Miscellaneous Discussion Thread
My understanding the casino gave up more info than asked, extra dates not listed on the subpoena.Quote: GWAEI have been waiting for more info to come out about it. Local news ran a few stories when it happened but never gave the details. I assumed it was something like you just posted. I dont think the casino should be liable. If he is a cop probably had docs that were real or looked spot on so how is the casino supposed to know? Only way I think they are in the wrong is if they didnt follow procedure, like make there is a rule that if there is a subpoena they are supposed to get lawyers involved first.
Quote: FleaStiffShe never held her phone up for public viewing or authorized the casino to magnify the image. Statutes enumerate the purposes casino surveillance can be used for. Using sophisticated techniques to read her phone's screen might be legal IF cheating were alleged but this was just the casino intruding into her personal life and choosing to give ammunition to her husband.
But if there was a subpoena then they weren't freely giving info.
I have been served 2 subpoenas for business. 1 was FBI and one was sherif. They were both very daunting and both times I wasnt exactly sure what I should have been given. The first time I didnt give enough info they made a big deal out of it. The subpoena was general like all billing records for doctor x.
Point is I can see how they could give more info than requested. If it read something like all cell screens or something.
Apparently more dates were given up than requested.Quote: GWAEBut if there was a subpoena then they weren't freely giving info.
I have been served 2 subpoenas for business. 1 was FBI and one was sherif. They were both very daunting and both times I wasnt exactly sure what I should have been given. The first time I didnt give enough info they made a big deal out of it. The subpoena was general like all billing records for doctor x.
Point is I can see how they could give more info than requested. If it read something like all cell screens or something.
http://newjersey.news12.com/story/39108476/man-says-fanduel-sportsbook-wont-pay-out-large-bet
However, the line was obviously erroneous and they offered substantial compensation.
Where do you stand?
I actually kind of think there should be some limit on what a bookie can lose due to error. If some guy punches the 0 key 6 extra times, should the sharp bettor be the new owner of CET?
However, they should have to honor the majority of erroneous lines and a substantial portion of ridiculous ones.
Quote: RigondeauxFanduel, one of the newly legal bookies in NJ (Fnduel isn't gambling tho) has welshed on an $82k winner.
http://newjersey.news12.com/story/39108476/man-says-fanduel-sportsbook-wont-pay-out-large-bet
However, the line was obviously erroneous and they offered substantial compensation.
Where do you stand?
I actually kind of think there should be some limit on what a bookie can lose due to error. If some guy punches the 0 key 6 extra times, should the sharp bettor be the new owner of CET?
However, they should have to honor the majority of erroneous lines and a substantial portion of ridiculous ones.
I think they are now saying they will pay it. Perhaps they realized there was a strong chance that was going to be the end outcome not by choice. Just put a system in place where any bet that pays over a certain dollar amount and/or over a certain odds amount requires management approval, shouldn’t have been that hard. They deserve to pay it for not having that in place and they deserve the poor pr they’ve gotten for how they handled it.
Quote: RigondeauxFanduel, one of the newly legal bookies in NJ (Fnduel isn't gambling tho) has welshed on an $82k winner.
http://newjersey.news12.com/story/39108476/man-says-fanduel-sportsbook-wont-pay-out-large-bet
However, the line was obviously erroneous and they offered substantial compensation.
Where do you stand?
I actually kind of think there should be some limit on what a bookie can lose due to error. If some guy punches the 0 key 6 extra times, should the sharp bettor be the new owner of CET?
However, they should have to honor the majority of erroneous lines and a substantial portion of ridiculous ones.
It's an obvious error. However the book accepted the wager when it issued the ticket. They should pay and take a better look at their system. They were admitting fault by offering what they did.
Even better the Youtube follow-up video.
Quote: Rigondeaux
Where do you stand?
I actually kind of think there should be some limit on what a bookie can lose due to error. If some guy punches the 0 key 6 extra times, should the sharp bettor be the new owner of CET?
However, they should have to honor the majority of erroneous lines and a substantial portion of ridiculous ones.
In game wagering has really changed the landscape of this and will continue to present many problems. Traditionally I always believed the book should be able to cancel a ticket prior to the game starting if there was indeed a mistake. With in game wagering I think the book should be responsible for any tickets issued. Is there any scenario where the sportsbook would allow the patron to cancel a losing in game wager? I doubt it.
