1 voteAnonymous shared this idea ·
Not everyone elects to own use or operate a mobile phone. Thise that do have many choices of provider and tariff. I suggest studying the contracts available and reading the small print carefully should you choose to have a mobile phone.
Much of the money spent by mobile phone users generally is for unnecessary calls and texts. If users were to consider more carefully the need for every call they make or text they send I'm sure a lot of people would save a lot of money.
Why should the good people of 38 degrees waste their time and effort on lowering the cost of peoples lifestyle choices when those people do not even bother to inform themselves of their options.
I am far more concerned with things like Government (ie. OUR) money being spent assisting these providers in extending their coverage.
We actually spent money to enable people travelling on the London Underground to use their phones. Given that the same money could have been spent on projects to the whole of the country not just London I find this a somewhat foolish waste of OUR money.
No public body has to my knowledge has stated categorically that there are no health concerns to either the users of mobile phones or to people that spend any time in range of the masts that carry the signals. It wont be long before we have total national coverage without providing any means by which people can opt out of being bombarded by these emissions.
Operating mobile phones is proven to be a cause of accidents involving both injury and death and to our sick society the more important possible collateral damage operators can cause.
Theyhave their uses but I'm not convinced the cons of having thmm outweigh the pros.
The greater concern for me is that we have mobile phones at all.
Personally other than major international events like the Olympics, or perhaps some of the World and European events I would like to see all sport confined to its own channel(s). Whether or not they are pay for view is immaterial to me.
People who are regular viewers of normally scheduled programmes often have their viewing interupted by something as trivial as a sporting event I think this is an imposition and clearlk wrong.
I am not complaining for myself the littel television I do watch is provided for me by channels which do not interupt their regular schedules to show programmes that are of interest to a minority (percentage wise)M of the viewing public.
I wholeheartedly agree but I think you are wrong in one aspect
The providers of 4G have admitted their equimpment may be faulty and could possibly affect other equipment or signals to other equipment when the 4G service is imposed in a local area.
I wrote to them th following:
Why should members of the public have any electrical equipment / device etc affected by the unsolicited introduction of mobile phone technology?
Surely it is for the providers of this technology to ensure that it does not affect anyone other than people operating 4G mobile equipment.
I think the whole idea of 'wait and see if you are affected and then if you are contact us and then do this' is completely back to front
A) You should ensure that your service will not affect anyone before you start using it
B) If it does affect anyone switch it off until you have fixed it.
I cannot possibly conceive of any reason why you should even imagine that its ok for you to switch something like this on and then trouble shoot.
If I want to operate anything electrical I have to ensure that it does not affect anyone else and there are rules of compliance governing this. I cannot see why the operators / providers of 4G should be treat any differently to members of the public.
I look forward to your comments on the above though I doubt I'll get anything but a stock or standard letter.
Needless to say they have not responded.
It is my contention that the providers / operators of this 4G signal should not be imposed upon anyone's local area until it is proved to be completely innocuous.
Also given the concerns about current mobile phone masts etc what are the potential dangers of this 4G service.
Phil Thomson.. Sheffield
The campaign I would like to see started would be to prevent 4G from switching on until their equipment is proven to be safe and innocuous
You have my support,
The very idea of this is beyond ridicule
So you are saying Lord Sutton did not know of the MoD's Fire & Polices Service.
Perhaps he was the wrong man for the job then.
And the content owner should be the person that is or the property of the the person that is in the photograph unless they have agreed otherwise.
As the law stands I can almost anywhere take a photo of who or what I like and distribute it anyway others will let me.
Ask Kate Middleton how she feels about that.
Totally agree, provided both parents are actually fit to be parents.
Though who decides that and what criteria they should use is whole new can of worms.
Only two decades. Where have you been?
Our democracy is clearly for sale to the highest bidder,...
has this not always been the case anyway.
Who selects the political candidates for each constituency anyway?
What is their agenda?
What was their motivation for doing so?
What do they hope (or think ) they will gain by selecting that candidate?
