Jump to content

Really


luggsy

Featured Posts

8 hours ago, frangar said:

I notice it’s now an auction tho...so that’s the starting price....who knows where it will get to....

 

I can see the auction getting wrecked by jokers bidding it up to £1.5m or something. Which would seem appropriate given the seller's obvious sense of humour.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I can see the auction getting wrecked by jokers bidding it up to £1.5m or something. Which would seem appropriate given the seller's obvious sense of humour.

 

 

It does still say it’s got a BSC till June.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I would suggest that equivalents would be the introduction of motorcycle helmets or seat-belts in cars and there use made mandatory - there did not seem to be any conflict about 'liberties' and safety when they were introduced.

 

 

WHAT????!!!!!!

 

Maybe you weren't paying attention or maybe my memory is warped, but ISTR endless arguments and total uproar at the time over both those measures before each became law, in the teeth of heavy opposition from the libertarians.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You would not think that the boating community was against the introduction of CO alarms and that they could see the benefits of a £20 life saver without being told that they MUST have one.

 

 

The danger from CO detectors is a subtle one. 

 

Just as the wearing of seat belts has encouraged people to feel safe driving faster, CO detectors encourage people to worry less about maintaining their stoves and gas appliances.

 

When CO detectors first came along and were quite expensive, I had a string of customers tell me in all seriousness they had invested in one because it would save them money, it being cheaper than having their boiler regularly serviced. Quite shocking to meet this attitude face to face in real life. 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

The danger from CO detectors is a subtle one. 

 

Just as the wearing of seat belts has encouraged people to feel safe driving faster, CO detectors encourage people to worry less about maintaining their stoves and gas appliances.

 

When CO detectors first came along and were quite expensive, I had a string of customers tell me in all seriousness they had invested in one because it would save them money, it being cheaper than having their boiler regularly serviced. Quite shocking to meet this attitude face to face in real life. 

 

 

 

 

I wonder how many novice drivers feel safe when restrained by a seat belt and drive recklessly as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

I wonder how many novice drivers feel safe when restrained by a seat belt and drive recklessly as a result.

 

Its an established effect found in drivers of all levels of experience, not just novices. 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

WHAT????!!!!!!

 

Maybe you weren't paying attention or maybe my memory is warped, but ISTR endless arguments and total uproar at the time over both those measures before each became law, in the teeth of heavy opposition from the libertarians.

 

Agreed - I remember it well and I was well unimpressed when I had to have a bike-helmet.

My point was more 'it happened anyway irrespective of personal rights', rather than no one was against it.

 

To quote Enoch Powell in the Commons arguing against the introduction (1973)

 

The last and the most beguiling argument—and I imagine it is the argument which operates upon those hon. Members who will reject my argument and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South—is that if this crime is created there will be fewer road casualties from this cause. That is the most alarming argument of all that could be used in this House of Commons: that because by doing so we could reduce the number of deaths from a particular cause—not deaths inflicted by other people’s carelessness, not deaths resulting from the omission of precautions which those who manufacture articles or sell them could have been caused to take, but deaths resulting from private and uniquely personal decisions—therefore we can make it a crime to take that sort of risk.

That argument is the most dangerous because it is the most beguiling. When one bastion after another of individual freedom, of independence, is breached, it does not happen in an unpopular context. It does not happen when the reasons for doing so are unattractive. It does so when sentiment and emotion and the feelings of all of us are engaged. None of us likes to contemplate the notion of a young man whose life could have been saved being lost because he was not wearing a crash helmet. Our first natural instinct and reaction, having legislative power in our hands, is to use that legislative power.

But that is where the danger lies. The abuse of legislative power by this House is far more serious and more far-reaching in its effects than the loss of individual lives through foolish decisions. I say just that and I repeat that, as a Member of the House of Commons speaking to the House of Commons. The maintenance of the principles of individual freedom and responsibility is more important than the avoidance of the loss of lives through the personal decision of individuals, whether those lives are lost swimming or mountaineering or boating, or riding horseback, or on a motor cycle.

We are sent here to make laws and to preserve liberties. If we allow this regulation to stand, we shall have failed in the duties we were sent here to perform”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

WHAT????!!!!!!