The other problem is how do you define what is considered a mistake and what isn't? We all understand that the bet should have been about -600, but what if they put the line at -400 and came back later and said that was a mistake it should have been -600? Do we believe them? Until the definition of a mistake can be quantified, they should pay the tickets.
One suggested that, if an error is claimed, the lines of a competing book should be used and that the patron should get a max of 5× the payout that he would have with the competition.
One problem raised was that you could pay people to make errors.
Background: I have an American Express credit card that I use regularly. Shortly after the closing date each month, I receive an email notice telling me that my on-line statement is ready, what the balance is, and what the due date for a payment is. I pay off the balance in full every month so that I do not incur finance charges.
For years, I have had the account set up to automatically debit the total balance from my checking account on the due date, just so I don't have to bother writing and mailing a check every month. A few days after I receive the monthly email notice that my statement is ready, I receive another email message reminding me of my scheduled auto-payment.
All of the above is very common and may apply to many of the people reading this post. Since, I keep track of my purchases and know the balance even before receiving the statement, I don't usually pay much attention to the email reminding me of the auto-payment -- it just has info that I have been expecting all along.
However, when I received my auto-payment reminder email earlier today, I happened to read it and noticed that what it said was completely incorrect. It wasn't that they had made an error in my account balance or anything like that; it was instead that someone at American Express had (somewhere along the way) revised the wording of the automated message in a manner that made it incorrect. I knew what they intended to say, but that wasn't what the email said.
The email message said, "Your Total New Balance is scheduled to be debited from your account ending in ##### on: 10/10/2018", where ##### represents the last five digits of my AMEX credit card number.
Now it has been close to 40 years since I have taken a course in accounting, but I recognized that this is not what they meant, and I thought that the folks at American Express should understand at least enough about accounting to know the difference between a debit and a credit!
What is really going to happen is that on approximately 10/10/2018 my AMEX balance amount will be debited from my checking account and that same amount will be credited to my account at American Express. How could they possibly get something like that mixed up?
I was nerdy/picky enough that I called the AMEX customer service to point this out. I described the issue to the customer service rep, who immediately understood the issue and said that I was correct. We agreed that I understood what was really going to happen and that someone had screwed up the wording of the email. The rep then told me that he was documenting the call as a complaint and that it would be followed up on. He asked me to read the exact wording to him again so that he could pass it along correctly.
Afterward, I started to wonder how long this incorrect wording had been used, since I (almost) never pay attention to that monthly reminder. I don't save all of the old email messages like this, but I have a bunch of them on file, and I looked back through them. It seems the error evolved in stages.
Last October, I received a reminder that said, "Your next payment for Total New Balance is scheduled to be debited from your bank account on 11/09/2017." Now that statement is exactly correct, and my archived messages indicate they had been using that wording for years.
Last December (don't have the November reminder email), the message said, "Your Total New Balance is scheduled to be debited from your account on: 01/10/2018." Now that statement could be right or wrong, depending on what account they are referring to.
The same wording was used on monthly reminders that arrived through July. Then in August, I received a reminder that said, "Your Total New Balance is scheduled to be debited from your account ending in ##### on: 09/10/2018." That is not correct at all, and they continued with that wording this month.
I think it is amazing that a major banking/credit company would screw up the accounting terminology. And it is further proof of my nerdy/picky nature in that I would point it out to them!
"Debit and Credit Usage
Whenever an accounting transaction is created, at least two accounts are always impacted, with a debit entry being recorded against one account and a credit entry being recorded against the other account. There is no upper limit to the number of accounts involved in a transaction - but the minimum is no less than two accounts. The totals of the debits and credits for any transaction must always equal each other, so that an accounting transaction is always said to be "in balance." If a transaction were not in balance, then it would not be possible to create financial statements. Thus, the use of debits and credits in a two-column transaction recording format is the most essential of all controls over accounting accuracy.
There can be considerable confusion about the inherent meaning of a debit or a credit. For example, if you debit a cash account, then this means that the amount of cash on hand increases. However, if you debit an accounts payable account, this means that the amount of accounts payable liability decreases. These differences arise because debits and credits have different impacts across several broad types of accounts, which are:
Asset accounts. A debit increases the balance and a credit decreases the balance.
