A new film is trailed. Everyone gets very excited. Geeks endlessly analyse it for clues.
The new film release date is announced. TV adverts are overwhelmed with Star Wars merchandising tie-ins. A&E is overwhelmed with hyperventiliating fanboys.
The new film comes out. The ultra-dedicated attend midnight releases. Children are dressed as Ewoks. Gay men are dressed as Princess Leia.
It comes out to rave reviews in all the newspapers. The public pour through the ticket halls to see this phenomenon.
Everyone who actually sees it then decides it's a huge disappointment, that the franchise is waning and hopes that the next one will be a return to form.
You can also say exactly the same about every new James Bond film
A new film is trailed. Everyone gets very excited. Geeks endlessly analyse it for clues.
The new film release date is announced. TV adverts are overwhelmed with Star Wars merchandising tie-ins. A&E is overwhelmed with hyperventiliating fanboys.
The new film comes out. The ultra-dedicated attend midnight releases. Children are dressed as Ewoks. Gay men are dressed as Princess Leia.
It comes out to rave reviews in all the newspapers. The public pour through the ticket halls to see this phenomenon.
Everyone who actually sees it then decides it's a huge disappointment, that the franchise is waning and hopes that the next one will be a return to form.
You can also say exactly the same about every new James Bond film
Not sure I've ever seen an Ewok attend a James Bond launch.
A new film is trailed. Everyone gets very excited. Geeks endlessly analyse it for clues.
The new film release date is announced. TV adverts are overwhelmed with Star Wars merchandising tie-ins. A&E is overwhelmed with hyperventiliating fanboys.
The new film comes out. The ultra-dedicated attend midnight releases. Children are dressed as Ewoks. Gay men are dressed as Princess Leia.
It comes out to rave reviews in all the newspapers. The public pour through the ticket halls to see this phenomenon.
Everyone who actually sees it then decides it's a huge disappointment, that the franchise is waning and hopes that the next one will be a return to form.
You can also say exactly the same about every new James Bond film
Not sure I've ever seen an Ewok attend a James Bond launch.
Or a gay man dressed up as Princess Leia, fascinated though I am by the image that conjured.
A new film is trailed. Everyone gets very excited. Geeks endlessly analyse it for clues.
The new film release date is announced. TV adverts are overwhelmed with Star Wars merchandising tie-ins. A&E is overwhelmed with hyperventiliating fanboys.
The new film comes out. The ultra-dedicated attend midnight releases. Children are dressed as Ewoks. Gay men are dressed as Princess Leia.
It comes out to rave reviews in all the newspapers. The public pour through the ticket halls to see this phenomenon.
Everyone who actually sees it then decides it's a huge disappointment, that the franchise is waning and hopes that the next one will be a return to form.
That's nothing.
The geek fandom are already having multiple geekgasms over the next Avengers film.
I've already booked three days worth of holidays for it.
So Leave would win a landslide if rejoining the Euro was a condition of EU reentry.
In any case Italy may be having a referendum on the Euro itself in a year or two if, as polls predict, 5* win most seats in the Italian general election in May and the EU do not make the concessions they want.
It wouldn't be a condition. But it's probably a good measure of the level of hardcore Remain sentiment. The +6 figure probably reflects the hardening polarisation.
I may be wrong, but I don't think 5* would get a majority in Parliament for that - they may well be largest party (it's close but they are inching ahead) but I doubt if there is a big partner who would back them on that.
Please avoid hints/spoilers for the latest Star Wars film.
Some of us haven't seen it yet.
Plucky rebels.
Evil Empire/whatever.
The Force.
Big plot twist.
Oh I know. Basically every SW film is a very long chase scene with some big set pieces and wooden dialogue.
"You can type this s**t, George, but you sure can't say it!" - H. Ford
"What I didn't tell Lucas was that I just couldn't go on speaking those bloody awful, banal lines. I'd had enough of the mumbo jumbo" - Sir Alec Guinness
Please avoid hints/spoilers for the latest Star Wars film.
Some of us haven't seen it yet.
Plucky rebels.
Evil Empire/whatever.
The Force.
Big plot twist.
Oh I know. Basically every SW film is a very long chase scene with some big set pieces and wooden dialogue.
