Today I'm angry about.....

[jaffka]

Nope, nothing to do with the cops. Speed cameras are now the preserve if "Road safety partnerships", ie the council sell the contract to the partner who offers them the most revenue.

Nope, not right. The police are involved in the decision making where the cameras are placed as its them who compile the statistics of RTC's. The mobile camera operatives are also based at police stations and come under the control of the police.

Partnerships is/was the fancy phrase for involving other bodies public in reducing crime and disorder as per the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

The Lancashire road safety partnership does involve the police along with several councils. In effect, the operation of the cameras, as I undrstand it is run by a third party sub contractor, as are the driver awareness courses.

Location of the csmeras is nothing to do with accident statisics, at least not round here. Their favourite spots are nowhere near the accident blackspots.

Not that it matters who delivers the coup de grace, along with the 100 quid they'll be relieving me of.

Accident statistics are certainly used in the locations of fixed cameras, the government guidelines state that.

Mobile speed cameras generally are sited to alleviate local concerns about speeding motorists.

Which ever type of camera got you, I agree its annoying. However the truth is, don't speed and you wont get caught and pay a fine. Speed also plays an important factor in the likelihood of a person surviving a collision.

There can be quite a blasé attitude from drivers towards speeding, its ok as long as its not where they live

[Bijou Bob]

I've done 31 years without a single ticket, so the evidence tends to suggest either I don't speed much, or I'm just one very lucky bastard.

[Bijou Bob]

Spent most of the day sorting out young Miss Bob's first car. I'm pleased she has something safe, reliable and economical to drive round in but........

Her insurance cost 3 times what I paid for my first car (£450 Talbot Sunbeam). Whilst we got a cracking deal on a Ford Ka, it was effectively the only car she could afford to insure. I did look at a Toyota Yaris for her. The car was 2 and a half grand. The insurance was £2300. Feckin unbelievable.

[TANGODANCER]

^^ Insurance companies have always been class acts at taking your money. They're big league now and the law's made it that you can't do f.a about it. Building insurance on your house is a classic, have to have it, but try claiming anything against it. High premiums and compulsory headers make it all little better than legalised theft. Makes me laugh the e-mails and correspondence they keep sending telling you how they're "helping" you and what a good job they're doing. Joke.

[Il Pirate]

Spent most of the day sorting out young Miss Bob's first car. I'm pleased she has something safe, reliable and economical to drive round in but........

Her insurance cost 3 times what I paid for my first car (£450 Talbot Sunbeam). Whilst we got a cracking deal on a Ford Ka, it was effectively the only car she could afford to insure. I did look at a Toyota Yaris for her. The car was 2 and a half grand. The insurance was £2300. Feckin unbelievable.

I'm all for road safety etc, but successive governments since 1980 have tried to price young people off the roads. I don't agree with breaking the law, but being caught without insurance, should you be unlucky enough, incurs a fine between £300 to £650 and up to 6 points depending on which side of the bed the magistrate has got out of. It's no wonder so many kids choose to drive without insurance these days. Especially when in the majority, their vehicle cost below £1,000

[Bijou Bob]

Oh if only I could have got her into a car costing less than a grand!

[LeverEnd]

Oh if only I could have got her into a car costing less than a grand!

I'm on my 10th car and have still never paid over a grand!

[Burnden Paddock]

Oh if only I could have got her into a car costing less than a grand!

I'm on my 10th car and have still never paid over a grand!

Yeah, but you only passed your test last year!!

[Bijou Bob]

Having a few days on my hands, I thought "Feck it, I'm going to watch us in Austria and Germany". Casting about for flights etc, I've ended up paying 60 quid for a direct flight to Munich. Coming back was the issue, with flights into Manchester being scarce. Thought I'd have a go at Luton. Not a problem, flight €23. Train from Luton to Manchester £162!!!

[Little Green Man]

Having a few days on my hands, I thought "Feck it, I'm going to watch us in Austria and Germany". Casting about for flights etc, I've ended up paying 60 quid for a direct flight to Munich. Coming back was the issue, with flights into Manchester being scarce. Thought I'd have a go at Luton. Not a problem, flight €23. Train from Luton to Manchester £162!!!

The Paderborn game is being played in Austria, not Germany. Hopefully you've already spotted that.

[Burnden Paddock]

Having a few days on my hands, I thought "Feck it, I'm going to watch us in Austria and Germany". Casting about for flights etc, I've ended up paying 60 quid for a direct flight to Munich. Coming back was the issue, with flights into Manchester being scarce. Thought I'd have a go at Luton. Not a problem, flight €23. Train from Luton to Manchester £162!!!

The Paderborn game is being played in Austria, not Germany. Hopefully you've already spotted that.

Please say no!

[Montreal Wanderer]

Having a few days on my hands, I thought "Feck it, I'm going to watch us in Austria and Germany". Casting about for flights etc, I've ended up paying 60 quid for a direct flight to Munich. Coming back was the issue, with flights into Manchester being scarce. Thought I'd have a go at Luton. Not a problem, flight €23. Train from Luton to Manchester £162!!!

The Paderborn game is being played in Austria, not Germany. Hopefully you've already spotted that.

Please say no!

