment but I am a merchant banker.

Mr Ford: Oh. I wondered whether you'd like to contribute to the orphan's home. (he rattles the tin)

City Gent: Well 1 don't want to show my hand too early, but actually here at Slater Nazi we are quite keen to get into orphans, you know, developing market and all that... what son of sum did you have in mind?

Mr Ford: Well... er... you're a rich man.

City Gent: Yes, 1 am. Yes. Yes, very, very rich. Quite phenomenally wealthy. Yes, I do own the most startling quantifies of cash. Yes, quite right... you're rather a smart young lad aren't you. We could do with somebody like you to feed the pantomime horse. Very smart.

Mr Ford: Thank you, sir.

City Gent: Now, you were saying. I'm very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very rich.

Mr Ford: So er, how about a pound?

City Gent: A pound. Yes, I see. Now this loan would be secured by the...

Mr Ford: It's not a loan, sir.

City Gent: What?

Mr Ford: It's not a loan.

City Gent: Ah.

Mr Ford: You get one of these, sir. (he gives him a flag)

City Gent: It's a bit small for a share certificate isn't it? Look, I think I'd better run this over to our legal department. If you could possibly pop back on Friday.

Mr Ford: Well do you have to do that, couldn't you just give me the pound?

City Gent: Yes, but you see I don't know what it's for.

Mr Ford: It's for the orphans.

City Gent: Yes?

Mr Ford: It's a gift.

City Gent: A what?

Mr Ford: A gift?

City Gent: Oh a gift!

Mr Ford: Yes.

City Gent: A tax dodge.

Mr Ford: No, no, no, no.

City Gent: No? Well, I'm awfully sorry I don't understand. Can you just explain exactly what you want.

Mr Ford: Well, I want you to give me a pound, and then I go away and give it to the orphans.

City Gent: Yes?

Mr Ford: Well, that's it.

City Gent: No, no, no, I don't follow this at all, I mean, I don't want to seem stupid but it looks to me as though I'm a pound down on the whole deal.

Mr Ford: Well, yes you are.

City Gent: I am! Well, what is my incentive to give you the pound?

Mr Ford: Well the incentive is - to make the orphans happy.

City Gent: (genuinely puzzled) Happy?... You quite sure you've got this fight?

Mr Ford: Yes, lots of people give me money.

City Gent: What, just like that?

Mr Ford: Yes.

City Gent: Must be sick. I don't suppose you could give me a list of their names and addresses could you?

Mr Ford: No, I just go up to them in the street and ask.

City Gent: Good lord! That's the most exciting new idea I've heard in years! It's so simple it's brilliant! Well, if that idea of yours isn't worth a pound I'd like to know what is. (he takes the tin from Ford)

Mr Ford: Oh, thank you, sir.

City Gent: The only trouble is, you gave me the idea before I'd given you the pound. And that's not good business.

Mr Ford: Isn't it?

City Gent: No, I'm afraid it isn't. So, um, off you go. (he pulls a lever opening a trap door under Ford's feet and Ford falls through with a yelp) Nice to do business with you.

Reply to
Andy Hall

There are rules for "safety" cameras. Like they have to be close to somewhere that has had a fatal accident or several injuries. The local authority can then keep the "revenue" to reinvest in safety schemes.

The police can put a camera anywhere but the "revenue" goes in the general tax fund and not to the police. The police tend to be choosy as it costs them money to run the camera.

Reply to
dennis

What - they give that much back?

Reply to
Frank Erskine

That's precisely what I mean.

So there have to have been accidents/injuries/fatalities already?

Surely a "safety" scheme is to prevent accidents etc in the first place.

Reply to
Frank Erskine

This always reminds me of the concentration camp guards who claimed 'I was just obeying orders'.

The point is that local authorities use parking fines as a revenue raising exercice - my local authority recently admitted this in a local paper article - and also said they simply would not cancel tickets on appeal 'no matter what the circumstances'. They also stated in a recent council meeting that 'they had increased the target for parking revenue to £4 million for the next year'.

IMO if you work for such a corrupt, money grabbing, unjust organisation you deserve all the abuse you get & more. If people simply had the morals to say 'no' 'that isn't right' we would all be better off.

As a matter of interest McDonalds pay more than the council pays parking attendants. I have much more respect for them.

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

What a load of Rollocks.

Simple question. Why have RTA's and road deaths INCREASED since speed cameras where introduced?

That is a fact. Only one other explanation for their use. I'll give you a clue. Starts with Gordon. Ends with Brown.

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

Faulty tickets can be, and are issued in their tens of thousands...

Notable recent cases include over 60,000 issued in London due to incorrect alignment of the SPECS system on the embankment. Eventually a driver pointed out to them that the signs indicating the reduction in speed to 20mph were placed directly below the SPECS cameras which were looking down distance down the road. Hence the cameras were sampling vehicle speed between two fixed points, but half the length monitored was actually a 30mph road.

Another case involved a motorist being "caught" by a fixed temporary camera on a dual carriageway. He had to go to court to point out that although the temporary speed reduction was signed on the main road, it was not indicated on the slip road that he joined via. Hence the last sign he went through advised NSL on entry to the road.

Another was a motorcyclist accused of doing 40 in a 30 zone. The rider challenged the prosecution and demanded to see the evidence. After many many months of refusals, eventually the police produced the photos taken by the camera. They indicated the maximum speed was only 26mph based on the distance travelled over the marked section of road. It transpires that they had simply issued tickets based the the readings taken by the Doppler sensor in the camera - and not actually checked the photos in more detail than required to acquire the registration number of the vehicle. (this case also illustrated beyond any doubt that the cameras do make mistakes)

Reply to
John Rumm

There was one installed near here that was eventaully removed due to its placement i.e. large yellow highly visible camera placed directly behind a large oak tree!

Reply to
John Rumm

There are too many whinging prats that can't drive properly that would cost Tony votes if he did the job properly. Also how do you know where the black spot is unless there have been accidents?

Reply to
dennis

But all of the above are valid mistakes. Claiming that the first sign wasn't bigger than the rest is just being a pratt. They should be charged with dangerous driving for driving too fast through the road works and endangering other users. Speeding is the just the easy option.

Reply to
dennis

So it didn't comply with the rules and they removed it. Was it used after the rules changed?

Reply to
dennis

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.