"You can type this s**t, George, but you sure can't say it!" - H. Ford
"What I didn't tell Lucas was that I just couldn't go on speaking those bloody awful, banal lines. I'd had enough of the mumbo jumbo" - Sir Alec Guinness
Yes but Guinness shrewdly had already agreed to a deal to get 2.25% of the profits for the original Star Wars movie, meaning he had already made about $75 million from the mumbo jumbo by the time he gave it up.
So Leave would win a landslide if rejoining the Euro was a condition of EU reentry.
In any case Italy may be having a referendum on the Euro itself in a year or two if, as polls predict, 5* win most seats in the Italian general election in May and the EU do not make the concessions they want.
It wouldn't be a condition. But it's probably a good measure of the level of hardcore Remain sentiment. The +6 figure probably reflects the hardening polarisation.
I may be wrong, but I don't think 5* would get a majority in Parliament for that - they may well be largest party (it's close but they are inching ahead) but I doubt if there is a big partner who would back them on that.
33% would consider joining a Federal EU and the Eurozone, 67% would not, which I think makes the single market or EFTA the only viable longer-term options for the UK.
Berlusconi has made noises about a parallel currency to the Euro for Italy before but whether he would agree to a referendum on the Euro is another matter.
Please avoid hints/spoilers for the latest Star Wars film.
Some of us haven't seen it yet.
Plucky rebels.
Evil Empire/whatever.
The Force.
Big plot twist.
Oh I know. Basically every SW film is a very long chase scene with some big set pieces and wooden dialogue.
"You can type this s**t, George, but you sure can't say it!" - H. Ford
"What I didn't tell Lucas was that I just couldn't go on speaking those bloody awful, banal lines. I'd had enough of the mumbo jumbo" - Sir Alec Guinness
Yes but Guinness shrewdly had already agreed to a deal to get 2.25% of the profits for the original Star Wars movie, meaning he had already made about $75 million from the mumbo jumbo by the time he gave it up.
Don't exaggerate. It was £15 million. In the one entry Star Wars has in Blessings In Disguise, Guinness also commented that two thirds of it went in tax. Not that I would have turned my nose up at £5 million.
Merry Xmas - can all remainers including A. Meeks please prostrate themselves on the ground, flog themselves and apologise for this on behalf of the cult of remainerdom please ?
Last January I went into hospital for a rigid cystoscopy. When I woke up the surgeon told me that he had removed several small tumours: the bladder cancer I thought I had beaten a few years ago was back. I’ve just recovered from my fourth general anaesthetic of the year and I’m expecting more next year as well as continuing immunotherapy.
A new film is trailed. Everyone gets very excited. Geeks endlessly analyse it for clues.
The new film release date is announced. TV adverts are overwhelmed with Star Wars merchandising tie-ins. A&E is overwhelmed with hyperventiliating fanboys.
The new film comes out. The ultra-dedicated attend midnight releases. Children are dressed as Ewoks. Gay men are dressed as Princess Leia.
It comes out to rave reviews in all the newspapers. The public pour through the ticket halls to see this phenomenon.
Everyone who actually sees it then decides it's a huge disappointment, that the franchise is waning and hopes that the next one will be a return to form.
You can also say exactly the same about every new James Bond film
So Leave would win a landslide if rejoining the Euro was a condition of EU reentry.
In any case Italy may be having a referendum on the Euro itself in a year or two if, as polls predict, 5* win most seats in the Italian general election in May and the EU do not make the concessions they want.
It wouldn't be a condition. But it's probably a good measure of the level of hardcore Remain sentiment. The +6 figure probably reflects the hardening polarisation.
I may be wrong, but I don't think 5* would get a majority in Parliament for that - they may well be largest party (it's close but they are inching ahead) but I doubt if there is a big partner who would back them on that.
Italy is an unhappy country at the moment.
Berlusconi-ish Italy is the country Brexit Britain is most likely to resemble IMO. Not Greece and certainly not Singapore. It sort of works but the 1% a year cumulative underperform takes its toll after a decade or so. Probably also the same level of influence.
A new film is trailed. Everyone gets very excited. Geeks endlessly analyse it for clues.
The new film release date is announced. TV adverts are overwhelmed with Star Wars merchandising tie-ins. A&E is overwhelmed with hyperventiliating fanboys.
The new film comes out. The ultra-dedicated attend midnight releases. Children are dressed as Ewoks. Gay men are dressed as Princess Leia.
It comes out to rave reviews in all the newspapers. The public pour through the ticket halls to see this phenomenon.
Everyone who actually sees it then decides it's a huge disappointment, that the franchise is waning and hopes that the next one will be a return to form.
You can also say exactly the same about every new James Bond film
Except Casino Royale.
That was 'da bomb.
It contained the best scene in James Bond history, nay, cinematic history.
Well, fair enough. Breaks the law, gets fine and ban.
Have to say though that if the facts are as reported the law is a bit of an ass. If he was stationary, then where's the risk in using a phone?
AIUI the law says if you are 'in charge' of a car, and you use your phone, that's an offence. But what constitutes 'in charge' of a car? Sitting in the passenger seat with the engine running while the driver posts a letter? Sitting in the driving seat with the engine off? Having a set of keys on or near you (in which case I am in charge of a car 24/7).
I'm fully in favour of this law for safety reasons but I do think there's a lack of common sense in the way it's applied at times.
So Leave would win a landslide if rejoining the Euro was a condition of EU reentry.
In any case Italy may be having a referendum on the Euro itself in a year or two if, as polls predict, 5* win most seats in the Italian general election in May and the EU do not make the concessions they want.
It wouldn't be a condition. But it's probably a good measure of the level of hardcore Remain sentiment. The +6 figure probably reflects the hardening polarisation.
I may be wrong, but I don't think 5* would get a majority in Parliament for that - they may well be largest party (it's close but they are inching ahead) but I doubt if there is a big partner who would back them on that.
Italy is an unhappy country at the moment.
Berlusconi-ish Italy is the country Brexit Britain is most likely to resemble IMO. Not Greece and certainly not Singapore. It sort of works but the 1% a year cumulative underperform takes its toll after a decade or so. Probably also the same level of influence.
Italy is still a G7 nation and the 8th largest economy in the world, there are worse fates than being Italy. Though we also have the City of London which Italy does not have, even if we don't have their sunshine, food and cultural gems like Rome, Florence and Siena
A new film is trailed. Everyone gets very excited. Geeks endlessly analyse it for clues.
The new film release date is announced. TV adverts are overwhelmed with Star Wars merchandising tie-ins. A&E is overwhelmed with hyperventiliating fanboys.
The new film comes out. The ultra-dedicated attend midnight releases. Children are dressed as Ewoks. Gay men are dressed as Princess Leia.
It comes out to rave reviews in all the newspapers. The public pour through the ticket halls to see this phenomenon.
Everyone who actually sees it then decides it's a huge disappointment, that the franchise is waning and hopes that the next one will be a return to form.
Well, fair enough. Breaks the law, gets fine and ban.
Have to say though that if the facts are as reported the law is a bit of an ass. If he was stationary, then where's the risk in using a phone?
AIUI the law says if you are 'in charge' of a car, and you use your phone, that's an offence. But what constitutes 'in charge' of a car? Sitting in the passenger seat with the engine running while the driver posts a letter? Sitting in the driving seat with the engine off? Having a set of keys on or near you (in which case I am in charge of a car 24/7).
I'm fully in favour of this law for safety reasons but I do think there's a lack of common sense in the way it's applied at times.
What annoys me is that, quite rightly, you get fined and points for using a mobile whilst in control of a car, but holding a piece of burning paper and tobacco doesn't attract the same level of opprobrium.
I'm quite proud* that all the points on my licence are for speeding and nothing to do with use of mobiles.
A new film is trailed. Everyone gets very excited. Geeks endlessly analyse it for clues.
The new film release date is announced. TV adverts are overwhelmed with Star Wars merchandising tie-ins. A&E is overwhelmed with hyperventiliating fanboys.
The new film comes out. The ultra-dedicated attend midnight releases. Children are dressed as Ewoks. Gay men are dressed as Princess Leia.
It comes out to rave reviews in all the newspapers. The public pour through the ticket halls to see this phenomenon.
Everyone who actually sees it then decides it's a huge disappointment, that the franchise is waning and hopes that the next one will be a return to form.
You can also say exactly the same about every new James Bond film
Except Casino Royale.
That was 'da bomb.
Casino Royale was Fleming's first James Bond book anyway
Pretty much in line with all the other polls there have been except unlike most of the others this shows a slight rise in support for the separatists, though still less than 50%. In general, polls have shown the separatist vote share falling slightly.