Liability accounts. A debit decreases the balance and a credit increases the balance.
Equity accounts. A debit decreases the balance and a credit increases the balance.
The reason for this seeming reversal of the use of debits and credits is caused by the underlying accounting equation upon which the entire structure of accounting transactions are built, which is:
Assets = Liabilities + Equity
Thus, in a sense, you can only have assets if you have paid for them with liabilities or equity, so you must have one in order to have the other. Consequently, if you create a transaction with a debit and a credit, you are usually increasing an asset while also increasing a liability or equity account (or vice versa). There are some exceptions, such as increasing one asset account while decreasing another asset account.
If you are more concerned with accounts that appear on the income statement, then these additional rules apply:
Revenue accounts. A debit decreases the balance and a credit increases the balance.
Expense accounts. A debit increases the balance and a credit decreases the balance.
Gain accounts. A debit decreases the balance and a credit increases the balance.
Loss accounts. A debit increases the balance and a credit decreases the balance.
If you are really confused by these issues, then just remember that debits always go in the left column, and credits always go in the right column. There are no exceptions.
Debit and Credit Rules
The rules governing the use of debits and credits are as follows:
All accounts that normally contain a debit balance will increase in amount when a debit (left column) is added to them, and reduced when a credit (right column) is added to them. The types of accounts to which this rule applies are expenses, assets, and dividends.
All accounts that normally contain a credit balance will increase in amount when a credit (right column) is added to them, and reduced when a debit (left column) is added to them. The types of accounts to which this rule applies are liabilities, revenues, and equity.
The total amount of debits must equal the total amount of credits in a transaction. Otherwise, an accounting transaction is said to be unbalanced, and will not be accepted by the accounting software.
Debits and Credits in Common Accounting Transactions
The following bullet points note the use of debits and credits in the more common business transactions:
Sale for cash: Debit the cash account | Credit the revenue account
Sale on credit: Debit the accounts receivable account | Credit the revenue account
Receive cash in payment of an account receivable: Debit the cash account | Credit the accounts receivable account
Purchase supplies from supplier for cash: Debit the supplies expense account | Credit the cash account
Purchase supplies from supplier on credit: Debit the supplies expense account | Credit the accounts payable account
Purchase inventory from supplier for cash: Debit the inventory account | Credit the cash account
Purchase inventory from supplier on credit: Debit the inventory account | Credit the accounts payable account
Pay employees: Debit the wages expense and payroll tax accounts | Credit the cash account
Take out a loan: Debit cash account | Credit loans payable account
Repay a loan: Debit loans payable account | Credit cash account"
Quote: Dr.Itchbut the minimum is no less than two accounts.
Fewer*
Sorry, I just like saying “Dr. Itch” instead of D-Rich. =)
Autopaying your credit card would be crediting your checking account (reducing it) and debiting your credit card (reducing it, because cc account is a liability).
Quote: unJonA debit to your checking account would increase the balance. Like a deposit. A credit to your checking account would decrease the balance. Like a withdrawal.
Autopaying your credit card would be crediting your checking account (reducing it) and debiting your credit card (reducing it, because cc account is a liability).
I had not intended to make this thread a lesson in accounting, but I will point out some of the difficulties in the credit/debit terminology, starting with unJon's post.
Whether the change in the balance in an account is a debit or a credit, depends substantially on whose books you are looking at. It appears that unJon is referring to how my checking account or my credit card account would appear on my own books, while in most any communication an individual has with a financial institution the references will be in terms of how the accounts appear on that institution's books.
For example, I have a checking account with Bank of America. That account should appear on both the BoA books and on my own books. On the BoA records, that checking account balance is a liability, since it represents money that they basically owe to me. On my books, the checking account balance is an asset, since it represents something of value to me.
If a deposit is made in my checking account, increasing the balance, that is an increased liability for the bank, which is known as a credit to that account. On my books -- just as unJon said -- it is an increase to an asset, which is known as a debit.
When I communicate with the bank, we are always talking about their records of the account. I doubt they even care whether I have any books or not, since it is their records and books that really count. Deposits are known as credits, and withdrawals are known as debits -- on their books.
