BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

briantrumpet

Haha. Having pushed for erecting barriers to trade with Europe, it feels like they are going to keep pretending that there shouldn't be any barriers to trade.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/14/britain-delay-some-post-brexit-border-controls-brexit-covid

john80

Pross said:

john80 said:

We have removed the trailer test for post 1997 drivers this year. Who thinks this would have happened should we remained within the UK. Bit of a win for those that have not already sat this test at around £500 for training and a single test. As we all know those pre 1997 were just better drivers and deserved their 7.5T lorry and 3.5T trailer allowance.

Wait a minute - how did we leave the UK without me noticing? Did the Government bury this during Covid?

As someone who passed their test pre-1997 I'm always amazed that I can just jump in a 7.5t truck or tow a trailer that doubles the length of my vehicle. I used to tow a horse trailer semi-regularly for a few years and certainly at the start I felt that some training and a test should have been compulsory. Luckily I'd learned the basics on a corporate Land Rover event that included an obstacle course with trailers on the back of a Range Rover (that were brand new) but even then I would find myself hoping nothing would come the other way on single lane country roads. There's no way a standard driving test prepares anyone for towing or driving a 7.5t truck so I really don't see how this is seen as a benefit.

I guess you were lobbying to have you and all the other pre 1997 drivers sit the test as it is so difficult. Given it was the pre 1997 drivers that were all out crashing their trailers before the next generation got screwed.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Of course, you could have tried starting out by talking about trends, rather than picking one particularly high day and extrapolating a silly figure, and had a more nuanced discussion.

Yes, the trend is upwards. No-one's said otherwise.

OK so we've established the upward trend. Now explain why it's a good thing as I asked above.

Have we also established that your annualised figure was nonsense?

You missed my point above that taken over time, the numbers become substantial. Also if it is known that the UK is a soft touch when it comes to border enforcement, what do you think will happen to the numbers trying?

I'm guessing you're neither going to justify your ridiculous maths, nor going to admit your annualised figure was ridiculous.

As I said, no one's claiming the rate isn't going up, but your argument might be taken more seriously, and people might respond reasonably, if you were to accept that you engaged in hyperbole.

Dorset_Boy

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Of course, you could have tried starting out by talking about trends, rather than picking one particularly high day and extrapolating a silly figure, and had a more nuanced discussion.

Yes, the trend is upwards. No-one's said otherwise.

OK so we've established the upward trend. Now explain why it's a good thing as I asked above.

Have we also established that your annualised figure was nonsense?

You missed my point above that taken over time, the numbers become substantial. Also if it is known that the UK is a soft touch when it comes to border enforcement, what do you think will happen to the numbers trying?

I remain convinced that the numbers are inconsequential and that it is pure dog whistle politics for the Party membership and they end up pursuing idiotic policies as they make good photo opps.

I would totally agree that we have to make life difficult so as not to encourage people but this involves treading a fine line between treating people in a humane manner and not.

UK net migration has been in the region of 200-250,000 pa for years, which is about the population of Bournemouth and Poole combined.
Has the UK really planned and built the necessary infrastructure (net schools, hospital beds, GP surgeries etc) to accommodate those increases?

There also seems to have not really been a separation in the iscussion on here between refugees applying for asylum, and those who are economic migrants trying to get in to the UK illegally.

john80

monkimark said:

You think it is a Brexit win that loads of people can now drive large vehicles with trailers without any training? £500 is hardly a massive sum and in the current climate would probably be covered by the employer anyway.

The 1997 rule is presumably just the time that the people in charge of vehicle testing realised what a ridiculous situation it is but didn't want to immediately remove the entitlement from people who were potentially using it.
The rule was stupid in 1996 and it is stupid again now, the difference being that they have made an active decision to make the rules less safe.

I've done a bit of driving 7.5tonne trucks around a yard and a bit of driving with a trailer, the idea that I should be allowed to combine the 2 out on the roads without any other training seems entirely insane.

john80 said:

We have removed the trailer test for post 1997 drivers this year. Who thinks this would have happened should we remained within the UK. Bit of a win for those that have not already sat this test at around £500 for training and a single test. As we all know those pre 1997 were just better drivers and deserved their 7.5T lorry and 3.5T trailer allowance.

We test drivers at 17 and those are the most likely to crash in the year after their test. How could this be as they have demonstrated the competence required to drive. By your logic they should be the safest drivers. We then subjected this group in an additional trailer test. There is little to no link between driving safely and passing a test. I towed boats for 20 years before I sat this test as my van and a braked trailer took me over the limit. Literally all I had to do was drive a bit slower as I was towing a heavier trailer. It is £500 assuming you pass first time that does little to aid safety on the roads.

