It is also a great measurement for your penis. Makes it sound HUGE!
If you want to be a grease monkey for a race team you'd need to be a grease monkey anyway. Fast fit mechanic (so the sort of course the Army does in colleges, only a year long, but you have to work fast, hence the name), is a good place to start, then go to race events and volunteer your services, you'd need to do this for a year or so until you can start asking teams for money. So really you want to get a job in a garage first to gain knowledge, then on the weekend you can volunteer your time to a small outfit.
Quite possible, although they were both fleet vans (mine was BT his was Royal Mail), I've maintained my engine quite well (another oil/filters change is due actually), where as he is overdue an oil/filters change by about 2 years. A lot of that is because the Ford 1.8D is bullet proof. The van will fail before the engine.
Sticking it in high gear and using full throttle doesn't labour the engine quite the same way. It just puts extra load on the clutch. Your engine wants to spin, the gears won't let it. Ideally you want weight based loads using lower gears. I'm getting 50MPH in a very hilly environment. The neighbour is only getting 40MPH. Ford claim it can get 55-60MPH. So I'm more than happy with 50.
That is because a lot of them are tuned to run rich when on boost. So you get a lot of unburnt fuel, unlike on a petrol engine where most of the unburnt fuel can combust on the way out of the exhaust, diesel engines don't have the same luxury.
My diesel runs stupidly clean, the only overfueling comes when I fire it up.
Diesels respond very well to being driven hard. The worst thing you can do to a diesel engine is not make them work. They were designed to be laboured, when all you're doing is carting yourself too and from work in the city, you're killing the engine.
I push my 1.8D as hard as you can and I get better fuel economy than a guy who lives near me with an identical 1.8D van, we even do the same sort of drive to and from work. The only difference is he drives economically and I drive like a loon.
I push my 1.8D as hard as you can and I get better fuel economy than a guy who lives near me with an identical 1.8D van, we even do the same sort of drive to and from work. The only difference is he drives economically and I drive like a loon.
Tell you what, get a FWD rally car and go for a spin around a forest and you tell me if you don't need balls. People who say that have only ever watched racing on TV.
They do a lot of amateur rally in the forest behind my house and the standard big money cars rock up (Scoobies, Evos, Escort Mk1s/Mk2s, Cosworths, etc.), but the lower leagues tend to be Various hatchbacks, Fiesta, 106, 205, Focus, Corsa, Ka, Escort Mk5/6 RS2000 FWD and AWD, plus everything in-between, even had a TDi this year. If it had wheels, they ran it. But none of them were daily cars for a reason. The damage they suffered just from a day in Cropton Forest was unbelievable. 5 cars were written off (zero chance of repair), a handful suffered punctures to the floor thanks to massive rocks getting kicked up. Plus various amounts of shunt damage from going off the road.
You could turn a daily driver into a track slag and still use it on the road. But in the world of Rally, you need a dedicated car. Purely because of the environment, what flies at the track will not pass the scrutineers at a rally. Even at amateur levels like the events held round here, it costs a small fortune to participate. Sure the cars all had to be road legal (rules of rally), but none of them were cars you'd actually want to drive on the road.
You could turn a daily driver into a track slag and still use it on the road. But in the world of Rally, you need a dedicated car. Purely because of the environment, what flies at the track will not pass the scrutineers at a rally. Even at amateur levels like the events held round here, it costs a small fortune to participate. Sure the cars all had to be road legal (rules of rally), but none of them were cars you'd actually want to drive on the road.
Right, so it was a Labour rule implemented at a time to make the Tories unpopular. I see politics hasn't changed much.
It seems I did get bad advance. Maybe the accountant we use should go back into retirement.
And that is why the country is going to the wall. It is run by idiots who couldn't get a job on the open market. Most MPs get given a job they have no idea about. The chap in charge of defence said after he was given the seat that all he knows about the military is what he has seen on the news. And he was in charge of it all now. No wonder they never have the right equipment.
You're encouraged to claim for things you shouldn't by accountants. But then that is what you pay them for. Ways to avoid tax.
Shit, my memory for numbers has got worse. Probably why I'm not an accountant.
Sorry, I meant to put that as my family's shop. Currently it is below the 74k mark so we don't get to claim back VAT like a company earning over that does, because money is magnetic. It goes to other money. And the recent changes to company car tax mean we had to get rid of the company van. It was only 800 worth of Escort van (not my van, FYI), but the new tax rules on company vehicles mean you pay tax for what the vehicle was worth new, not it's current value. Thanks Tories, really helps.
The government won't be fighting too hard or they'll be hurting themselves. I realise the nation needs to jobs big companies bring to raise tax, but there you go. I have no objection to civil servants earning the money the market demands if they are doing an important job (like preventing massive loop holes), when it is a nothing job, they should get paid nothing in kind.
One of the interesting loop holes is uniforms. As a company owner if you have uniforms you can claim a tax break on cleaning expenses, but most companies (take almost at random, Co-Op) asks staff to clean their own uniforms. So Co-Op enjoys a tax break and the worker uses their wages to pay for it.
That isn't a should as though it is my idea, that is a should as in the law states they should be paying 50% on any earnings over 200k. The money up to that point is only taxed at 20% like everyone earning 0-200k, it used to be 10% from 0-25k and 22% from 25,000.01 through to 200k, but Mr Gordon Brown dropped the 10% tax band to save the rest of the nation 2%. That really helped the poor out.