What do they KNOW (in some cases) that they will gain from selecting that candidate?
Is it not a fact that whoever spends the most is most likely to win any election?
Should not the fact that someone follows or used facebook be an indication that the persons views are worth respect.
Whilst I'm sure some very ignorant people do not agree with the Liverpool Care Pathway I for one shall be backing this campaign
Totally agree. Simply spoiling one's paper is not sufficient; it just looks like a mistake or ineptitude.
In total agreement.
Perhaps it is someone's hidded agenda to force the less well off into crime just to make ends meet.
In my view the UK is not the nearest country Mrs S ( I don't know her name either ) could have gone to to claim asylum. Neither she or her offspring should be asking the UK for asylum.
I'm sorry to hear about this nameless woman and the plight of her and her children.
However, and please correct me if I'm wrong as it is my understanding that; if a person flees a country for political reasons they are entiltled to ask for political asylum from the nearest country that will not immediately extradite them.
If I am correct I think you will find as in many of these cases that the UK is not the nearest country. All the countries on the Western Coastline of Mainland Europe are all nearer.
I also believe, again correct me if I'm wrong, that asylum can only be sought for political reasons. not religious, criminal or indeed personal reasons. This case appears to be the latter and is therefore presently nothing to do with the people of the UK or our laws.
Though I suppose there is some scope for interpretation of the law here as I believe from my reading of the Quran IMHO that Islam is a political doctrine and not really a religion as such.
Totally agree in all regards you have my full support.
And where is the competition the privatisation was supposed to create?
I know I can only get my water from Yorshire Water and I'm sure I could get it cheaper from another company.
I wholeheartedly agree.
And could someone please tell me why I can buy my electricty and gas from opposite ends of the county and yet can only get my water from the local supplier. What was the point. other than creating profits for some, of privatising the water boards in the first place.
It seems rediculous that any of these amenities can be owned by people not resident in the UK and many of the rules and regulations in relation to water are in desperate need of change.
People can be charged for using rainwater they have collected. People can be charged for using water form their own springs the list goes on and is quite ridiculous.
Let's be honest most people think this tax is ridiculous.
My house has upstairs has a store room an office and 1 bedroom now. Though at the time of purchase the vendors claimed it was a 3 bedroom house; so who decides what is and what is not a bedroom?
In total agreement. It seems quite ridiculous if people look at this objectively. T
here are eople who are out of work, for whatever reason, and are in receipt of financial support from either the local authority (means tested Poll Tax benefit) , or the DWP and the latter case are already being allowed only the minimum the law says they require to live on.
Where is the sense or justification in taking money of people who the law has already said don't have enough in the first place?
My home is classed as having 3 bedrooms, one is scarcely large enough for the wardrobe it contains the another I use as an office, so in fact I only have 1 bedroom. There will be other people, people who fall foul of this bedroom tax, who cannot use all the rooms designated (presumably by whoever sold or rented it to them) as bedrooms. Play rooms, laundry rooms, hobby rooms etc.
So who is it that decides how many bedrooms a house actually has?
Are we to be seeing inthe none too distant future people not in receipt of any benefits, including people that own their own homes, being charged extra Poll Tax for having more 'bedrooms' that someone has decided they need? I very much doubt many of our MPs would be backing that particular piece of legislation.
Or am I being cynical. Perhaps our MPs are altruistic and won't mind making a bigger financial contribution. mmm why do I doubt that?
Dress it up anyway you like I don't care do waht has to be done and kick Abu Qatada out.
Just kick him out and to hell with the consequences what iwould the rest of the world do about it anyway.
Asylum seekers are supposed to go to the nearest country that won't deport them out of hand.
With few exceptions most asylum seekers in the UK have no right to be asking us for asylum in the first place as we are not the nearest country they could have gone to.
The exceptions would have to have been stowaways on either ships or aeroplanes to have got here; Abu Qatada did neither of those, most of our asylum seekers didn't do so either if we're being honest.
I don't actually know of any asylum seeker in the UK that can justify being here. Though I'll admit there may be a few though I doubt it.