The benefit of this test removal is that the number of caravan and car combinations that scrape under the 3.5T limit will reduce and people will tow these caravans with larger vehicles that are more suitable. This is a clear benefit. If you spaff your caravan down the motorway I am happy to bring in a 10 year driving ban to aid safety. This will be significantly more beneficial than any test as it removes those off the road that can't drive to what they can see or those that can't concentrate. Remember Maureen passed on her 20th test or something like that.

elbowloh

Dorset_Boy said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Of course, you could have tried starting out by talking about trends, rather than picking one particularly high day and extrapolating a silly figure, and had a more nuanced discussion.

Yes, the trend is upwards. No-one's said otherwise.

OK so we've established the upward trend. Now explain why it's a good thing as I asked above.

Have we also established that your annualised figure was nonsense?

You missed my point above that taken over time, the numbers become substantial. Also if it is known that the UK is a soft touch when it comes to border enforcement, what do you think will happen to the numbers trying?

I remain convinced that the numbers are inconsequential and that it is pure dog whistle politics for the Party membership and they end up pursuing idiotic policies as they make good photo opps.

I would totally agree that we have to make life difficult so as not to encourage people but this involves treading a fine line between treating people in a humane manner and not.

UK net migration has been in the region of 200-250,000 pa for years, which is about the population of Bournemouth and Poole combined.
Has the UK really planned and built the necessary infrastructure (net schools, hospital beds, GP surgeries etc) to accommodate those increases?

There also seems to have not really been a separation in the iscussion on here between refugees applying for asylum, and those who are economic migrants trying to get in to the UK illegally.

As you say, we've been having that sort of population growth since about 1951 (so way before EU membership for example).

I wouldn't say that the infrastructure improvements have been planned in the main for that growth, but has been plodding along to try with keep up with demand. I know for a fact that population growth is taken in to account for railways infrastructure improvements, but clearly there are areas where that infrastructure needs a lot of work.

I think also that growth in our economy (and all capitalist economies) is pretty much dependent upon population growth.

surrey_commuter

john80 said:

monkimark said:

You think it is a Brexit win that loads of people can now drive large vehicles with trailers without any training? £500 is hardly a massive sum and in the current climate would probably be covered by the employer anyway.

The 1997 rule is presumably just the time that the people in charge of vehicle testing realised what a ridiculous situation it is but didn't want to immediately remove the entitlement from people who were potentially using it.
The rule was stupid in 1996 and it is stupid again now, the difference being that they have made an active decision to make the rules less safe.

I've done a bit of driving 7.5tonne trucks around a yard and a bit of driving with a trailer, the idea that I should be allowed to combine the 2 out on the roads without any other training seems entirely insane.

john80 said:

We have removed the trailer test for post 1997 drivers this year. Who thinks this would have happened should we remained within the UK. Bit of a win for those that have not already sat this test at around £500 for training and a single test. As we all know those pre 1997 were just better drivers and deserved their 7.5T lorry and 3.5T trailer allowance.

We test drivers at 17 and those are the most likely to crash in the year after their test. How could this be as they have demonstrated the competence required to drive. By your logic they should be the safest drivers. We then subjected this group in an additional trailer test. There is little to no link between driving safely and passing a test. I towed boats for 20 years before I sat this test as my van and a braked trailer took me over the limit. Literally all I had to do was drive a bit slower as I was towing a heavier trailer. It is £500 assuming you pass first time that does little to aid safety on the roads.

The benefit of this test removal is that the number of caravan and car combinations that scrape under the 3.5T limit will reduce and people will tow these caravans with larger vehicles that are more suitable. This is a clear benefit. If you spaff your caravan down the motorway I am happy to bring in a 10 year driving ban to aid safety. This will be significantly more beneficial than any test as it removes those off the road that can't drive to what they can see or those that can't concentrate. Remember Maureen passed on her 20th test or something like that.

who on earth is Maureen?

pangolin

Dorset_Boy said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Of course, you could have tried starting out by talking about trends, rather than picking one particularly high day and extrapolating a silly figure, and had a more nuanced discussion.

Yes, the trend is upwards. No-one's said otherwise.

OK so we've established the upward trend. Now explain why it's a good thing as I asked above.

Have we also established that your annualised figure was nonsense?

