Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Daggers

What grinds my gears...

By Daggers, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Parafox

Parafox

Posted
Posted

Back to driving... people who don't indicate on roundabouts. If you're going left, indicate left. If it's right, indicate right. If you're going straight over don't indicate until you are passing the exit before the one you want.

It's so bloody annoying when i'm driving the truck and a car comes from the exit opposite and then appears to be going straight on, i.e leaving at the road I am waiting on. I start to pull away and the twat comes straight round without indicating and blares his horn at me because I'm now across his path. There's 40ft of cab and trailer and it has no acceleration so if this situation occurs there's sod all i can do to get out of the way. If he had inficated I would've waited. Please be considerate of the size of LGV's...

And... when I'm driving the Ambo... please don't stop on a bend or near a junction or where I can't see past you. Please don't just STOPPPP!!! Indicate left to let me know you've seen me and then pull over moderately using a bus lane/layby/open junction if available. If it's safe to do so, it's ok to accelerate to a safe place to pull over.

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FoxyPV

FoxyPV

Posted
Posted

The fact that the monarchy have any say in policy decisions of any kind.

A secretive power enjoyed by the Queen and Prince Charles to alter new laws is set to be exposed after the government lost a legal battle to keep details of its application private.

The information commissioner has ruled that the Cabinet Office must publish an internal Whitehall guide to the way the senior royals are consulted before legislation is introduced to ensure it doesn't adversely affect their private interests.

The application of the controversial veto was revealed by the Guardian last year and has been described by constitutional lawyers as "a royal nuclear deterrent". Some believe its existence may underpin the influence Charles appears to wield in Whitehall over pet issues ranging from architecture to healthcare.

A judgment issued last week by the deputy information commissioner, Graham Smith, means the Cabinet Office has until 25 September to release the confidential internal manual. It details how the consent of "The Crown and The Duchy of Cornwall" is obtained before bills are passed into law and what criteria ministers apply before asking the royals to amend draft laws. If it fails to do so it could face high court action.

In the past two parliamentary sessions Charles has been asked to consent to at least 12 draft bills on everything from wreck removals to co-operative societies. Between 2007-09 he was consulted on bills relating to coroners, economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, housing and regeneration, energy and planning. In Charles's case, the little-known power stems from his role as the head of the £700m Duchy of Cornwall estate that provides his £17m-a-year private income.

The government battled to keep the manual secret, claiming publication would breach legal professional privilege and a spokeswoman for the Cabinet Office said it was still deciding whether to challenge the ruling at the information tribunal.

Lord Berkeley, a Labour peer who was told to seek Charles' consent on a marine navigation bill, said the commissioner's decision was "absolutely right". He said publication could shed light on a little-known procedure that allows the prince and the Queen "to fiddle around with bills to make sure they don't affect their private interests".

"People will start thinking what the hell is going on," he said. "We are in the 21st century, not the 18th century and it is crazy to think they are even trying to do this. The royal family should give up this special privilege and we should all obey the law of the land. Just because they have private estates, private incomes and land from several centuries ago doesn't mean they should have the right to interfere."

The latest crack in the edifice of secrecy around Charles's influence on public life came after a legal scholar, John Kirkhope, asked for Whitehall's internal manuals on consulting the royals. He said "it was clearly in the public interest that citizens understand how laws are made and applied as well as the circumstances in which the Duchy of Cornwall is consulted".

Kirkhope was researching a university thesis about the legal status of the Duchy and wanted to know how ministers decided whether new laws affected the "hereditary revenues, personal property of the Duke [Charles] or other interests".

The Duchy of Cornwall runs farms and industrial property, builds houses and acts as a landlord as well as taking responsibility for large areas of the natural environment in south-west England. Its interests often overlap with Charles's own in areas such as town planning where past interventions in public debate have seen the prince accused of abusing his influence to distort the democratic process.

In 2009 Charles caused a storm when he stepped into the public planning debate for the Chelsea Barracks housing development designed by Richard Rogers. He privately complained to the site's owner, the prime minister of Qatar, that the design was "a gigantic experiment with the very soul of our capital city". Rogers was promptly sacked and the scheme redrawn in line with the prince's tastes.