One straw in the wind is that there have been increasing attacks from the separatist side about vote rigging and intimidation, Does this indicate that they think they may fail to prevail and that they are getting their excuses in early? We'll see.
For what it's worth I think that the separatist bloc will get a majority of the seats but less than 50% of the vote and that we are heading for a stalemate in the stand-off. The quickest way to a solution is a change of government in Madrid.
Another interesting aspect is that the undecideds are still running pretty high - FWIW I think the result will end up being more decisive than what the opinion polls are showing. I wouldn't be surprised to see Puigdemont's List topping the poll - currently 10/1 on Betfair - and the PP ending up below the 5% level at which they get seats under the D'Hondt Method.
The National have another poll coming out later based on todays data, which might show how the undecideds are starting to break.
I would be genuinely surprised if the separatists get over 50%, but I would not rule it out. I have always thought that a higher than usual turnout would favour the constitutional parties as it is the pro-Spain vote that has traditionally sat-out Catalan elections. However, if the independence parties do get over 50% it is hard to see how Rajoy can carry on as Spanish PM as his gamble would have failed totally and he will have lost a huge amount of credibility internationally. PP will definitely lose seats - most transferred to Ciutadans - and could well fall below the threshold.
Polling in Catalonia is very difficult as even the language in which polls are conducted will make a difference to who responds and the Unionist vote is very concentrated in and around Barcelona.
Rajoy of course won't resign even if the separatists get a majority, he is as stubborn as the rest of the PP. Plus on the latest national polls the PP is still ahead. It would just mean the Catalan situation is back to square 1 again, Madrid v Barcelona.
The problem with Catalonia is that the separatists can get 42-46% in the polls, but get the majority of the seats in the regional parliament.
Compared to our system where you can get a healthy majority with just 35% of the vote (2005) ??
Please avoid hints/spoilers for the latest Star Wars film.
Some of us haven't seen it yet.
Plucky rebels.
Evil Empire/whatever.
The Force.
Big plot twist.
Oh I know. Basically every SW film is a very long chase scene with some big set pieces and wooden dialogue.
"You can type this s**t, George, but you sure can't say it!" - H. Ford
"What I didn't tell Lucas was that I just couldn't go on speaking those bloody awful, banal lines. I'd had enough of the mumbo jumbo" - Sir Alec Guinness
Yes but Guinness shrewdly had already agreed to a deal to get 2.25% of the profits for the original Star Wars movie, meaning he had already made about $75 million from the mumbo jumbo by the time he gave it up.
Don't exaggerate. It was £15 million. In the one entry Star Wars has in Blessings In Disguise, Guinness also commented that two thirds of it went in tax. Not that I would have turned my nose up at £5 million.
Well, fair enough. Breaks the law, gets fine and ban.
Have to say though that if the facts are as reported the law is a bit of an ass. If he was stationary, then where's the risk in using a phone?
AIUI the law says if you are 'in charge' of a car, and you use your phone, that's an offence. But what constitutes 'in charge' of a car? Sitting in the passenger seat with the engine running while the driver posts a letter? Sitting in the driving seat with the engine off? Having a set of keys on or near you (in which case I am in charge of a car 24/7).
I'm fully in favour of this law for safety reasons but I do think there's a lack of common sense in the way it's applied at times.
Difficult cases make bad law.
99% of the time it is clear.
Engine off = no-one in control.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
Well, fair enough. Breaks the law, gets fine and ban.
Have to say though that if the facts are as reported the law is a bit of an ass. If he was stationary, then where's the risk in using a phone?
AIUI the law says if you are 'in charge' of a car, and you use your phone, that's an offence. But what constitutes 'in charge' of a car? Sitting in the passenger seat with the engine running while the driver posts a letter? Sitting in the driving seat with the engine off? Having a set of keys on or near you (in which case I am in charge of a car 24/7).
I'm fully in favour of this law for safety reasons but I do think there's a lack of common sense in the way it's applied at times.
What annoys me is that, quite rightly, you get fined and points for using a mobile whilst in control of a car, but holding a piece of burning paper and tobacco doesn't attract the same level of opprobrium.
I'm quite proud* that all the points on my licence are for speeding and nothing to do with use of mobiles.
*Not the right adjective I know.
My father would never dream of phoning while driving. Or drinking and driving.
Well, fair enough. Breaks the law, gets fine and ban.
Have to say though that if the facts are as reported the law is a bit of an ass. If he was stationary, then where's the risk in using a phone?
AIUI the law says if you are 'in charge' of a car, and you use your phone, that's an offence. But what constitutes 'in charge' of a car? Sitting in the passenger seat with the engine running while the driver posts a letter? Sitting in the driving seat with the engine off? Having a set of keys on or near you (in which case I am in charge of a car 24/7).
I'm fully in favour of this law for safety reasons but I do think there's a lack of common sense in the way it's applied at times.
What annoys me is that, quite rightly, you get fined and points for using a mobile whilst in control of a car, but holding a piece of burning paper and tobacco doesn't attract the same level of opprobrium.
I'm quite proud* that all the points on my licence are for speeding and nothing to do with use of mobiles.
*Not the right adjective I know.
My father would never dream of phoning while driving. Or drinking and driving.
Well, fair enough. Breaks the law, gets fine and ban.
Have to say though that if the facts are as reported the law is a bit of an ass. If he was stationary, then where's the risk in using a phone?
AIUI the law says if you are 'in charge' of a car, and you use your phone, that's an offence. But what constitutes 'in charge' of a car? Sitting in the passenger seat with the engine running while the driver posts a letter? Sitting in the driving seat with the engine off? Having a set of keys on or near you (in which case I am in charge of a car 24/7).
I'm fully in favour of this law for safety reasons but I do think there's a lack of common sense in the way it's applied at times.
Difficult cases make bad law.
99% of the time it is clear.
Engine off = no-one in control.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
But, if you pull over into motorway services to make a call, leaving the engine running, you are breaking the law as it stands. But the risk you are causing is zero.
Well, fair enough. Breaks the law, gets fine and ban.
Have to say though that if the facts are as reported the law is a bit of an ass. If he was stationary, then where's the risk in using a phone?
AIUI the law says if you are 'in charge' of a car, and you use your phone, that's an offence. But what constitutes 'in charge' of a car? Sitting in the passenger seat with the engine running while the driver posts a letter? Sitting in the driving seat with the engine off? Having a set of keys on or near you (in which case I am in charge of a car 24/7).
I'm fully in favour of this law for safety reasons but I do think there's a lack of common sense in the way it's applied at times.
Difficult cases make bad law.
99% of the time it is clear.
Engine off = no-one in control.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
But, if you pull over into motorway services to make a call, leaving the engine running, you are breaking the law as it stands. But the risk you are causing is zero.
But why leave your engine running when you are parked up? Just creates yet more pollution.
Well, fair enough. Breaks the law, gets fine and ban.
Have to say though that if the facts are as reported the law is a bit of an ass. If he was stationary, then where's the risk in using a phone?
AIUI the law says if you are 'in charge' of a car, and you use your phone, that's an offence. But what constitutes 'in charge' of a car? Sitting in the passenger seat with the engine running while the driver posts a letter? Sitting in the driving seat with the engine off? Having a set of keys on or near you (in which case I am in charge of a car 24/7).
I'm fully in favour of this law for safety reasons but I do think there's a lack of common sense in the way it's applied at times.
Difficult cases make bad law.
99% of the time it is clear.
Engine off = no-one in control.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
But, if you pull over into motorway services to make a call, leaving the engine running, you are breaking the law as it stands. But the risk you are causing is zero.
But why leave your engine running when you are parked up? Just creates yet more pollution.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
Are you sure about that? I thought that switching the engine off might not be sufficient to avoid being seen as in control (which seems barmy, but that was my understanding).
Well, fair enough. Breaks the law, gets fine and ban.
Have to say though that if the facts are as reported the law is a bit of an ass. If he was stationary, then where's the risk in using a phone?
AIUI the law says if you are 'in charge' of a car, and you use your phone, that's an offence. But what constitutes 'in charge' of a car? Sitting in the passenger seat with the engine running while the driver posts a letter? Sitting in the driving seat with the engine off? Having a set of keys on or near you (in which case I am in charge of a car 24/7).
I'm fully in favour of this law for safety reasons but I do think there's a lack of common sense in the way it's applied at times.
Difficult cases make bad law.
99% of the time it is clear.
Engine off = no-one in control.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
But, if you pull over into motorway services to make a call, leaving the engine running, you are breaking the law as it stands. But the risk you are causing is zero.
I'm not sure that being in a parking space off the public highway with the engine running would count. The driver in the case linked was in slow moving and stationary traffic (i.e. on the road and moving sometimes) on a road with lots of pedestrian and cycle traffic so it's a different situation.
Well, fair enough. Breaks the law, gets fine and ban.
Have to say though that if the facts are as reported the law is a bit of an ass. If he was stationary, then where's the risk in using a phone?
AIUI the law says if you are 'in charge' of a car, and you use your phone, that's an offence. But what constitutes 'in charge' of a car? Sitting in the passenger seat with the engine running while the driver posts a letter? Sitting in the driving seat with the engine off? Having a set of keys on or near you (in which case I am in charge of a car 24/7).
I'm fully in favour of this law for safety reasons but I do think there's a lack of common sense in the way it's applied at times.
Difficult cases make bad law.
99% of the time it is clear.
Engine off = no-one in control.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
But, if you pull over into motorway services to make a call, leaving the engine running, you are breaking the law as it stands. But the risk you are causing is zero.
But why leave your engine running when you are parked up? Just creates yet more pollution.
In all but the most modern cars, you lose more fuel starting the engine than keeping it ticking over for 5 minutes.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
Are you sure about that? I thought that switching the engine off might not be sufficient to avoid being seen as in control (which seems barmy, but that was my understanding).
You are correct. It's one reason why I think this law is a blunt instrument.
A new film is trailed. Everyone gets very excited. Geeks endlessly analyse it for clues.
The new film release date is announced. TV adverts are overwhelmed with Star Wars merchandising tie-ins. A&E is overwhelmed with hyperventiliating fanboys.
The new film comes out. The ultra-dedicated attend midnight releases. Children are dressed as Ewoks. Gay men are dressed as Princess Leia.
It comes out to rave reviews in all the newspapers. The public pour through the ticket halls to see this phenomenon.
Everyone who actually sees it then decides it's a huge disappointment, that the franchise is waning and hopes that the next one will be a return to form.
You can also say exactly the same about every new James Bond film
Except Casino Royale.
That was 'da bomb.
Skyfall is a great Bond film too.
All the Daniel Craig ones have been - apart from Quantum of Solace and the turd that was SPECTRE.
A new film is trailed. Everyone gets very excited. Geeks endlessly analyse it for clues.
The new film release date is announced. TV adverts are overwhelmed with Star Wars merchandising tie-ins. A&E is overwhelmed with hyperventiliating fanboys.
The new film comes out. The ultra-dedicated attend midnight releases. Children are dressed as Ewoks. Gay men are dressed as Princess Leia.
It comes out to rave reviews in all the newspapers. The public pour through the ticket halls to see this phenomenon.
Everyone who actually sees it then decides it's a huge disappointment, that the franchise is waning and hopes that the next one will be a return to form.
You can also say exactly the same about every new James Bond film
Except Casino Royale.
That was 'da bomb.
Skyfall is a great Bond film too.
All the Daniel Craig ones have been - apart from Quantum of Solace and the turd that was SPECTRE.
A new film is trailed. Everyone gets very excited. Geeks endlessly analyse it for clues.
The new film release date is announced. TV adverts are overwhelmed with Star Wars merchandising tie-ins. A&E is overwhelmed with hyperventiliating fanboys.
The new film comes out. The ultra-dedicated attend midnight releases. Children are dressed as Ewoks. Gay men are dressed as Princess Leia.
It comes out to rave reviews in all the newspapers. The public pour through the ticket halls to see this phenomenon.
Everyone who actually sees it then decides it's a huge disappointment, that the franchise is waning and hopes that the next one will be a return to form.
You can also say exactly the same about every new James Bond film
Except Casino Royale.
That was 'da bomb.
Skyfall is a great Bond film too.
All the Daniel Craig ones have been - apart from Quantum of Solace and the turd that was SPECTRE.
A new film is trailed. Everyone gets very excited. Geeks endlessly analyse it for clues.
The new film release date is announced. TV adverts are overwhelmed with Star Wars merchandising tie-ins. A&E is overwhelmed with hyperventiliating fanboys.
The new film comes out. The ultra-dedicated attend midnight releases. Children are dressed as Ewoks. Gay men are dressed as Princess Leia.
It comes out to rave reviews in all the newspapers. The public pour through the ticket halls to see this phenomenon.
Everyone who actually sees it then decides it's a huge disappointment, that the franchise is waning and hopes that the next one will be a return to form.
You can also say exactly the same about every new James Bond film
Except Casino Royale.
That was 'da bomb.
Skyfall is a great Bond film too.
All the Daniel Craig ones have been - apart from Quantum of Solace and the turd that was SPECTRE.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
Are you sure about that? I thought that switching the engine off might not be sufficient to avoid being seen as in control (which seems barmy, but that was my understanding).
I was under the impression that for the purposes of Drunk in Charge of a vehicle, merely having the keys and being adjacent to or in the vehicle was counted as being in charge. Or is that an old wives tale?
Well, fair enough. Breaks the law, gets fine and ban.
Have to say though that if the facts are as reported the law is a bit of an ass. If he was stationary, then where's the risk in using a phone?
AIUI the law says if you are 'in charge' of a car, and you use your phone, that's an offence. But what constitutes 'in charge' of a car? Sitting in the passenger seat with the engine running while the driver posts a letter? Sitting in the driving seat with the engine off? Having a set of keys on or near you (in which case I am in charge of a car 24/7).
I'm fully in favour of this law for safety reasons but I do think there's a lack of common sense in the way it's applied at times.
Difficult cases make bad law.
99% of the time it is clear.
Engine off = no-one in control.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
But, if you pull over into motorway services to make a call, leaving the engine running, you are breaking the law as it stands. But the risk you are causing is zero.
I'm not sure that being in a parking space off the public highway with the engine running would count. The driver in the case linked was in slow moving and stationary traffic (i.e. on the road and moving sometimes) on a road with lots of pedestrian and cycle traffic so it's a different situation.
Isn't leaving the engine running whilst parked an offence in itself, now?
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
Are you sure about that? I thought that switching the engine off might not be sufficient to avoid being seen as in control (which seems barmy, but that was my understanding).
I was under the impression that for the purposes of Drunk in Charge of a vehicle, merely having the keys and being adjacent to or in the vehicle was counted as being in charge. Or is that an old wives tale?
I know someone who returned to his car after a concert and having drunk decided to sleep it off in the car rather than drive home. Got woken up by Police knocking on the window, was arrested, prosecuted and banned from driving.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
Are you sure about that? I thought that switching the engine off might not be sufficient to avoid being seen as in control (which seems barmy, but that was my understanding).
I was under the impression that for the purposes of Drunk in Charge of a vehicle, merely having the keys and being adjacent to or in the vehicle was counted as being in charge. Or is that an old wives tale?
I know someone who returned to his car after a concert and having drunk decided to sleep it off in the car rather than drive home. Got woken up by Police knocking on the window, was arrested, prosecuted and banned from driving.
Yep, having done a bit of a google trawl it seems there are lots of examples of this.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
Are you sure about that? I thought that switching the engine off might not be sufficient to avoid being seen as in control (which seems barmy, but that was my understanding).
In the states Deborah in 'Everybody loves Raymond' was convicted solely because she was in the driving seat with the engine off.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
Are you sure about that? I thought that switching the engine off might not be sufficient to avoid being seen as in control (which seems barmy, but that was my understanding).
I was under the impression that for the purposes of Drunk in Charge of a vehicle, merely having the keys and being adjacent to or in the vehicle was counted as being in charge. Or is that an old wives tale?
I know someone who returned to his car after a concert and having drunk decided to sleep it off in the car rather than drive home. Got woken up by Police knocking on the window, was arrested, prosecuted and banned from driving.
Yep, having done a bit of a google trawl it seems there are lots of examples of this.
I'm not sure saying you're as guilty for sleeping it off as you are for driving is the right idea for a law. To me it encourages people to drive anyway if drunk as the sooner you get home the less likely you are to get caught.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
Are you sure about that? I thought that switching the engine off might not be sufficient to avoid being seen as in control (which seems barmy, but that was my understanding).
I was under the impression that for the purposes of Drunk in Charge of a vehicle, merely having the keys and being adjacent to or in the vehicle was counted as being in charge. Or is that an old wives tale?
I know someone who returned to his car after a concert and having drunk decided to sleep it off in the car rather than drive home. Got woken up by Police knocking on the window, was arrested, prosecuted and banned from driving.
Yep, having done a bit of a google trawl it seems there are lots of examples of this.
I'm not sure saying you're as guilty for sleeping it off as you are for driving is the right idea for a law. To me it encourages people to drive anyway if drunk as the sooner you get home the less likely you are to get caught.
Oh I agree. It seems an idiotic interpretation of the law.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
Are you sure about that? I thought that switching the engine off might not be sufficient to avoid being seen as in control (which seems barmy, but that was my understanding).
I was under the impression that for the purposes of Drunk in Charge of a vehicle, merely having the keys and being adjacent to or in the vehicle was counted as being in charge. Or is that an old wives tale?
I know someone who returned to his car after a concert and having drunk decided to sleep it off in the car rather than drive home. Got woken up by Police knocking on the window, was arrested, prosecuted and banned from driving.
Yep, having done a bit of a google trawl it seems there are lots of examples of this.
I'm not sure saying you're as guilty for sleeping it off as you are for driving is the right idea for a law. To me it encourages people to drive anyway if drunk as the sooner you get home the less likely you are to get caught.
I think they are different laws. One is drink driving, the other is drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. I think the key thing is, do we think someone who sleeps it off in the car has either driven the vehicle before that point or will drive the vehicle before they are below the legal limit?
A new film is trailed. Everyone gets very excited. Geeks endlessly analyse it for clues.
The new film release date is announced. TV adverts are overwhelmed with Star Wars merchandising tie-ins. A&E is overwhelmed with hyperventiliating fanboys.
The new film comes out. The ultra-dedicated attend midnight releases. Children are dressed as Ewoks. Gay men are dressed as Princess Leia.
It comes out to rave reviews in all the newspapers. The public pour through the ticket halls to see this phenomenon.
Everyone who actually sees it then decides it's a huge disappointment, that the franchise is waning and hopes that the next one will be a return to form.
In gaming we call it the Sonic Cycle:
Named after Sonic the Hedgehog, of course.
Except Sonic was never good. There are no good sonic games.
Daniel Craig Bond movies are increasingly aimed at a metropolitan group who do not like traditional Bond movies.Rather like the forthcoming new Royal Princess who is popular with Republicans.
Comments
The geek fandom are already having multiple geekgasms over the next Avengers film.
I've already booked three days worth of holidays for it.
I may be wrong, but I don't think 5* would get a majority in Parliament for that - they may well be largest party (it's close but they are inching ahead) but I doubt if there is a big partner who would back them on that.
I'll get my coat.
Although I might have had ock-asion to have joined in.
But I thought batter of it.
Berlusconi has made noises about a parallel currency to the Euro for Italy before but whether he would agree to a referendum on the Euro is another matter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-42430207
Don’t ever wish anyone cancer. It is not funny.
That was 'da bomb.
Berlusconi-ish Italy is the country Brexit Britain is most likely to resemble IMO. Not Greece and certainly not Singapore. It sort of works but the 1% a year cumulative underperform takes its toll after a decade or so. Probably also the same level of influence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE1evIbc3mw
Have to say though that if the facts are as reported the law is a bit of an ass. If he was stationary, then where's the risk in using a phone?
AIUI the law says if you are 'in charge' of a car, and you use your phone, that's an offence. But what constitutes 'in charge' of a car? Sitting in the passenger seat with the engine running while the driver posts a letter? Sitting in the driving seat with the engine off? Having a set of keys on or near you (in which case I am in charge of a car 24/7).
I'm fully in favour of this law for safety reasons but I do think there's a lack of common sense in the way it's applied at times.
Named after Sonic the Hedgehog, of course.
I'm quite proud* that all the points on my licence are for speeding and nothing to do with use of mobiles.
*Not the right adjective I know.
Looks like I bailed at the right time (which was about 1993).
https://www.quora.com/How-much-were-the-original-actors-in-Star-Wars-paid-and-how-much-were-they-paid-for-the-latest-film
There's been a terrible outbreak of grouper think on here. I'm not angry, just disappointed.
I see we've had a resumption of the Brexit phoney wars, with dire warnings of this and that. I do feel it loses impact after a while.
99% of the time it is clear.
Engine off = no-one in control.
Engine on = normally the driver, unless they are a provisional licence holder only, in which case the supervising person.
But he does light his pipe while driving.
I know which one I think is more dangerous.
If its cold/hot keep the heating/air-con on?
All the Daniel Craig ones have been - apart from Quantum of Solace and the turd that was SPECTRE.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/craig-bond-92510625
NEW THREAD