You missed my point above that taken over time, the numbers become substantial. Also if it is known that the UK is a soft touch when it comes to border enforcement, what do you think will happen to the numbers trying?

I remain convinced that the numbers are inconsequential and that it is pure dog whistle politics for the Party membership and they end up pursuing idiotic policies as they make good photo opps.

I would totally agree that we have to make life difficult so as not to encourage people but this involves treading a fine line between treating people in a humane manner and not.

UK net migration has been in the region of 200-250,000 pa for years, which is about the population of Bournemouth and Poole combined.
Has the UK really planned and built the necessary infrastructure (net schools, hospital beds, GP surgeries etc) to accommodate those increases?

There also seems to have not really been a separation in the iscussion on here between refugees applying for asylum, and those who are economic migrants trying to get in to the UK illegally.

We're discussing the impact of illegal channel crossings though DB. A larger overall net figure makes those illegal crossing more insignificant.

Dorset_Boy

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

monkimark said:

You think it is a Brexit win that loads of people can now drive large vehicles with trailers without any training? £500 is hardly a massive sum and in the current climate would probably be covered by the employer anyway.

The 1997 rule is presumably just the time that the people in charge of vehicle testing realised what a ridiculous situation it is but didn't want to immediately remove the entitlement from people who were potentially using it.
The rule was stupid in 1996 and it is stupid again now, the difference being that they have made an active decision to make the rules less safe.

I've done a bit of driving 7.5tonne trucks around a yard and a bit of driving with a trailer, the idea that I should be allowed to combine the 2 out on the roads without any other training seems entirely insane.

john80 said:

We have removed the trailer test for post 1997 drivers this year. Who thinks this would have happened should we remained within the UK. Bit of a win for those that have not already sat this test at around £500 for training and a single test. As we all know those pre 1997 were just better drivers and deserved their 7.5T lorry and 3.5T trailer allowance.

We test drivers at 17 and those are the most likely to crash in the year after their test. How could this be as they have demonstrated the competence required to drive. By your logic they should be the safest drivers. We then subjected this group in an additional trailer test. There is little to no link between driving safely and passing a test. I towed boats for 20 years before I sat this test as my van and a braked trailer took me over the limit. Literally all I had to do was drive a bit slower as I was towing a heavier trailer. It is £500 assuming you pass first time that does little to aid safety on the roads.

The benefit of this test removal is that the number of caravan and car combinations that scrape under the 3.5T limit will reduce and people will tow these caravans with larger vehicles that are more suitable. This is a clear benefit. If you spaff your caravan down the motorway I am happy to bring in a 10 year driving ban to aid safety. This will be significantly more beneficial than any test as it removes those off the road that can't drive to what they can see or those that can't concentrate. Remember Maureen passed on her 20th test or something like that.

who on earth is Maureen?

Do you not remember the TV reality show in which Maureen featured?

Dorset_Boy

pangolin said:

Dorset_Boy said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Of course, you could have tried starting out by talking about trends, rather than picking one particularly high day and extrapolating a silly figure, and had a more nuanced discussion.

Yes, the trend is upwards. No-one's said otherwise.

OK so we've established the upward trend. Now explain why it's a good thing as I asked above.

Have we also established that your annualised figure was nonsense?

You missed my point above that taken over time, the numbers become substantial. Also if it is known that the UK is a soft touch when it comes to border enforcement, what do you think will happen to the numbers trying?

I remain convinced that the numbers are inconsequential and that it is pure dog whistle politics for the Party membership and they end up pursuing idiotic policies as they make good photo opps.

I would totally agree that we have to make life difficult so as not to encourage people but this involves treading a fine line between treating people in a humane manner and not.

UK net migration has been in the region of 200-250,000 pa for years, which is about the population of Bournemouth and Poole combined.
Has the UK really planned and built the necessary infrastructure (net schools, hospital beds, GP surgeries etc) to accommodate those increases?

There also seems to have not really been a separation in the iscussion on here between refugees applying for asylum, and those who are economic migrants trying to get in to the UK illegally.

We're discussing the impact of illegal channel crossings though DB. A larger overall net figure makes those illegal crossing more insignificant.

True, it is probably around 10% max of the overall net migration figure, but how many of the boat crossers are refugees and how many are illegal migrants?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Of course, you could have tried starting out by talking about trends, rather than picking one particularly high day and extrapolating a silly figure, and had a more nuanced discussion.

Yes, the trend is upwards. No-one's said otherwise.

OK so we've established the upward trend. Now explain why it's a good thing as I asked above.

Have we also established that your annualised figure was nonsense?