Kirkhope said evidence he had gathered suggested the process of seeking royal consent for draft bills was not a mere formality.

"The correspondence indicates that the effect of the bills are explained to the royal household, including the Duchy of Cornwall, discussions ensue and if necessary changes are made to proposed legislation," he said. "Departments of state have fought to avoid releasing correspondence which gives some hint of how the process works and the Cabinet Office has resisted releasing details of the guidance which determines whether the prince as Duke of Cornwall is consulted in the first place.

"As a citizen of the this country I have proper interest in ensuring the process by which laws are made should be transparent and that those who are given special privileges should be accountable. That is demonstrably not the case with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall."

Earlier this month Kirkhope forced the government to release edited emails showing how the Ministry of Justice consulted Buckingham Palace in 2008 and 2009 over the detail of the apprenticeships bill and how it would affect the Queen "in her personal capacity". As an employer of 1,200 staff the royal household stood to be affected, along with thousands of other employers. The civil servants wanted to know "Her Majesty's intentions in relation to the bill" before its second reading in the House of Commons.

One email refers to a note from the Queen's solicitors, Farrer and Co, "setting out his instructions in relation to the application of the apprenticeships bill to Her Majesty in her personal capacity".

The official states: "I understand from our discussion today that it might not be possible for what they want to happen without there being express provision in the bill".

It echoes correspondence released last year in which a minister wrote to the prince's office requesting his consent to a new planning bill because it was "capable of applying to ... [the] Prince of Wales' private interests".

Buckingham Palace and Clarence House released a joint statement in response to the information commissioner's ruling.

"The royal household understands that the Cabinet Office is considering the information commissioner's decision and next step," it said. "It would not be a matter for the royal household to challenge any decision."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaspa

Jaspa

Posted
Posted

The leicester city forum part of this forum... Was it this bad last season? The ratio of worthwhile topics to shit is really bad at the moment.

Its was way worse last season mate

We had a multiple threads on Nicky Maynard that amassed to over 350 Pages

Ive really not found this one that bad, just realising how stupid the whole show is

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted

People who moan about the monarchy like its 1642.

I dunno, I think that we still persist with the idea that giving someone the power to change new laws as they please due to them coming out of the right clown-hole is a fairly reasonable thing to moan about - given how fucking retarded that idea is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain...

Captain...

Posted
Posted

The fact that the monarchy have any say in policy decisions of any kind.

A secretive power enjoyed by the Queen and Prince Charles to alter new laws is set to be exposed after the government lost a legal battle to keep details of its application private.

Heaven forbid the head of state actually gets a say in how their country is run, I bet you complain they get paid for doing nothing now they are actually going to do something to earn their money you are complaining again.

I'm sorry, but the Royals have always had a say in legislation. That's the way our constitution works.

I thought that for last 40 odd years the royal consent was given automatically to all bills, even one agreeing to abolish the monrchy.

I dunno, I think that we still persist with the idea that giving someone the power to change new laws as they please due to them coming out of the right clown-hole is a fairly reasonable thing to moan about - given how ****ing retarded that idea is.

Well that is not what is happening, and I am not really a royalist, but I would welcome their involvement in law making, an independent if highly privileged set of eyes watching over the muppets we elect cannot be a bad thing, they are free from politics and worrying about getting elected and are free from the influence of cvnts like Mudoch, they have one priority and that is that Britain is as strong and as successful as possible.

Think of them as a benevolent council of elders, overseeing our prosperity, and not unelected free loaders whose power is determined by birthright and not any sort of competence (more or less like Cameron and Osbourne, but less cvnty).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FoxyPV

FoxyPV

Posted
Posted

Heaven forbid the head of state actually gets a say in how their country is run, I bet you complain they get paid for doing nothing now they are actually going to do something to earn their money you are complaining again.

I thought that for last 40 odd years the royal consent was given automatically to all bills, even one agreeing to abolish the monrchy.

Well that is not what is happening, and I am not really a royalist, but I would welcome their involvement in law making, an independent if highly privileged set of eyes watching over the muppets we elect cannot be a bad thing, they are free from politics and worrying about getting elected and are free from the influence of cvnts like Mudoch, they have one priority and that is that Britain is as strong and as successful as possible.