My credit card balance at American Express is an asset on their books (money that I owe to them) and a liability on my own books. Since my communications with AMEX are always in terms of their books, a charge to my account (such as a purchase with the card), is an increase to their asset account and is known as a debit. If I make a payment on the account, or if I return an item to a merchant and receive a refund to my credit card, that reduces the balance, decreasing the AMEX asset, making the transaction a credit on their books.
Putting all these things together, when a payment on my credit card account is made by an automated transfer of funds from my checking account, AMEX sees their asset account reduced (a credit) while the Bank of America sees their liability account reduced (a debit). Speaking in terms of the books held by the commercial firms, my checking account has been debited to make the payment, and my credit card account has been credited.
In the email notices that I quoted in my previous post, the earliest notices (October 2017 and before) were correct in saying that my AMEX balance would be debited from my bank (BoA) account. The most recent notices (August and September 2018) are incorrect by saying that the balance would be debited from "your account ending in #####", which is the AMEX account. That account should be credited when they receive my payment from the bank.
I'd worry about the dollar amounts involved and the dates involved.
"charge" a certain account can eliminate some confusion but really why do you care about some dumb clerk's sentence structure.
One nurse recently recorded my ejection fraction as 4 percent when it was 40 percent. At 4 percent I'd be dead. When I read 4 percent I managed a laugh, but its numbers that matter not whether its in the right column.
The usual girl is training a new employee, who I recognize from the nearby Capriottis.
I show them the coupon and say I want two small roast beef subs. Girl tells me it's not necessary to buy anything, I still can get a free sandwich. I tell her I want two sandwiches.
So the new employee starts to ring me up but doesn't have a code for the free sandwich. The other one takes over, pushes all sorts of buttons and says $11.72. She realizes that's not right , pushes some more and says $8.66. I say one sandwich is $4.99 and the other is free. It should be around $6. She calls someone out from the back, and explains, half in English, half in I don't know what, the story.
Guy says ring it up as a BOGO, she says no, the sandwich is free. He says it's the same thing. She says it isn't.
I'm about to just walk out without the sandwiches when he turns to me and says he is sorry for the confusion and he is going to make the second sandwich his personal gift to me,and charges me $6.
Quote: billryanI stop by my local sandwich shop, and have a postcard they mailed out offering a free small sub. It doesn't mention any purchase requirement but I was planning to buy another sandwich or maybe a salad.
The usual girl is training a new employee, who I recognize from the nearby Capriottis.
I show them the coupon and say I want two small roast beef subs. Girl tells me it's not necessary to buy anything, I still can get a free sandwich. I tell her I want two sandwiches.
So the new employee starts to ring me up but doesn't have a code for the free sandwich. The other one takes over, pushes all sorts of buttons and says $11.72. She realizes that's not right , pushes some more and says $8.66. I say one sandwich is $4.99 and the other is free. It should be around $6. She calls someone out from the back, and explains, half in English, half in I don't know what, the story.
Guy says ring it up as a BOGO, she says no, the sandwich is free. He says it's the same thing. She says it isn't.
I'm about to just walk out without the sandwiches when he turns to me and says he is sorry for the confusion and he is going to make the second sandwich his personal gift to me,and charges me $6.
Oh, man. Too funny.
Gee, thanks, fellah!
At least you got what you came in for, plus a little entertainment.
Bonus!
A while ago, I had a $1k gift card (comp, technically, from Caesars) that was available at a few different places at the Forum Shops at CP here in LV. I went to a watch store because I wanted a good/decent watch. I'm willing to spend a couple hundred extra, maybe more, on top of the gift card, if there's something I really like.
I found a guy working there and he helps me. I don't remember exactly the how or why, but I think they were doing something like 20% off (maybe locals only?), and something weird about not having to pay tax on it. Dude sounded Russian and hard to understand, so I figured it was a "we pay the tax for you" promotion, or else it was something totally different. Don't know -- don't care -- I'll take any discount I can get, especially on something that's gonna be $1k+.
I pick out a watch that was $1,200. He puts it into the calculator, subtracts the 28% from the price (8% for tax, even though that shouldn't have been subtracted...it just shouldn't have been added). So now my total is $864.
