On Nov 27, 9:09*pm, Turk182 wrote:
On 27 Nov, 17:08, Mel Rowing wrote:

If you want to see dirty and smelling toilets I would direct you to
those provided at public expense, Some of those can be disgusting
except

Can you give me the addresses please, you just never know.

Well when I typed that I had two locations in mind one in York and the
other in Scarborough.

To be fair I think local authorities are at long last addressing a
problem that has certainly been with us throughout my lifetime. They
are getting rid of the old decrepit unattended latrines of yesteryear
and not before time.

By their nature, public toilets are susceptible to soiling, misuse,
vandalism and other unspeakable actions. This is one of the most
urgent public services almost literally. People demand higher
standards and the way forward is surely towards high quality attended
facilities that would solve all of the above shortcomings. Where they
increasingly exist, the modest 20-40p usage charge represents good
value.

Where viability is an issue I feel that local councils could use their
funds less wisely than subsidising facilities within stores and pubs
in return for greater public access.

Now to your supermarkets. This is a very competitive game. No
supermarket company wants to give you or anybody else even the
slightest reason to use a competitor no matter what it is; poor
standard of toilets, inadequate car parking facilities, poor choice of
stock on shelves, anything at all.

The cost of providing and maintaining high standard toilet facilities
in relation to the turnover of a typical supermarket is less than
peanuts. That's why all facilities in a supermarket are up to the
highest standard.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:24:51 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing
wrote:

On Nov 27, 9:59*pm, Alang wrote:

Would someone explain why I, on a very low income, have to subsidise
parasites like rowing and lunn to a very much higher income just
because they were fortunate to lick the right anuses for a few years
and work for the state

You are better equipped than me to determine why you are on a "very
low income".

Possibly because Gordon nicked a fair bit of my pension to pay you and
the rest of the state parasites

You don't subsidise me.

Yes I do

I've paid taxes all my working life. I still pay taxes even though my
working life is now over. It's not beyond the realms of possibility
that my estate will pay taxes upon my death.

I have never drawn a pound's worth of state benefit in my life save
the universal child benefit.

You were employed by the state all your life and so is your spawn.

So don't go calling me a parasite. It just doesn't wash.

The cap fits

I do most of my shopping at Sainsbury's and find their products, staff
and customer services are excellent.

They can't even be arsed to spell the branch name right on our local
store - and to make matters worse, it's in something like 3 foot high
letters on the main entrance door to the store.

I won't shop there on principle until they sort it out - it's been
close to 5 years now since i've bothered with them.

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , nightjar
writes

"Turk182" wrote in message
...
.... If I do replace my number plate on
the private road of a trading estate, am I in breach of the law?

I can't be bothered to search out the exact provisions of the registration
regulations but, for the most part, any place that is open to the general
public to drive is covered by the same regulations as the public road.

Colin Bignell

It would be useful if you could check this (if you know where the
definitive answer may be found). As I understand it, a vehicle driving on
a private road or area with general public access should be insured, but
I'm not sure whether it also needs to be taxed or have number plates. If
not, and the carpark is private property, Sainsburys would have to
stipulate that their display was a condition of entry (with an
appropriately draconian penalty for not doing so).

I'm not interested enough to do what would be a fair bit of research.. For
the most part, the Road Traffic Act applies to places like public car parks,
so the vehicle would need to comply with any provisions in that. However,
there is separate legislation that requires vehicles to be registered and
yet more legislation that specifies what registration marks need to be
shown. If you want to do the legwork, you will have to check the RTA and the
Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) Regulations and the Road Vehicle
(Display of Registration Marks) Regulations. Even then , you would only be
able to be sure if you found a positive requirement to display. An absence
of a requirement in any of those would not necessarily mean that the display
was not required under some other legislation.

Colin Bignell

On Nov 27, 11:01*pm, Alang wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:24:51 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing

You are better equipped than me to determine why you are on a "very
low income".