Think of them as a benevolent council of elders, overseeing our prosperity, and not unelected free loaders whose power is determined by birthright and not any sort of competence (more or less like Cameron and Osbourne, but less cvnty).

I have a problem with the existence of the monarchy not just how much they get paid. The idea that because of the family you are born into, you automatically have the ear of whatever PM, is ridiculous.

Whilst the monarch can refuse to sign a bill the last time I think this occurred was 1804 so they are a glorified rubber stamp.

Given certain royals' behaviours over the years (generally at tax payer expense) a council of benevolent elders is the last thing i'd call them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain...

Captain...

Posted
Posted

I have a problem with the existence of the monarchy not just how much they get paid. The idea that because of the family you are born into, you automatically have the ear of whatever PM, is ridiculous.

Whilst the monarch can refuse to sign a bill the last time I think this occurred was 1804 so they are a glorified rubber stamp.

Given certain royals' behaviours over the years (generally at tax payer expense) a council of benevolent elders is the last thing i'd call them.

Well they haven't had any power for a while, and I'm interested to see if this new legislation might actually give them some real influence, but do you not think it would be good if there was somebody with no political affiliations or leanings that could actually look at what the government have been doing and say stop.

I am not talking about tuition fees, I'm talking about the war in Iraq, or decisions to sanction sales of British institutions and land to make a quick buck.

Monarchs have done good things for their country's in recent times,King Juan Carlos of Spain, conspired against Franco and facilitated the move from authoritarian dictatorship to democratic rule.

Only a few years ago the King of Thailand stepped in to prevent civil war breaking out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sphericalfox

sphericalfox

Posted
Posted

Well they haven't had any power for a while, and I'm interested to see if this new legislation might actually give them some real influence, but do you not think it would be good if there was somebody with no political affiliations or leanings that could actually look at what the government have been doing and say stop.

I am not talking about tuition fees, I'm talking about the war in Iraq, or decisions to sanction sales of British institutions and land to make a quick buck.

Monarchs have done good things for their country's in recent times,King Juan Carlos of Spain, conspired against Franco and facilitated the move from authoritarian dictatorship to democratic rule.

Only a few years ago the King of Thailand stepped in to prevent civil war breaking out.

That would be wonderful, but if you don't think the Monarchs are above political leanings then you may want to look at the assignment of peerages and Lordships, and buddies amongst the political elite who are fine and dandy with blue bloods and their circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinnydipper

skinnydipper

Posted
Posted

LV car insurance.

Cracked windscreen replaced by Autoglass.

£75 excess paid. No problem.

Then get a letter saying they're increasing my monthly premium by £8 per month and think they'll be getting some sort of penalty payment from me when I say I'm cancelling.

Looking forward to speaking to their customer services in the next couple of days. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain...

Captain...

Posted
Posted

That would be wonderful, but if you don't think the Monarchs are above political leanings then you may want to look at the assignment of peerages and Lordships, and buddies amongst the political elite who are fine and dandy with blue bloods and their circles.

Well they are not free from nepotism that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FoxyPV

FoxyPV

Posted
Posted

Well they haven't had any power for a while, and I'm interested to see if this new legislation might actually give them some real influence, but do you not think it would be good if there was somebody with no political affiliations or leanings that could actually look at what the government have been doing and say stop.

I am not talking about tuition fees, I'm talking about the war in Iraq, or decisions to sanction sales of British institutions and land to make a quick buck.

Monarchs have done good things for their country's in recent times,King Juan Carlos of Spain, conspired against Franco and facilitated the move from authoritarian dictatorship to democratic rule.

Only a few years ago the King of Thailand stepped in to prevent civil war breaking out.

No one is free from political leanings, whether they want to acknowledge or not, and you can have a charismatic head of state that can unite the nation state, without having to resort to hereditary privilege.

You are fooling yourself if you think the royals would have opposed the war in Iraq. If what you are calling for is a veto on big decisions, why does it have to be a monarch? Why not abolish the monarchy and elect a president?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Col city fan

Guest Col city fan

Posted
Posted

When you politely stop for another driver (when you don't need to but just do so out of courtesy).. They pull away and don't even acknowledge you...

Ignorant bastards!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...