Jerra

As I said I assumed (wrongly it seems) that you would put 2 and 2 together and realise "this" referred to the graph which you had just commented on. Clearly I was making too great an assumption. However I must be mistaken I thought I was posting in a discussion forum where people replied back and forward to points made. Which to me suggested asking if people (you as you seemed to have taken up the discussion) felt a journal such as Nature would be using a misrepresentation. That to me is not an unusual sort of way to post.

I am sorry, I thought you would realise the conversation was continuing from your comment about the graph in #154

This is from Nature 453, 15th May 2008. Would they be using Gores misrepresentation?

Does that statement agree with this graph? I admit to not being brilliant with strange hybrid graphs but to my eye it seems to show the opposite. It also seems to suggest C02 is about 25% higher than at any of the cyclic "global warmings" of the last 400,000 years.

Which doesn't tie in with You should not use the badge to allow non-disabled people to take advantage of the benefits while you sit in the car (Strange I can't take off bold.) There is a difference to me between a passenger travelling in the car and getting out to say go to the shop or a service station and put Granny in the car we can park near the supermarket entrance, she doesn't have to get out. One is travelling with the driver the other is giving people the benefits of the badge while they sit in the car. Personally I expect the information given out when you get the badge is correct i.e. the statement I copied. I think your quote covers this by the are personally making use of a parking concession. If you are siting in the car you aren't making use of the concession somebody else is. The car could be parked anywhere unless the handicapped person is getting out.

If part of the law doesn't apply on a car park then none of it does. The only mention of private car parks in the leaflet is that you may be charged to park. Surely using a space set aside by a supermarket is gaining advantage for others by using your badge and as such illegal.

Actually having looked it up they aren't entitled. From the government website. You should not use the badge to allow non-disabled people to take advantage of the benefits while you sit in the car It also points out misuse of the badge carries a £1000 fine.

I think you might find that if "granny" had a blue badge they were indeed entitled even if she didn't get out of the car. I agree it isn't right or necessary but I am fairly sure those are the rules. Prepared to be corrected if anyone has more recent knowledge.

I must have missed the announcement that there was going to be some kind of levy. I thought currently it was up to individuals as to whether they gave or not, I suppose the French state will be contributing as they own the building.

I would basically agree parents with "pushchair" age children need extra space to load and unload (been there done that) but they do not need to be near the building. Clearly "mum" isn't aware that younger folk can have mobility problems :-))

An interesting comment. There is a thread on the forum where the opinion of experts is regularly debunked.

Obviously but it is the cheerful disregard for the handicapped that amazes me. My brother can't walk far, and has a blue badge, often even without electric charging points all handicapped places are full.

I find it interesting that when placing the charging points they assume all drivers of electric cars are disabled. Well they must think that as they always seem to remove handicapped parking and put the charging points nearest the entry to the building.

They are trying to keep themselves cheerful. Suddenly they have gone from down in the dumps "we are going to be robbed" to the opposite end of the pendulum acting as if it has actually taken place already.

About as far away (sorry a little further) than it did in the Brexiteer camp. Read the threads there has been considerably more playing the man and insult from Brexiteers.