You missed my point above that taken over time, the numbers become substantial. Also if it is known that the UK is a soft touch when it comes to border enforcement, what do you think will happen to the numbers trying?

Last I checked, our border is not in France. Although we do have one between different bits of the UK, now.

A proportionally tiny number of refugees a year, of which a yet smaller number stay, is still a tiny number when you add it up over tens of years. If you genuinely are worried about immigration, look at the other 97% who obtain visas.

surrey_commuter

Dorset_Boy said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

monkimark said:

You think it is a Brexit win that loads of people can now drive large vehicles with trailers without any training? £500 is hardly a massive sum and in the current climate would probably be covered by the employer anyway.

The 1997 rule is presumably just the time that the people in charge of vehicle testing realised what a ridiculous situation it is but didn't want to immediately remove the entitlement from people who were potentially using it.
The rule was stupid in 1996 and it is stupid again now, the difference being that they have made an active decision to make the rules less safe.

I've done a bit of driving 7.5tonne trucks around a yard and a bit of driving with a trailer, the idea that I should be allowed to combine the 2 out on the roads without any other training seems entirely insane.

john80 said:

We have removed the trailer test for post 1997 drivers this year. Who thinks this would have happened should we remained within the UK. Bit of a win for those that have not already sat this test at around £500 for training and a single test. As we all know those pre 1997 were just better drivers and deserved their 7.5T lorry and 3.5T trailer allowance.

We test drivers at 17 and those are the most likely to crash in the year after their test. How could this be as they have demonstrated the competence required to drive. By your logic they should be the safest drivers. We then subjected this group in an additional trailer test. There is little to no link between driving safely and passing a test. I towed boats for 20 years before I sat this test as my van and a braked trailer took me over the limit. Literally all I had to do was drive a bit slower as I was towing a heavier trailer. It is £500 assuming you pass first time that does little to aid safety on the roads.

The benefit of this test removal is that the number of caravan and car combinations that scrape under the 3.5T limit will reduce and people will tow these caravans with larger vehicles that are more suitable. This is a clear benefit. If you spaff your caravan down the motorway I am happy to bring in a 10 year driving ban to aid safety. This will be significantly more beneficial than any test as it removes those off the road that can't drive to what they can see or those that can't concentrate. Remember Maureen passed on her 20th test or something like that.

who on earth is Maureen?

Do you not remember the TV reality show in which Maureen featured?

reality TV is not my strong point

Pross

john80 said:

Pross said:

john80 said:

We have removed the trailer test for post 1997 drivers this year. Who thinks this would have happened should we remained within the UK. Bit of a win for those that have not already sat this test at around £500 for training and a single test. As we all know those pre 1997 were just better drivers and deserved their 7.5T lorry and 3.5T trailer allowance.

Wait a minute - how did we leave the UK without me noticing? Did the Government bury this during Covid?

As someone who passed their test pre-1997 I'm always amazed that I can just jump in a 7.5t truck or tow a trailer that doubles the length of my vehicle. I used to tow a horse trailer semi-regularly for a few years and certainly at the start I felt that some training and a test should have been compulsory. Luckily I'd learned the basics on a corporate Land Rover event that included an obstacle course with trailers on the back of a Range Rover (that were brand new) but even then I would find myself hoping nothing would come the other way on single lane country roads. There's no way a standard driving test prepares anyone for towing or driving a 7.5t truck so I really don't see how this is seen as a benefit.

I guess you were lobbying to have you and all the other pre 1997 drivers sit the test as it is so difficult. Given it was the pre 1997 drivers that were all out crashing their trailers before the next generation got screwed.

No, in the same way as if we didn't need to pass a driving test and it was suddenly introduced for future drivers I doubt many people already driving would voluntarily sit the test. That doesn't mean it would be a good thing though. Luckily the numbers driving 7.5t vehicles or towing are pretty small.

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Of course, you could have tried starting out by talking about trends, rather than picking one particularly high day and extrapolating a silly figure, and had a more nuanced discussion.

Yes, the trend is upwards. No-one's said otherwise.

OK so we've established the upward trend. Now explain why it's a good thing as I asked above.

Have we also established that your annualised figure was nonsense?

You missed my point above that taken over time, the numbers become substantial. Also if it is known that the UK is a soft touch when it comes to border enforcement, what do you think will happen to the numbers trying?

I remain convinced that the numbers are inconsequential and that it is pure dog whistle politics for the Party membership and they end up pursuing idiotic policies as they make good photo opps.