 

Maybe you weren't paying attention or maybe my memory is warped, but ISTR endless arguments and total uproar at the time over both those measures before each became law, in the teeth of heavy opposition from the libertarians.

 

 

 

Not to mention Sikhs whose faith requires the wearing of headgear incompatible with crash hats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Agreed - I remember it well and I was well unimpressed when I had to have a bike-helmet.

My point was more 'it happened anyway irrespective of personal rights', rather than no one was against it.

 

To quote Enoch Powell in the Commons arguing against the introduction (1973)

 

The last and the most beguiling argument—and I imagine it is the argument which operates upon those hon. Members who will reject my argument and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South—is that if this crime is created there will be fewer road casualties from this cause. That is the most alarming argument of all that could be used in this House of Commons: that because by doing so we could reduce the number of deaths from a particular cause—not deaths inflicted by other people’s carelessness, not deaths resulting from the omission of precautions which those who manufacture articles or sell them could have been caused to take, but deaths resulting from private and uniquely personal decisions—therefore we can make it a crime to take that sort of risk.

That argument is the most dangerous because it is the most beguiling. When one bastion after another of individual freedom, of independence, is breached, it does not happen in an unpopular context. It does not happen when the reasons for doing so are unattractive. It does so when sentiment and emotion and the feelings of all of us are engaged. None of us likes to contemplate the notion of a young man whose life could have been saved being lost because he was not wearing a crash helmet. Our first natural instinct and reaction, having legislative power in our hands, is to use that legislative power.

But that is where the danger lies. The abuse of legislative power by this House is far more serious and more far-reaching in its effects than the loss of individual lives through foolish decisions. I say just that and I repeat that, as a Member of the House of Commons speaking to the House of Commons. The maintenance of the principles of individual freedom and responsibility is more important than the avoidance of the loss of lives through the personal decision of individuals, whether those lives are lost swimming or mountaineering or boating, or riding horseback, or on a motor cycle.

We are sent here to make laws and to preserve liberties. If we allow this regulation to stand, we shall have failed in the duties we were sent here to perform”.

I too remember the fuss it caused. Bikers organised protest runs.  The 'Shout' was Helmets, Yes! Compulsion, No!  We all knew Lids made sence, we just objected to being ordered to wear them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Taslim said:

I too remember the fuss it caused. Bikers organised protest runs.  The 'Shout' was Helmets, Yes! Compulsion, No!  We all knew Lids made sence, we just objected to being ordered to wear them.

At the time of the implementation I was driving a triumph 650 with an open fairground style single seat sidecar. Me and pillion wearing helmets, sidecar passenger bare headed. That was legal. We were pulled by an officious police officer who hadn't learned his trade. Gave me a producer but no further action. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Agreed - I remember it well and I was well unimpressed when I had to have a bike-helmet.

 

When did cycle helmets become compulsory I must have missed that.  I still see quite a few on the C2C without helmets.

 

EDIT WHoops I have just realised you are talking Motor Bikes not bikes.

Edited by Jerra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I can see the auction getting wrecked by jokers bidding it up to £1.5m or something. Which would seem appropriate given the seller's obvious sense of humour.

 

 

interesting point.   AFAIK the only sanction ebay has is to cancel your account if you bid, win, and then don't pay.   A group of people with access to other peoples' IP addresses could create all sorts of disruption.......  and to add insult to injury, if they didn't win because they only bid £1,499,999.80 they would probably get invited to make a second chance offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

interesting point.   AFAIK the only sanction ebay has is to cancel your account if you bid, win, and then don't pay.   A group of people with access to other peoples' IP addresses could create all sorts of disruption.......  and to add insult to injury, if they didn't win because they only bid £1,499,999.80 they would probably get invited to make a second chance offer.

 

 

IIRC eBay go to considerable lengths to distance themselves from being a proper auction governed by the bidding laws of the land i.e. that a contract is formed on fall of the gavel. 

 

So yes the only sacntion is by eBay,. The seller could sue for performance of a contract but first s/he would have to prove to the court a contract exists in the first place. I'm sure this must have been played out in court here long ago and the action lost. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.