Last edited by P5YcHoM4N, .
Oh, I'd never say they didn't the poor could run the country. In fact they'd just be as greedy, if not more than the folks who run it now, but worse is they'd not known what to do with the money and go bankrupt in a handful of years (as statistics shows happens to big lottery winners).
But the mega rich always find a way to get out of paying the tax the rest of us mortals have to. And having to pay corporate tax is no substitute that most of them pay less than 1% income tax. For anything over 200k they should be paying 50% income tax. The family shop pays those taxes and creates jobs (okay, so it is only 2 paid jobs so far and one is part time), but doesn't mean we should get out of paying income tax.
But the mega rich always find a way to get out of paying the tax the rest of us mortals have to. And having to pay corporate tax is no substitute that most of them pay less than 1% income tax. For anything over 200k they should be paying 50% income tax. The family shop pays those taxes and creates jobs (okay, so it is only 2 paid jobs so far and one is part time), but doesn't mean we should get out of paying income tax.
I would say I'm surprised, but you see it all of the time. I've seen people trying to squeeze past a crash after emergency services are walking around on the road. People who do that should have an instant 12 points and licence revoked.
You say rich, I think working class. The rich rarely pay tax because they have accountants to hide their money from the tax man.
Allegedly in 2005, the 54 billionaires in Britain paid a total of £14.7m in income tax. Of this, £9m was contributed by James Dyson. Yeah, they're really paying their share.
Or because riots go one so often it is just normal day to day living. What happened in England wouldn't even be news worthy in NI/Scotland because it was hardly a case of noise pollution next to an Old Firm riot.
Yikes, assuming 1troy ounce of gold is 1,700USD and I can remember how to do currency/weight conversions, that chap just paid $5.10 for a loaf of bread.
But then Zimbabwe wouldn't be like that if it wasn't for the British Devils. Although if Mugabe sold his solid gold glasses, he could probably buy a Veyron SS.
I'm critical of people who invest in assets they do not have in their physical possession, but only have a sheet of paper saying it is theirs (no different to having possession of the IOU that is paper money), and those who assume gold will always have value. The value of gold is irrelevant because it is paper money that sets the value. What people are willing to trade for an ounce of gold will plummet the second the currency it is valued against becomes worthless.
Gold only has value if someone is willing to buy it. And unless you actually have your "gold" in your house and not shored up in a vault you'll never get to, your gold only brings you wealth if you can sell it to acquire paper money. You are actually penniless until you sell your gold, so how are you better off? If society actually hits the fan you'll never get your gold so end up just as penniless as people who invested in hard cash.
Only having objects you can trade with brings wealth, so when the world goes to shit, I can gain food by promising not to shoot the person with food in the face (living in the country, I pack heat). How is your piece of paper saying you have gold locked away in a vault on the other side of the world going to help you get food?
I'm barely enjoying this winning streak.
LIES! Everyone knows poor people have no values. They are savages who beat up old ladies for their pension and sit on park benches. OH THE HUMANITY OF IT ALL!
Unfortunately you fell foul to ignorance. It is easy to spot a Sikh and most police officers know that they have a religious defence for carrying a blade. Unfortunately very few police officers know the law (they only enforce it, they don't have to know it) and Wiccan is little known religion (a lot of people still assume all Wiccans do is slaughter virgins and I wish I was making that up) all they see is a guy with a blade. But once they get back to the station and book in the weapon they'll find out that you were legally allowed to carry it and as such return without charge.
All you can do is memories the act number so when a bobby queries why you're carrying tell him to look it up. Or start a National Practising Wiccan ID programme, so when the BiB roll up, whip out your Wiccan ID.
I had been expecting something like this for a while. After our stance over protests and such for the last few years it was only natural a country out there would be all "u mad?"
I was one of those kids who had many knives (still do, but for different reasons now). I asked the first person because I wanted tips on how to sharpen a knife without it losing it's shine/colour (my first knife was painted black, the second I tried to sharpen it, the paint came off), when he told me he doesn't sharpen it, just shine it. So every time I got the chance I asked others if they sharpen theirs. It could be that was just how they rolled in my old hood. But since they were for decoration, none of them saw the need to sharpen it and felt that by leaving it dull it wouldn't put the defence in jeopardy.
Actually it is supposed to be so you can cut through the untruths. A little light reading for you. And you'll find if you ever get a look at a Kirpan being carried in the UK is they are duller than dishwater. I've yet to talk to anyone who carried one (I lived in a Sikh neighbourhood) who had it sharp enough to cut anything but air.
The defence in law stems back to when we needed Sikhs to fight for us (yes, we changed the law to suit a minority religion, but it helped us win many wars). It also applies to any religion that requires you to wear a bladed item, not just Sikhism.
[edit: I will say I do not believe that the defence should be allowed when it comes to school, but one does exist, so you can wear a knife of sorts to school, if it is in your religion to always carry one.]
No, he is wearing the Kirpan because it is part of his religion. He'd wear it down to the supermarket too, most Sikhs carry them at all times (though normally an overcoat hides it). I carry my fists at all times, they can be used in self defence, does that mean my fists are illegal? Shit I was wearing boots today too, size 10 boots are quite dangerous, that must be doubly illegal.
Anything can be a weapon if you choose to use it as one. A chunk of iron isn't automatically a weapon because it is shaped like one.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG