Ekona

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.

That's the Bond I grew up with.

At 37 I'm totally down with the kids too. Definitely not old. Nope. But no, I would say that outlook is down to the person, rather than a generational thing or even a 20s/30s/40s/whatever thing. In general, I've a very positive outlook on life (although I may not choose to share it with the internet!), and very rarely do I ever look at world events and be remotely bothered by them. I'm far more annoyed if I drop the last Jaffa Cake on the floor than I am by a million starving kids in Africa, for example. I'll make the best of whatever events the world conspires to give me.

In that case, go forth and modify sir!

That makes us no better than them, and then they're also free to go and do what they want surely? We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Fair enough, I'd forgotten about him. Still, he was punished for his crimes and tbh that sentence would seem reasonable to me.

But who is they? The actual terrorists sure, but they're all going suicide attacks these days, so who is left? You may have many people who sympathise with a terrorist cause, but would never dream of carrying something out. Should they be jailed for their thoughts and inactions?

Real hate preachers are very few and far between. Sure, we know Abu Hamza, but who else? No-one that I can think of, and certainly no-one in the last few years since ISIS took over from Al Qaeda in being the biggest concern for terrorism. We can't just jail people because they've said a couple of dodgy things, else you'll quickly find yourself put in prison under the same laws.

It's not the ones walking around preaching hate that I'm worried about, it's the ones that aren't.

Oi, Little Mix are ace! Apart from their current album which admittedly is terrible, but the last few have been superb. I can understand your concern, I really can. Not an easy decision, but personally I feel we shouldn't change anything we do to let the b*stards win. Easy for me to say though, I don't have kids.

I was looking to pick up some tickets to one of Grande's shows as well but they all sold out too fast. In terms of an attack, it couldn't have been a more perfect target. Heartbreaking to see images on social media of family desperately searching for their loved ones

AWESOME But RIP to the OG PS

£45Bn a year on interest alone. Insane.

Good reply, thanks Stu. My counterpoint would be that we're living in a different world now, where we have an increasingly ageing population and that care now costs a ton more than it ever did. Now, again I don't disagree with you that it should be free in an ideal world, but we don't have the funds to support that right now. Tax breaks aren't there to make life cheaper for us, they're there to boost the economy which in turn generates more money than higher taxes (see: the removal of the 50% band). Once we have the spare cash then sure, help the old people, but right now I can't see anything wrong in expecting people to be able to make sure they pay their way when needed. Or to put it another way, you should pay for stuff whilst you're alive (this dementia tax) but you shouldn't when you're dead (inheritance tax, which I'm massively against). Not sure how the Norway example works, it's not like their old people contribute massively to society. In fact, anyone over 65 should just be put down, save us all the hassle.

It's the opposite of a Labour policy: It's putting the onus on the person not the state. It's not suffering, it's fair.

It's the same argument as when you buy a mobile phone on contract from Carphone Warehouse or direct from Vodafone (or whoever), if the phone breaks they have a legal responsibility to sort it for you. Now they may point you at the manufacturer, and it may well be quicker to go direct to the manufacturer who will help you (for instance, if your iPhone goes wrong you just book an appointment at a Genius Bar and it'll often be done there and then for you for free), but the law is very clear that the seller is the one who has legal responsibilities to help you out. If they don't, or if they refuse, you have recourse via the courts.

Completely untrue. You have no contract with the manufacturer, only the seller. As I said, the GPU manufacturer may choose to help you, but legally it's the seller who has to.

Really, Brexit is the single most important issue to be voting on right now. Ignore the NHS and education and police and old people stuff, all that will still be utterly broken in 5 years regardless of who gets into power. Brexit will define this country for the next 30 years at least, it's critical we get this right and stand our ground rather than give away concession after concession. I do not believe that Corbyn will be strong enough to do that for the good of the entire country, and I believe that a hard Brexit would be better than the wrong deal (although of course I'd rather have a good deal over either!). All the other stuff on these manifestos is garbage and relatively unimportant. If you only vote on one issue, make it Brexit.

I agree it was a policy that was badly worded, however I'm struggling to see what's bad about it. Why should the state have to pay for nursing costs when the person still has assets, albeit tied up in property? That's ridiculous, and it's not like they're even saying they're going to take every last penny either, there will still be £100K left to pass on to your kids. How can that be argued against? Labour's promise to cut all tuition fees from September will cost the taxpayer £15Bn minimum this year. That's over 10% of the annual NHS budget, to give comparison. So where's that money coming from then? We certainly don't have it hanging around, so there's more borrowing straight away. It's a cavalier and dangerous attitude to have. As I've said before, I have no problem with the policy in general, as long as the economy can support it. We have a rather large Brexit bill to come, it's madness to promise stuff like this.

They're still producing them for OEM, and will be contractually obligated to do so. However, there's no benefit for Lexus to insist on this as that's now an 'old' tyre and why wouldn't you want the latest and greatest on the car... Let's not forget you can still buy new RE040s!

You have no contract with the manufacturer, therefore there is no warranty for them to apply. Your contract is with the seller, and they have to apply to the current applicable law (so the CRA 2015 if bought recently) which will state presumptions about the goods etc. The manufacturer may choose to help you out, but they are under no legal obligation to. The seller is, and all recourse should be obtained through them.

Exhaust system changes means you can change headers, cats, midpipe and backbox as often as you want. That's what I have on my car, means I'm free to experiment without paying an admin fee every time.