Ekona

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/24/world/europe/manchester-arena-bomb-materials-photos.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 Plenty of detail about the attack there. Amber will not be happy!

Ignition off, pump the brakes until the pedal goes hard. Keep foot on pedal, it should stay hard. Engine on, foot still on pedal, it should sink until reaching a normal depressed position. If it sinks right to the bottom, you have an issue.

I'd rather 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person goes to jail. If that means that we end up with more Manchesters, then unfortunately so be it. I wouldn't want to be thrown in jail or deported because someone sent me an email and I opened it, or all my mates were dodgy and I genuinely had no idea.

It'll sit at exactly the same height on 18s as 19s, unless you're planning on running ridiculous tyres. Where are you gettin Tein dampers for £400 from? That's ridiculously cheap.

:scare: *hurriedly changes password* You're part of an organisation?! :lol: The first rule of this organisation etc.

:scare: *hurriedly changes password*

All religions ask their followers to kill if you take them literally. Therein lies the problem.

Could be two things: 1. You've not bled it enough. These things are an absolute bugger to do. 2. The master is gone. Mine was after I changed my slave, and given the cost of the job is in the labour it's why I tell everyone to change both slave and master at the same time.

+millionty Looks cheap and nasty, stick with the original and spend your money elsewhere

It's like dropping an LS3 into a mk1 Escort: It'll still look like an Escort, but you have much more flexibility and more power to do stuff That's as close an analogy as I can get

Arguably yes, Al Qaeda have been significantly quieter in the last few years, but then I doubt that's just down to getting rid of Bin Laden. True, and up to a point that's my preferred viewpoint as well. However the world is a much smaller place now, and of course money talks (as does angry Russians with much bigger bombs than us, hence the reason we're not quite ready to poke that bear yet) but morally I don't think we should sit by and let people with the ideology that IS has make any steps forward. If it were simply a case of an internal dispute, let's use Syria as an example, where you have a domestic rebellion then I'm all for sitting back and seeing what happens. Trouble is that led to a power vacuum that IS utilised, and IS have no intention of leaving the evil West alone like Syria under any government would. We had to act. My problem isn't with the West interfering with other countries, it's more that we're too choosy in where we interfere. There's some proper evil b*stards in Africa that we seem happy to leave alone, and I don't see how that can be right.

*unfollows*

Hate to say it, but they're wrong. NCB is a No Claim Bonus. You get that if you don't claim. If I don't claim, then it cannot be lost. Let me give you another example, this one in real life. I was insured on a car owned by someone else a few years back, and I binned it. It was repaired and everyone was happy. He lost part of his NCB as it was his policy and he claimed, however because I didn't claim my NCB was completely unaffected. My insurer knows about the accident as I have to declare it, but as I've not claimed on any policy then my NCB is still 100%. I agree that an insurer can see that a car is insured with someone else, no arguments there. However Dave and Julie are not linked by their policies, so when Dave claims on his policy, that has nothing to do with Julie's policy. Julie's policy covers HER, not the car, and Dave's policy covers HIM, not the car. I don't see any way that an insurer could claim part-payment from another insurer when it had nothing to do with their client, at all. If the vehicle is stolen then yes, that's the only awkward time however as long as only one person claims on their policy, then there should be no issue. And if there was, the ombudsman would settle it very quickly.

Do you mean by having two separate policies? That wouldn't be the case, as only the person claiming on their policy would lose out. Think of it like this: Dave buys a car. Julie wants to insure herself on that car, which Dave is okay with. Dave is the owner and the registered keeper. Julie drives the car into a small ditch. Clumsy Julie! Julie claims on her policy, and loses her NCB, but the car is repaired by her insurer. Dave does not have to tell his insurer as he had no accident, nor did he claim. A year later Dave drives the car into a wall. Silly Dave! The car is a write-off, and Dave's policy pays Dave the market value. Dave now loses his NCB, but Julie keeps the one year she's gained. Julie cannot legally continue to insure something that doesn't exist, so she contacts her insurance and cancels the policy. Dave and Julie decide that car driving isn't for them, emigrate to the Maldives and live out their days cuddling baby turtles.

Of course you are. You're just not allowed to claim from both of them for the same incident. As long as you declare the facts to an insurer, no problems at all.

Leave my be-winged barge alone, it looks f*cking awesome :p

I didn't have Jo insured on any of my cars for years, purely because she was too young. She was on there for the final year of the 911 and has been on ever since, but purely as an emergency measure in case I break my leg and can't drive my car home, or hers breaks and she needs to get somewhere. But basically you either have to change insurer or live with it. Alternatively she could insure herself on the car on a completely different policy, but then that's not going to be a cheap option.

None, at least none Islamic-extremist related that myself or Wiki can see. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain There's a few Iranian-related ones, but that's as close as I can see. Is IS not a bit different though? I mean, I can totally see your point over non-interference, but I think we can all agree that IS is a Bad Thing Indeed with no reasonable aims. Unlike the IRA, or even the Israel/Palestine situation, they're not interested in a political goal or taking their land back: They just want to see us wiped out completely. Sitting down with them and agreeing concessions is simply not an option, so what's left? Either sit back and do nothing and watch them murder innocent people in a foreign land, or use military force to wipe them out as best you can (accepting you'll never get 100%)? Tbh neither answer is particularly palatable in my eyes, but is there an alternative I've missed?

Just copy what your sources did. After all, they're the best as they've already done the hard work and no-one on here will know what they're talking about. But seriously, just pick an example you like and copy that.

Ridge Racer or GTFO

That's different: You then have a contract with the manufacturer if you pay for something! My original point stands. No contract, no legal recourse. At all. EDIT And again, if a manufacturer chooses to offer direct warranty assistance that's out of the goodness of their heart, not because of any legal requirement.

Because we don't rely on kebabs and olives as our main ways of raising cash

@JP: So you'd be happy for everyone to have everything monitored all the time? Also, this link may make for interesting reading for some not aware of why mass arrest and internment doesn't really work. Not aimed at you JP, I suspect you're aware of stuff like this.

It's illegal to go off to train to kill people, and people have been arrested and charged (and taken out by drone) for that. Thousands of people speed each day, despite knowing the laws. Making it illegal to look at bomb-making on the internet won't change people looking for it, they'll just go underground to the dark net and it'll be hidden. Would you be happy with the government tracking every single part of your life? I'm not exactly a tinfoil hat guy, and in general I'm very much of the nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear mindset, but even I baulk at the thought of The Man knowing every single thing about my life all the time. That's ultimately what you're advocating for.

Define get tough? Let's assume the police knew about this guy. Let's assume they can see his internet search history and he's been looking at ISIS sites, and chatting with ISIS mates about how the West is evil and someone should teach them a lesson. At that point, however much we may like it, he's done absolutely nothing wrong and tbh I wouldn't want to be in a country that arrested someone in that stage. Now when he starts buying bomb parts it's different, he's committed a crime and can (and should) be arrested. It's a slippery slope if you start down the road as the Thought Police. Where do you stop? Should I be arrested and detained if I say I'd like to punch Katie Hopkins in the face? Or how about if I say I hate all pikies? The line is a careful one, and we should be wary of stepping over it and becoming what we despise.