I find another watch I kinda like for $600, IIRC. I figure with a 28% discount on that, it'll put me a few hundred over the total, and I'm fine paying a few hundred out of pocket. So, now the guy takes that $864 for the first watch, adds $600 for the next watch, then subtracts 28% from that total. Effectively, the $1,200 watch got discounted by 28% twice. The total, according to my calculator here, says it was $1,054.08, which makes sense since I remember paying fewer than $100 out of pocket. He should have added $1,200 + $600 to get $1,800, subtracted 20% off that for a total of $1,440, and then just not charged me tax on top of that.
Now that I think of it, it's possible the guy just remembered or heard that they don't charge tax on gift cards (technically, it was a comp from Caesars, and oftentimes comps aren't taxed, so that'd make sense), so maybe that's where the "no tax" thing came from.
Quote: RSThat's funny about the sandwiches. It's kind of mind-bottling when stuff like that happens.
Mind boggling.
Its not so funny about the sandwiches. If you had that job and worked with those people all day long, you would be looking for drugs to escape your situation too.
Quote: FleaStiffMind boggling.
Its not so funny about the sandwiches. If you had that job and worked with those people all day long, you would be looking for drugs to escape your situation too.
Mind bottling*.
Quote: RSThat's funny about the sandwiches. It's kind of mind-bottling when stuff like that happens.
A while ago, I had a $1k gift card (comp, technically, from Caesars) that was available at a few different places at the Forum Shops at CP here in LV. I went to a watch store because I wanted a good/decent watch. I'm willing to spend a couple hundred extra, maybe more, on top of the gift card, if there's something I really like.
I found a guy working there and he helps me. I don't remember exactly the how or why, but I think they were doing something like 20% off (maybe locals only?), and something weird about not having to pay tax on it. Dude sounded Russian and hard to understand, so I figured it was a "we pay the tax for you" promotion, or else it was something totally different. Don't know -- don't care -- I'll take any discount I can get, especially on something that's gonna be $1k+.
I pick out a watch that was $1,200. He puts it into the calculator, subtracts the 28% from the price (8% for tax, even though that shouldn't have been subtracted...it just shouldn't have been added). So now my total is $864.
I find another watch I kinda like for $600, IIRC. I figure with a 28% discount on that, it'll put me a few hundred over the total, and I'm fine paying a few hundred out of pocket. So, now the guy takes that $864 for the first watch, adds $600 for the next watch, then subtracts 28% from that total. Effectively, the $1,200 watch got discounted by 28% twice. The total, according to my calculator here, says it was $1,054.08, which makes sense since I remember paying fewer than $100 out of pocket. He should have added $1,200 + $600 to get $1,800, subtracted 20% off that for a total of $1,440, and then just not charged me tax on top of that.
Now that I think of it, it's possible the guy just remembered or heard that they don't charge tax on gift cards (technically, it was a comp from Caesars, and oftentimes comps aren't taxed, so that'd make sense), so maybe that's where the "no tax" thing came from.
I love when stuff like that happens. I sit there and think to myself. Hurry hurry, check me out and dont figure it out so Incan get the hell out a here with extras. Although when it happens at fast food I always correct them. Like a few weeks ago we went to Wendy's and ordered 4 of the 4 for 4. Total should be $17.42. She gives me the correct total and Inhand her 20.42. She hands me back $13. I think about it for a sec and hand her the 10 back.
If you seriously think that is correct you missed your calling. You should be working in that Subway next to the perplexed cashier.Quote: RSMind bottling*.
Quote: FleaStiffIf you seriously think that is correct you missed your calling. You should be working in that Subway next to the perplexed cashier.
My bank doesn't even let the tellers count out cash themselves. It all goes through the counting machines. Last time there, I had two 50's and asked for a 100. They ran my two bills through the counting machine, and ran the single 100 bill through the machine prior to handing it to me.Quote: DRichI went to my bank yesterday and asked to buy 9000 pesos. It took about fifteen minutes for the two tellers to try and count 9,000 pesos back to me. They just couldn't figure it out. I don;t know if they were confused because it was pesos, but they have the amount right on the bill just like dollars. After fifteen minutes I just told them that it was fine just give it to me. I went home with 10,100 pesos. Basically, I got an extra $50 out of it that I wasn't charged for. I rarely see banks make money mistakes.