I would totally agree that we have to make life difficult so as not to encourage people but this involves treading a fine line between treating people in a humane manner and not.

UK net migration has been in the region of 200-250,000 pa for years, which is about the population of Bournemouth and Poole combined.
Has the UK really planned and built the necessary infrastructure (net schools, hospital beds, GP surgeries etc) to accommodate those increases?

There also seems to have not really been a separation in the iscussion on here between refugees applying for asylum, and those who are economic migrants trying to get in to the UK illegally.

About 97% of that immigration is people with visas or other right to remain. The government decides how many visas to issue, so presumably there is some sort of plan. Whether that extends to area by area provision of schools hospitals, etc. I doubt. But even the peak of I think 330,000 is still 0.5% of the total population. Most of those will end up in the major urban centres. Of course more thought could be given to how the provision of services and amenities are managed to meet population growth, but the idea that we can't cope is slightly ridiculous when the vast majority of immigration is people we invited in.

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

pangolin said:

Dorset_Boy said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Of course, you could have tried starting out by talking about trends, rather than picking one particularly high day and extrapolating a silly figure, and had a more nuanced discussion.

Yes, the trend is upwards. No-one's said otherwise.

OK so we've established the upward trend. Now explain why it's a good thing as I asked above.

Have we also established that your annualised figure was nonsense?

You missed my point above that taken over time, the numbers become substantial. Also if it is known that the UK is a soft touch when it comes to border enforcement, what do you think will happen to the numbers trying?

I remain convinced that the numbers are inconsequential and that it is pure dog whistle politics for the Party membership and they end up pursuing idiotic policies as they make good photo opps.

I would totally agree that we have to make life difficult so as not to encourage people but this involves treading a fine line between treating people in a humane manner and not.

UK net migration has been in the region of 200-250,000 pa for years, which is about the population of Bournemouth and Poole combined.
Has the UK really planned and built the necessary infrastructure (net schools, hospital beds, GP surgeries etc) to accommodate those increases?

There also seems to have not really been a separation in the iscussion on here between refugees applying for asylum, and those who are economic migrants trying to get in to the UK illegally.

We're discussing the impact of illegal channel crossings though DB. A larger overall net figure makes those illegal crossing more insignificant.

True, it is probably around 10% max of the overall net migration figure, but how many of the boat crossers are refugees and how many are illegal migrants?

Successful applicants numbered about 8,000 last year, so subtract that from your 10% and there's your answer. The unsuccessful applicants eventually leave after due process has been exhausted.

I'm sure there are a small number of undocumented people but the number must be so small as to be negligible.

ddraver

Pross said:

john80 said:

Pross said:

john80 said:

We have removed the trailer test for post 1997 drivers this year. Who thinks this would have happened should we remained within the UK. Bit of a win for those that have not already sat this test at around £500 for training and a single test. As we all know those pre 1997 were just better drivers and deserved their 7.5T lorry and 3.5T trailer allowance.

Wait a minute - how did we leave the UK without me noticing? Did the Government bury this during Covid?

As someone who passed their test pre-1997 I'm always amazed that I can just jump in a 7.5t truck or tow a trailer that doubles the length of my vehicle. I used to tow a horse trailer semi-regularly for a few years and certainly at the start I felt that some training and a test should have been compulsory. Luckily I'd learned the basics on a corporate Land Rover event that included an obstacle course with trailers on the back of a Range Rover (that were brand new) but even then I would find myself hoping nothing would come the other way on single lane country roads. There's no way a standard driving test prepares anyone for towing or driving a 7.5t truck so I really don't see how this is seen as a benefit.

I guess you were lobbying to have you and all the other pre 1997 drivers sit the test as it is so difficult. Given it was the pre 1997 drivers that were all out crashing their trailers before the next generation got screwed.

No, in the same way as if we didn't need to pass a driving test and it was suddenly introduced for future drivers I doubt many people already driving would voluntarily sit the test. That doesn't mean it would be a good thing though. Luckily the numbers driving 7.5t vehicles or towing are pretty small.

Be aware that they need to do it without any financial reward too. Not much cross over between those two circles

(horse folk, and, as apparently I found out this weekend, MX folk)

john80

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

monkimark said:

You think it is a Brexit win that loads of people can now drive large vehicles with trailers without any training? £500 is hardly a massive sum and in the current climate would probably be covered by the employer anyway.

The 1997 rule is presumably just the time that the people in charge of vehicle testing realised what a ridiculous situation it is but didn't want to immediately remove the entitlement from people who were potentially using it.
The rule was stupid in 1996 and it is stupid again now, the difference being that they have made an active decision to make the rules less safe.

I've done a bit of driving 7.5tonne trucks around a yard and a bit of driving with a trailer, the idea that I should be allowed to combine the 2 out on the roads without any other training seems entirely insane.

john80 said:

We have removed the trailer test for post 1997 drivers this year. Who thinks this would have happened should we remained within the UK. Bit of a win for those that have not already sat this test at around £500 for training and a single test. As we all know those pre 1997 were just better drivers and deserved their 7.5T lorry and 3.5T trailer allowance.

We test drivers at 17 and those are the most likely to crash in the year after their test. How could this be as they have demonstrated the competence required to drive. By your logic they should be the safest drivers. We then subjected this group in an additional trailer test. There is little to no link between driving safely and passing a test. I towed boats for 20 years before I sat this test as my van and a braked trailer took me over the limit. Literally all I had to do was drive a bit slower as I was towing a heavier trailer. It is £500 assuming you pass first time that does little to aid safety on the roads.

The benefit of this test removal is that the number of caravan and car combinations that scrape under the 3.5T limit will reduce and people will tow these caravans with larger vehicles that are more suitable. This is a clear benefit. If you spaff your caravan down the motorway I am happy to bring in a 10 year driving ban to aid safety. This will be significantly more beneficial than any test as it removes those off the road that can't drive to what they can see or those that can't concentrate. Remember Maureen passed on her 20th test or something like that.

who on earth is Maureen?

She became infamous in a TV show about learning to drive some years ago. She was pretty bad at driving and had essentially zero spacial awareness. She probably does not tow things though as passing the test was tough enough for her.

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

taken over time, the numbers become substantial.

Superb

Ben6899

Stevo_666 said:

Ben6899 said:

Stevo_666 said:

Does also show how minor the whinges have become.

Ahem, it cost me £200 to bring our cat to Germany.

Oh and the price of the timber needed for some new stud walls in our flat… has doubled (although that might be COVID- and sudden demand-related?)

A. Did your cat need a holiday? Is there also a shortage of cat sitters?

B. I take it you know that there are several factors involved in the price of materials that you mention, despite the best efforts of some to blame it all on Brexit.

We’ve moved out for two months while our flat is reno’d. First stop Germany. So yeh she had to come with us. My gripe is the red tape that we have to cut through to bring her despite Brexit getting rid of the EU and its red tape.

I was wrong on the timber, that’s fair.

ddraver

Waitrose here has given up on the "stretching out ranges" approach and switched to the "Isle? What Isle, there was never an isle here? No that long thin isle-shaped tent was always there it really was!" approach...

surrey_commuter

Top tip from my bro in retail is to buy your kids Xmas presents as soon as you can.

rjsterry

ddraver said:

Waitrose here has given up on the "stretching out ranges" approach and switched to the "Isle? What Isle, there was never an isle here? No that long thin isle-shaped tent was always there it really was!" approach...

You have an island in Waitrose with a tent over it?

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

ddraver said:

Waitrose here has given up on the "stretching out ranges" approach and switched to the "Isle? What Isle, there was never an isle here? No that long thin isle-shaped tent was always there it really was!" approach...

You have an island in Waitrose with a tent over it?

Aisle be darned.

tailwindhome

Going well then

elbowloh

tailwindhome said:

Going well then

So he's leading us back into the single market?

ddraver

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

ddraver said:

Waitrose here has given up on the "stretching out ranges" approach and switched to the "Isle? What Isle, there was never an isle here? No that long thin isle-shaped tent was always there it really was!" approach...

You have an island in Waitrose with a tent over it?

Aisle be darned.

Fuck....

surrey_commuter

tailwindhome said:

Going well then

It seems like only last week that we were in denial this was even happening and now the Govt fixer has been charged with sorting it out.

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

tailwindhome said:

Going well then

It seems like only last week that we were in denial this was even happening and now the Govt fixer has been charged with sorting it out.

Should be an easy job then. Nothing to see here, move on...

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

tailwindhome said:

Going well then

It seems like only last week that we were in denial this was even happening and now the Govt fixer has been charged with sorting it out.

There was no sparkling water apparently so urgent action became needed at Ministerial level.

webboo

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

tailwindhome said:

Going well then

It seems like only last week that we were in denial this was even happening and now the Govt fixer has been charged with sorting it out.

There was no sparkling water apparently so urgent action became needed at Ministerial level.

Rightly so.