Reorte

Certainly a scam anyway.

My car's got a built-in satnav, but I can't say I've ever really felt the need to carry one with me everywhere I go.

It's all too easy to say "think of others", which I find a problematic argument because it can all too easily morph in to trying to guilt trip someone, no matter the actual level of risk. I prefer to think "how would I feel if I was in that situation? - would I prefer to have that risk to myself?" That of course has its own problems - there are, after all, plenty of people who behave stupidly with a "nah, won't happen to me" view, and for many it's hard to know for sure about things you've not actually experienced, but it at least avoids the attempt at guilt tripping. So yes, in a great many situations I would indeed prefer to live in a world where those risks exist than be surrounded with the solutions to them. Protecting my physical health like that has had a not insignificant negative impact on my mental health, contributing to my depression. There are numerous exceptions of course, I've no patience for taking a simple statement and applying in blindly to everything. And as I've said numerous times none of this actually means I'm taking WCR's side in this case.

Whilst I agree with the general thrust of that, and I've already said that personally I'd quite happily travel on trains with simple, straightforward doors, without CDL, it is a fact that a few people falling out of them every year was fairly usual, so it's not as if this is dealing with a purely theoretical risk that's never actually happened.

Why are we drowning under a barrage of discussions about water storage? Could they please be impounded until further notice so we can get the flow of whacky signs back?

My cat will usually avoid the bathroom, but she has snuck in occasionally, unnoticed, and accidentally ended up being shut in for quite some time.

Exactly why I don't support them on this. Irrespective of my views on individual issues they do not give the impression of a responsible company. That's something that would be a concern even if they were apparently doing everything they're told to without complaint (it would just be harder to spot). Whatever equipment and rules and so on you've got safety's still a concern if there's a cavalier attitude at work - no amount of technical answers will get around that. And conversely I'd be quite happy without a lot of them but with a company that's got a responsible attitude - even if that company complains publically about them.

Years ago, when I was still a kid, we dumped some leftover stew in the cat's bowl, and later found the meat still there but all the greens gone.

Aren't some of them set so that the trains go to the right-hand platform instead of the left? edit - Rannoch, apparently, so the sidings can be shunted without having to manually move and lock the spring-loaded points against their usual direction.

That sounds suitable for some of the track on my local line:

If trains had seatbelts and you had to wear them that might well be the final straw that puts me off using them for good. I already travel by train less than I used to because I find it an increasingly unpleasant experience anyway. I'd rather have the risk (TBH as I've said earlier I'd rather have the risk of things like straightforward doors too, not that that means I'm defending WCRC in this, since as I've said it's their job to follow the rules whatever they think of them).

Vapes - about the only things that smell even worse than cigarettes.

A few years ago my dad apparently grabbed my mum to point out the penguin in the field next to their house. It was a black and white cat.

What's the X-wing doing in the background on the second picture?

When they tried for laughs later on they usually fell very, very flat. The DS9 tribbles episode notwithstanding.

At least they'll correct things if pointed out to them, and will be in trouble if they deliberately make stuff up. It's a good point about filling schedules, having to fill more time than ever really doesn't help the standards in the news in the slightest.

Always been the case with news reporting for as long as I can remember to be fair. Whenever there's a story in a field you're familiar with it's usually apparent that the reporters aren't (and you can't expect them to be knowledgable about everything).

I had an embarrassing moment once when I stopped behind a queue of cars at the lights and wondered why my lane was taking so long to get moving, when the one next to me was going. I eventually spotted that there was no-one in the cars in front of me...

There's a little bit of freight on the West Highland too, the aluminium trains to Fort William. Don't think there's any log traffic any more though (would love to be proved wrong).

Is this actually Parcel Force? I had a package last weekend which had been sent by them with IIRC Tracked 24. So I could see the van right at the top of the track to my house on that. Shortly followed by an email saying "your package has been taken to the Post Office" (without even saying which one, although it gave the post code so I could find out).

It's true that people do commonly refer to VED as road tax, so it makes sense for gov.uk to say that. It's not claiming it's accurate but it does mean that people who are reading it know which payment they've got to make it's talking about.

Including those parts of the road network that don't pay for themselves and never could... On the railways Beeching's been mentioned, but I don't think it's all that controversial a view that, even if you put aside the erroneous assumptions made (e.g. not accounting for the feeder traffic from branch lines and assuming people wouldn't just stay in the car rather than driving further to a station) more lines should've stayed open than did, even if the economic case wasn't quite there. But it's also not a particularly controversial view that there were plenty of lines that couldn't and shouldn't, as unfortunate as that was. The right balance should've been, again (IMO) economic factors certainly having a big part to play, but not being the only one.

It'll all depend on just exactly how the forces were distributed and transmitted through the structure.

And of course you can get cars where although there is a rate it's zero (mine is, and frankly I find that a bit absurd, although of course there's still all the tax paid on the petrol).

edit: replying to two posts ago (another reply appeared whilst I was typing) And that's all well and good. I'm more than happy to pay taxes to contribute towards things I believe make the country a better place to live in even if they can't stand on their own two feet otherwise (which isn't solely just ones I personally benefit from). Obviously there have to be some limits there - the whole point about the economic considerations being limiting factors and a means to an end - but as a general concept, great. At the extreme it probably would make more economic sense just to let some people starve but who wants to live in a world where that would be seen as right and proper? And just because that's an extreme doesn't mean the same principle can't apply to less extreme scenarios. Now I'm not trying to argue that the particular proposal in this thread should therefore go ahead, just that the "it doesn't make economic sense" isn't an argument against it in its own right (although "it makes little economic sense to a very excessive degree" would).