free hit
andydclements's Content - The Lotus Forums #ForTheOwners Jump to content


Basic Account
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by andydclements

  1. Finding a driver's door for an Excel. In my shed but I had forgotten its exact detail. It's blue , it has a half decent frame, it has glass and most importantly the glass has a hole for a mirror, so I can see a way to get the blue metallic Excel to have two glass-mounted mirrors instead of one glass and one doorshell-mounted. I guess I shoul now post in the unhappy thread about yet another job to do.

    • Like 1
  2. Although technically @Big Vern it wasn't S3 NA and S3 Turbo, it was S3 (that followed Esprit ( later referred to as S1) S2 and S2.2) and Turbo Esprit (which was the first turbocharged Esprit model and so there was no S1 Turbo nor S2 Turbo ), but so many call the TE the  "S3 Turbo Esprit" hence we have to do what you did and use the term NA to be clear what sort of induction it had.

  3. The solicitors may be happy to transfer the funds directly to different institutions, but check whether and how much they will charge you for it. That way you'd not be exposed to the funds being above the £85k protection.  If you do have to do it yourself, make sure that the bank you send it to have counter service on the day it arrives with them, so that you can go in and complete any security checks (in case telephone centre cannot do it), not all banks have counters open all days/ times that the branch doors are physically open.


    Edit: It appears your funds would be protected by the solicitors for up to 6 months, whilst they hold it despite being over £85k.




    • ‘temporary high deposits’ over £85,000, for up to six months, if they result from life events such as a property sale, an insurance payout, a compensation payment, a divorce settlement or an inheritance 


  4. 10 hours ago, Buddsy said:

    Ive never mentioned any kind of assault. I was talking about resisting arrest.



    By nature of resisting arrest it is assault, if it involves touching the officer. Fleeing to avoid arrest is very different but physically acting so as to resist meets the definition of assault.

    • Like 1
  5. But @Buddsy just read on a few lines, you've even shown the text that shows it is illegal. Perhaps you need to consider that "assault" is in effect touching (that's a bit over simplistic but the point being it doesn't have to be particularly violent).

    Section 89 of the Police Act 1996 states:[10]

    (1) Any person who assaults a constable in the execution of their duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of their duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.



    Following a series of attacks they finally created a new law, and that is even more specif.


    Assault with intent to resist arrest

    Assault with intent to resist arrest - s.38 OAPA 1861 - carries a maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment. Prosecution of this offence requires evidence of the defendant’s intention to resist arrest when committing an assault. In applying section 6 of the Code, prosecutors should consider the evidence to determine whether section 38 OAPA 1861 is preferable to the 2018 Act offence where the elements of the section 38 offence are made out.

  6. 59 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

    @Buddsy I’m with you on this chap. Police in the uk police by consent. The second they start to behave the way they are then it’s not via consent. 

    @mg4lotus actually the police and the establishment are using emergency laws passed in the name of covid utterly out of context. That’s the point at debate.

    And I agree with you wholeheartedly on that second point.

    It has been proven that the enforcement in some cases has been incorrect interpretation, the most obvious one being where a certain senior officer indicated their officers would start checking shopping bags to see that only essentials had been purchased, despite nothing in the laws indicated only essentials could be purchased. That's just one example of what must either be blatant disregard for the laws as written or complete incompetence in the ability to understand them.  Other errors may have simply been misinterpretation, some caused by the way the laws were drafted and some just by our government not being able to be clear what's law and what's advice.



    Regards @Buddsy point that the police have no right to cause physical harm.

    That is debatable, they have the right to use reasonable force so it depends on the situation. If the person resists arrest and the police use force to arrest the person and it results in harm, it then comes down to that case on its merits whether it was reasonable. A person being arrested has no right to resist, so generally I'd say I side with the police on that one in many cases but there are some where officers loose control of themselves or simply act unreasonably.  Hopefully such cases are the in the minority, and hopefully we never get to the sort of policing we see on the media that happens in the USA etc, but I do appreciate we only see the arrests that are called out as problematic not the actions where the police are acting appropriately.


    • Love 1
  7. It's probably less useful then the exit interviews when an employee leaves a company.  In this case, the person giving "evidence" knows that they have been vilified in the press, so it may just slightly help to attack others.  If it were actual documented evidence, and no opinions then it might have a hope of achieving something, as it is it looks more like a trial of a witch.

  8. on quick scan it appears however written about when the vaccine(s) were in trial stages, that the volunteers for the trials should be made aware that the (unproven at that time) vaccine could have unknown consequences. Not written from the perspective that the vaccine which has completed the necessary clinical trials, should have patients informed of such potential consequences.

    To me, volunteers who take part in clinical trials should and must be made aware of possible consequences, that's only right and decent thing to do. 



    • Like 2
  9. Lots of people don't realise that they can pay cash to their normal bank account at a Post Office. I know Post Offices are disappearing as well, but there's normally at least one in each town.

    • Like 2
  10. 31 minutes ago, Colin P said:

    Grabbed a coffee from one of those vans on my daily walk last week. Asked if they wanted card or cash (considering low value and charges) to get the answer that card is preferable. Seems odd. Cash always used to be preferred for small businesses and low value as the money stays in the pocket of the vendor and not the banks.

    For some retailers cash is fine because they can use it in turn to pay for business costs, but any they cannot use it then have to have a way to deposit it at a  bank. that's a PITA because banks may be open only at the times their own business operates so the retailer has to take time out to deposit the cash, let alone some physical challenges such as parking nearby, and then the retailer has to pay a fee to the bank for cash handling.  As card payment fees get smaller, the use of cards gets more attractive for the retailers. This all assumes that businesses deposit and account for all cash received,  I'll not speculate on that.

  11. I went to a Pilates lesson once, to try and help with my recovery after op on the spine. The lesson started with such C*** that it caused me to get very stressed and my back went into spasm. So, you can guess how much I think Pilates teachers can be trusted for facts.

  12. The silence on this thread since late 2019 could indicate that certain forum members have been entirely sober for 18m+. I find that doubtful, but suspect the absence of friends with whom to drink may have lessened it (somehow Zoom drinking sessions don't seem like a good idea.

    • Like 1
  13. 1 hour ago, Buddsy said:

    The UK to the 13th May has seen 1,143 deaths from taking a Covid-19 vaccine.



    @Buddsy  The last sentence of the text you've cited below categorically contradicts the post above.  it states that there isn't a suggestion that the deaths resulted from the vaccine, if above you'd posted "1,143 deaths from suspected ADRs after taking a COVID-19 vaccine" then that would be true but would be out of context. They've then done analysis, which according to the text you cite, has then disproved the very thing you've stated in the above post.

    31 minutes ago, Buddsy said:

    Think so...:shock: but Im sure people will point out many of these are people are old and have underlying illnesses... but when they die from Covid-19 being old or with underlying health issues thats different.

    Events with a fatal outcome

    The MHRA has received 370 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 756 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 2 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 15 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified. The majority of these reports were in elderly people or people with underlying illness. Usage of the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca has increased rapidly and as such, so has reporting of fatal events with a temporal association with vaccination however, this does not indicate a link between vaccination and the fatalities reported. Review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccine played a role in the death. coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting



    • Like 2
  14. 3 hours ago, Buddsy said:

    You knows it!

    Seriously whos idea was that? Jeremy beadle? :lol:

    Ive not got the biggest hands in the world.

    Old spanner hands - @andydclements must have to get someone into do it for him!



    It's simple, have a G-body car but an SE engine, or and Excel where access is easier.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...