Trouble is that Kapfenberg (where we play Paderborn) is 150 km closer to Munich that Paderborn itself. Bob must have it covered.

[Bijou Bob]

Bob has

[Bijou Bob]

There's been a lot of talk in the press recently about FGM, a barbaric practice that causes untold issues for women across the world. The nhs are slowly building policies and strategies around it and new kegislation has been propised, something I whole heartedly support. Whilst not equating the two, the thought has crossed my mind however, why we allow another barbaric and pointless medical procedure to be carried out on little boys by unqualified practitioners. Is there any place in today's society for circumcision, a religious and outdated practice with no medical benefits??

How on earth is it that in the 21st century, a wholly unqualified, self styled 'priest' with no medical training can lop off the foreskin of a child whilst the authorities do nothing about it in the interests of religious freedom??

[Hoboh]

I read an article only yesterday about FGM and found it appalling that such a mind set is still in existence today, it is nothing more than extreme child abuse.
Anyone caught sending their kids overseas for this should be jailed then kicked out, they have no place in a civilised society.

[malcd1]

There's been a lot of talk in the press recently about FGM, a barbaric practice that causes untold issues for women across the world. The nhs are slowly building policies and strategies around it and new kegislation has been propised, something I whole heartedly support. Whilst not equating the two, the thought has crossed my mind however, why we allow another barbaric and pointless medical procedure to be carried out on little boys by unqualified practitioners. Is there any place in today's society for circumcision, a religious and outdated practice with no medical benefits??

How on earth is it that in the 21st century, a wholly unqualified, self styled 'priest' with no medical training can lop off the foreskin of a child whilst the authorities do nothing about it in the interests of religious freedom??

How about the ultra-Orthodox Hasidic tradition of the Mohel sucking the blood from the wound? Strange, sick and completely inappropriate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11149694/ns/h ... ZhRFLUYFUE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Montreal Wanderer]

There's been a lot of talk in the press recently about FGM, a barbaric practice that causes untold issues for women across the world. The nhs are slowly building policies and strategies around it and new kegislation has been propised, something I whole heartedly support. Whilst not equating the two, the thought has crossed my mind however, why we allow another barbaric and pointless medical procedure to be carried out on little boys by unqualified practitioners. Is there any place in today's society for circumcision, a religious and outdated practice with no medical benefits??

How on earth is it that in the 21st century, a wholly unqualified, self styled 'priest' with no medical training can lop off the foreskin of a child whilst the authorities do nothing about it in the interests of religious freedom??

I have long been on the fringes of the circumcision debate, hearing the pros and cons from both sides. Without stating my personal opinion on the question, I believe you are wrong, Bob, to assert simply there are no medical benefits. There are numerous medical reports examining the question of hygiene and stating a circumcised penis is less prone to infection, reduced chances of getting sexually transmitted diseases, and reduced risk of cancer for both parties.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently stated:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.

The article continues:

What are the benefits of circumcision?

There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:
•A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
•A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
•Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
•Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
•Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

I don't think the case has been proven conclusively one way or the other. However, there are a number of qualified medical professionals who believe there is evidence of these health benefits. So I don't think one should claim there are none without citing some reasonable source.

If FGM is female circumcision I believe it to be a barbaric practice intended solely to subjugate women and deny them any sexual pleasure, and should have no place in a civilized world.

[Bijou Bob]

Nhs guidance in the UK Monty makes it clear that the opposite applies, ie the benefits are so limited and unproven that circumcision is not warranted. The secondary and almost as important issue however, is that of consent. A baby cannot consent to a useless surgical procedure, but is subject to it anyway based on a single line in an ancient and possibly mis-translated text.

Frankly, I find it barbaric and for me, it's a safeguarding issue. Unwarranted surgery is simply child abuse.

[Worthy4England]

I think you're making an assertion that it's a faith based decision - which is probably about correct, these days, for the UK but I'm not convinced that's the case for the US where greater than 50% is still the norm. Personally, I wouldn't put my kids through it, unless a Dr said it needs doing because...

That said where do you stop? What about ear piercing? Clearly not necessary and has (as far as I'm aware) not even disputed medcal benefits. None at all.

[thebish]

I think you're making an assertion that it's a faith based decision - which is probably about correct, these days, for the UK but I'm not convinced that's the case for the US where greater than 50% is still the norm. Personally, I wouldn't put my kids through it, unless a Dr said it needs doing because...

That said where do you stop? What about ear piercing? Clearly not necessary and has (as far as I'm aware) not even disputed medcal benefits. None at all.

Aborigines also traditionally practice male circumcision for their infants... (I think) I've heard it said that the practice has its roots in desert/sandy places and was a health-measure because there was a recognisable condition where your knob swelled up because sand accumulated in your foreskin (which sounds fecking painful!)...

my guess is that it was an ancient health measure - religious-ised - ie, that it was already widespread before Zipporah sliced off Moses's son's foreskin and touched Moses's knob with it to ward of the murderous intentions of an angry god... (or so the rather bizarre story goes!)

I've often been surprised (my poor memory allows me to be surprised frequently by the same things!) by the very young age that parents seem to be able to get their baby/toddlers' ears pierced...

I suspect you are not allowed to get a baby tattooed?? if you were - imagine!!!