Possibly because Gordon nicked a fair bit of my pension to pay you and
the rest of the state parasites

Hold hard!

Gordon Brown's tax raid on the pension funds took place in 1997. Any
effect on you or anybody else at present is at worst marginal. That's
how he got his reputation for stealth taxation. The effects of his
actions in this respect are not really going to be felt until decades
have passed when he will be out of office and forgotten.

You don't say whether you were in an occupational or a private scheme.
If the former it will be based on final salary in which case you will
not be affected. If the latter then that will be contribution based
and there will have been some loss. However that loss will be marginal
as I say because your particular plan would have been close to
maturity. It's those who are to follow who are really going to lose
out. Their "Brown grab" is front loaded. Your's would be end loaded.

So whatever the reason for your "very low income" it's little if
anything to do with GB.

You were employed by the state all your life and so is your spawn.

You make it sound as though we run with the Mafia.

I hear no public clamour for the shut down of the school system. I
don't hear much either for the disbandment of the police services.
Other public sector workers include medical professionals, paramedics,
care workers, fire fighters, ambulance workers and all the
ancilliaries associated with them.

There may be room for argument as to how these services are provided.
Indeed I've argued here for more private provision myself. However,
their vital nature within a developed society is not in doubt.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:09:24 -0800 (PST), Turk182
wrote:

I could wear a badge saying I
insist on being served in 5 minutes of joining the queue, and if I am
not served, I will leave all my food on the conveyer belt

One time I visited Sainsbury's it took 3 minutes to drive there, 1
minute to park, 1 minute to get into the store, 3 minutes to shop.....
and 20 minutes to get through their baskets only checkout as queues
got longer and longer while staff continued to unload heaps of manky
fruit and veg onto the displays despite them being almost full with
stuff no one wanted to buy

Their attitude to customers and in particular their approach to
checkout staffing levels is appalling. What they really fail to
consider is that the sooner a customer passes through their store at
all stages, the less stressful the experience and there is a greater
chance they will spend more money.

Customers coming into the car park need customers leaving, customers
coming into the store need customers leaving at or above the same rate
to ensure aisle occupancy and checkout queues are low. It's not that
difficult to count customers coming into the store, customers leaving,
the general levels of crush in the aisles and the length of checkout
queues.

It's no good reacting 10 minutes later with a "would all checkout
trained staff report to Mr Blind-as-a-****ing-bat store manager" as by
then the queues are way too long and customers get really ****ed off.
Tesco's and Asda know what they are doing, Sainsbury's haven't a clue.

Ever been into a store at opening time? They don't even have enough
common sense to put anyone on the checkouts until people start
wandering near the checkouts looking for one that is open despite two
dozen members of the public turning up with baskets and dashing round
the shop. ****ing useless bunch of ******s.

A few weeks later in Sainsbury's, while not wearing any badge I
noticed a customer got so ****ed off with the queue they had just
dumped their trolley. It may have been deliberate as it was packed to
the top with 5 quid pots of ice cream. It was nowhere near the
pharmacy though, it was hidden below a the heap of cardboard littering
the corner of the store.


--

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , nightjar
writes

"Turk182" wrote in message
...
.... If I do replace my number plate on
the private road of a trading estate, am I in breach of the law?

I can't be bothered to search out the exact provisions of the
registration
regulations but, for the most part, any place that is open to the general
public to drive is covered by the same regulations as the public road.

Colin Bignell

It would be useful if you could check this (if you know where the
definitive answer may be found). As I understand it, a vehicle driving on
a private road or area with general public access should be insured, but
I'm not sure whether it also needs to be taxed or have number plates. If
not, and the carpark is private property, Sainsburys would have to
stipulate that their display was a condition of entry (with an
appropriately draconian penalty for not doing so).

I'm not interested enough to do what would be a fair bit of research.. For
the most part, the Road Traffic Act applies to places like public car
parks, so the vehicle would need to comply with any provisions in that.
However, there is separate legislation that requires vehicles to be
registered and yet more legislation that specifies what registration marks
need to be shown. If you want to do the legwork, you will have to check
the RTA and the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing) Regulations and
the Road Vehicle (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations. Even then ,
you would only be able to be sure if you found a positive requirement to
display. An absence of a requirement in any of those would not necessarily
mean that the display was not required under some other legislation.

I'm not sure. The reason I say that is that motor dealers often have cars
without plates on in their yards which are also used by customers to park.

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:09:24 -0800 (PST), Turk182
wrote:

I could wear a badge saying I
insist on being served in 5 minutes of joining the queue, and if I am
not served, I will leave all my food on the conveyer belt

One time I visited Sainsbury's it took 3 minutes to drive there, 1
minute to park, 1 minute to get into the store, 3 minutes to shop.....
and 20 minutes to get through their baskets only checkout as queues
got longer and longer while staff continued to unload heaps of manky
fruit and veg onto the displays despite them being almost full with
stuff no one wanted to buy

Same here. I no longer shop there beacuse of their absurdly long queues and
rude staff, many of which seem to be unable to speak English. I buy very
little so M&S now gets my custom.

"Mr X" wrote in message
...

"nightjar .me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , nightjar
writes

"Turk182" wrote in message
...
.... If I do replace my number plate on
the private road of a trading estate, am I in breach of the law?

I can't be bothered to search out the exact provisions of the
registration
regulations but, for the most part, any place that is open to the
general
public to drive is covered by the same regulations as the public road.

Colin Bignell

It would be useful if you could check this (if you know where the
definitive answer may be found). As I understand it, a vehicle driving
on a private road or area with general public access should be insured,
but I'm not sure whether it also needs to be taxed or have number
plates. If not, and the carpark is private property, Sainsburys would
have to stipulate that their display was a condition of entry (with an
appropriately draconian penalty for not doing so).

I'm not interested enough to do what would be a fair bit of research..
For the most part, the Road Traffic Act applies to places like public car
parks, so the vehicle would need to comply with any provisions in that.
However, there is separate legislation that requires vehicles to be
registered and yet more legislation that specifies what registration
marks need to be shown. If you want to do the legwork, you will have to
check the RTA and the Road Vehicle (Registration and Licensing)
Regulations and the Road Vehicle (Display of Registration Marks)
Regulations. Even then , you would only be able to be sure if you found a
positive requirement to display. An absence of a requirement in any of
those would not necessarily mean that the display was not required under
some other legislation.

I'm not sure. The reason I say that is that motor dealers often have cars
without plates on in their yards which are also used by customers to park.

All the motor dealers I know have customer parking quite clearly marked and
separate from the new car display area. Separated by rising bollards in some
cases.

Colin Bignell

Mel Rowing wrote:
Gordon Brown's tax raid on the pension funds took place in 1997. Any
effect on you or anybody else at present is at worst marginal.

It *started* then. It seems to be impossible to find out how
the rather large sums raised have been divvied up among those of us
with pension pots, but my best guess is that it has cost me personally
at least #20000, perhaps #60000 or more. That may be marginal to you,
but it seems like quite a lot to me -- esp if you convert it to the
equivalent increase in [say] income tax.

That's
how he got his reputation for stealth taxation. The effects of his
actions in this respect are not really going to be felt until decades
have passed when he will be out of office and forgotten.

Well, the longer people work from 1997 before retiring [or until
the Raid is cancelled], then the more they will pay. But they won't
really notice, unless they look hard, because it simply means that their
pension pots will be much smaller than they should have been. As you
aren't told how big your pension pot will be, only what the guaranteed
[and v conservative] amount is, and not how big it could have been, it
really is a stealth tax. You never do know how much it has cost you.

Whether it's "fair" or not, I don't pretend to know. I expect
Mr Brown would claim that his Raid corrects an anomaly in the way we
earn our pensions, while others would argue that he simply saw an easy
way to soak rich people in a way they wouldn't even notice.

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham