Snooze

Really? I though it was quite quaint and colourful. A bit too touristy and a lot smaller than I had imagined, but I wouldn't say I didn't like it!

I can't see how legislation like this would be particularly effective. Especially if it only applied to civil actions. All it will succeed in doing is pushing up car insurance prices.

Maris Pipers roasted. Parboil. Shake them a bit to rough up, then into hot goose fat, adding a few sprigs of rosemary and some whole, unpeeled garlic cloves halfway through.

This is easy. You are slap-bang in the middle of the Nintendo demographic. Get a Wii! Or just have a wee. Or a weevil. Or just go "wheeeeeeeeee"!

Probably have to agree with this. All the hardcore gamers that I know that ended up with both (probably about 7 or 8 different people) ALL prefer the X-Box. Even the couple of them that have been through 2 (one of them onto his 3rd) say that the superior games make up for the inferior reliability. However - that is "at the moment" - as has been mentioned, it's more about the games than the machine itself - for gaming, the machines are so similar in their technical capabilities that it doesn't matter a damn, so whilst the X-Box seems better now, that's not to say a big flood of PS3 games in the future won't change things.

Very possibly - just had a quick look. Although it looks like the 959 was AWD, and I thought I recalled a RWD twin turbo model. Might just be my dodgy memory, of course - and I'm certainly no expert on Porshces! EDIT: You're right - the 959 was their supposed "rally" car - that's the one I was thinking of.

That's a very good point - essentially empowering everyone to ensure laws are enforced sounds like generally a good idea. The problem that I see is that the contract law is just so insanely complicated that there's just too many loopholes to be exploited like this which creates a whole artifical market for legal industry experts to exploit everybody. Where the flouting of the law has no real effect to the supposed "victim" (like in this case), or the law is just so damn complex that the "accused" probably just didn't understand it rather than deliberately broke it is where I start to question the system. The (flawed) precedent system of law then just compounds the problem. Also - the actual outcomes should be a lot more flexible: the credit firm neglected to tell the customer that they were getting an extra commission, therefore she gets her entire debt wiped out?! Surely we need a way of coming up with more "reasonable" compromises - different levels of compensation rather than just out-and-out cancelling of an entire contract. (by the way - I don't mean this to be offensive, as it may sound - I don't blanket ALL legal bods as evil exploiters, of course, and realise that it is generally a minority of the ambulance-chasing and now credit-chasing outfits that create this bad image)

Have to agree on the 964 Turbo 3.6. It is THE Porsche to get - the last turbo'd RWD in the 911 range, IIRC. Someone more knowledgable than I may also remember - I think there was also a special edition twin-turbo version produced around the same time? Not sure if many (or, indeed, any???) were actually made, tho?

Couldn't agree more that the financial institutions have been screwing us for years, are partly responsible for the situation the economy is in today (btw - personally, I still lay the majority of the blame of the sub-prime mortgage market with the borrowers - not the lenders) and should, by-and-large, recieve their "bonuses" in the form of a shooting up against a wall. But! They need to be punished for the things that they have done wrong, not by exploiting loopholes elsewhere, otherwise we're just creating an even bigger pile of sh*t for ourselves - especially when we're just switching from being screwed by financial firms to being screwed by law firms. Law firms like this just LOOK more public-friendly because they are redistributing wealth to poorer folk rather than richer folk. Note that while this sounds like a good, moral thing, bear in mind that in both cases, the money ultimately comes from the poorer people. For example, like Stevie says - think through what happens when 1,000 people all manage to get £10k of debt written off like this? Bank X has to write off £10m of credit. What happens as a result? One of two things: a) Bank needs bail-out support, so the money comes from the tax-paying public - ie. Us! b) Bank funds the loss itself - how? From other lenders, debtors and more of those fees that you're complaining about - ie. Us! On top of which, where does that money end up? Answer - partly with the bank's debtor customers (the ones who are causing the bank stability problems anyway) and partly with the law firms exploiting the situation. Let's fix the financial firms, yes - let's put them back down in their rightful place, please - but let's do it properly, not like this.

Buy this! Buy this! The RS200 is my dream car. I'd have this in a heartbeat if I could afford it, but I hate to think how much a low-miler would fetch these days.

Oh, okay - if that's still classed as "missold", fair enough. Personally, I think it's a horribly bad use of the term as the customer knows exactly what they're getting and how much it's costing. Still seems like extremely pedantic reasoning to me - I assume such a ruling is just there to make sure the customer is given the information to indicate that they are probably paying slightly over the odds for the "product" they are purchasing. In which case I would say that: a) if the customer thinks it's too expensive, they shouldn't have taken it in the first place - they could have shopped around for independent payment protection if they really wanted. b) the kind of person who just signs up for the payment protection they are offered wouldn't have noticed the information about the commission buried on page 27, subsection (c- iv) of the credit agreement anyway! True - they're all over the place. Just another form of ambulance-chasers, IMO But hey - as long as the lawyers are raking it in rather than the banks, that's okay?

In that case.... forget everything I said!

No. It's not because it's mis-sold. It looks like she knew what she was getting (payment protection) and how much it was going to cost her. The only information that was withheld was the fact that the Payment Protection insurance company was paying a commission back to the credit card company - it didn't really affect her at all. This ruling could have huge repercussions throughout the industry, as I believe such commissions are pretty common practice (although it depends whether the customer is informed of such, of course). It's certainly good news for the law business - I expect the ££££ are already ringing in!

Hiya! Congrats on the car! However I'm now going to offer some advice that I guarantee you won't like almost definitely won't take : If you can't afford to get the car onto the road..............sell it. Put the money towards a car that you can afford to run (assuming you don't have another car anyway?) and use that to build up some insurance NCD and a good driving record. In the meantime save the rest of your money and then, in a couple of years time, if you still want a Supra, you can go out and buy one. The prices will have come down, the insurance will be cheaper, and you'll be a better driver for it. I can almost guarantee that this will be the quickest way to get you affordably (and legally!) running a Supra on the road if that's your goal! Sorry if that's not what you want to hear - I still remember how painful it was to sell mine - just wanted to offer some pragmatic advice that would give you another option to think about. I certainly wish you the best with it, whatever you decide to do!

He formed The Seahorses way back when (1996), but they were a one-hit wonder, and then did a couple of solo album failures in 2002/2003ish. I find it utterly hilarious that after he (primarily) cause the Stone Roses to split (by dragging the music in his preferred direction and constantly complaining that Ian Brown was a cr*p singer), that it turned out that despite being a much, much better guitarist than Brown was a singer, it turns out that Ian Brown is 10 times the songwriter that Squire is by himself. Apparently he sent Ian Brown a song to use on his album which he rejected. I think he's a full-time artist now. Oh - and it was Gary Mounfield ("Mani" - the Roses basist) who joined Primal Scream when the Roses split. As far as I am aware he's still with them.

I've probably spent about £100,000 on my car. £8k on the car and the other £92k to Shell.

I do like the show, but I keep wanting him to break into Bertie Wooster. Soupy twist.

http://www.desktopfactory.com/

Oliver Stone's "Wild Palms" springs to mind.

I make a mean potato and leak - nice and thick. But my favourite would have to be jerusalem artichoke soup with either foie gras or truffles. I have been experimenting with plantain recently, but haven't come up with a good recipe yet.

Happy birthday, Mike!

They surely HAVE to reset it. There is a ridiculously major bug that it doesn't enforce unique user names! If you register using a user name of an eixsting player, that person can never log in again! It is a FAIL of epic proportions.

How about an N/A Aerotop?

Maybe he did it because he was pissed off that you block up the parent & child parking bays when people that really need the room to get their kids out want them?

Good post, Scott - do bear in mind that the guy may not actually have total control over what his son is doing - and whilst we would all love to be perfect parents, he may be having as tough a time as you are if this is the case!