Quote: FleaStiffIf you seriously think that is correct you missed your calling. You should be working in that Subway next to the perplexed cashier.
Mind officially bottled.
I don't know how could a drama or whatever could be. Especially with Hanks.
Quote: RigondeauxI heard there is a really good doc about him.
I don't know how could a drama or whatever could be. Especially with Hanks.
Yeah I am not sure either. I have a new respect for him though after tonight. There were about 15 of us standing there and some big security guy came over and said Mr Hanks was coming out to get in his car. It was ok to take pictures but he asked us not to ask for autographs. Tom walked right over to a kid and fist bumped him. He went to my son and asked him if he watched Mr Rogers yet. Then out of no where he asked us what happened at the end of every show. Some one said he sang a song. Tom was like yep, just like this and he sang the song. He didn't sing it very well but he sang it and then thanked everyone. Got in his car and left. I didn't get the feeling that he was annoyed with doing it. I have been around some other actors that just blew everyone off. Never on a movie set though so maybe they act a little different when they are actively on the job.
Don't know nuttin' 'bout da movie; don't know why a movie would have such an improper ungrammatical line in it.Quote: ChesterDogRS is quoting the movie "Blades of Glory."
The Smith's by my house is open 24 hours again.
Quote: RigondeauxOur long national nightmare is over.
The Smith's by my house is open 24 hours again.
I hope that trend continues. Never realized how much it affected my shopping.
Quote: mcallister3200I must say that the east coast is objectively just the worst. the mass amounts of ugly trees,
here's a pic of some of the ugly ass trees on the east coast. lol
Same question goes for Canada, Bahamas, Australia, and every other part of British Empire.
Thank you.
Quote: WizardI was just wondering if the UK is still bound to the Magna Carta as the U.S. is bound to the constitution. You hear arguments about constitutional interpretation all the time here when something comes up that the document just doesn't address or isn't absolutely clear about. My point is that I can never recall two Brits arguing about the fine points of the Magna Carta. Why is that?
Same question goes for Canada, Bahamas, Australia, and every other part of British Empire.
Thank you.
The UK is said to have an 'unwritten' constitution - suggesting the same is true for every other part of the Commonwealth . Where is Pacomartin when you need him?
Quote: odiousgambitThe UK is said to have an 'unwritten' constitution
This is very interesting. Indeed, Paco, where are you?
Quote: WizardI was just wondering if the UK is still bound to the Magna Carta as the U.S. is bound to the constitution. You hear arguments about constitutional interpretation all the time here when something comes up that the document just doesn't address or isn't absolutely clear about. My point is that I can never recall two Brits arguing about the fine points of the Magna Carta. Why is that?
Same question goes for Canada, Bahamas, Australia, and every other part of British Empire.
Thank you.
The Magna Carta established the limitations of the monarchy and set basic rights for the nobles.
The Constitution established the U.S. Government.
In my unqualified opinion, the M C is much closer to the Declaration of Independence. When did people last argue over the D of I?
Quote: AxelWolfWhy is it so hard for people to sit in their correct Fing seat on an airplane.
If you have a seat in the middle of the row and a seat is open on the isle.....wouldn't you grab it also?
As an aged Brit, quoting from experience and opinion only, without googling it...Quote: WizardI was just wondering if the UK is still bound to the Magna Carta as the U.S. is bound to the constitution. You hear arguments about constitutional interpretation all the time here when something comes up that the document just doesn't address or isn't absolutely clear about. My point is that I can never recall two Brits arguing about the fine points of the Magna Carta. Why is that?
Same question goes for Canada, Bahamas, Australia, and every other part of British Empire.
Thank you.
The Magna Carta is sometimes referred to as the British, or English Constitution, but it's by far less significant than the US one. You have to observe that it is about five centuries older than your constitution and predated the concept of democracy.
At the time it was drawn up, England was a pretty feudal monarchy and its original draft was to end squabbles between the Monarchy, the Barons, and the Catholic church. It spent many years being quite effectively ignored until later being officially defied by the Pope* and getting redrafted a few times by subsequent kings.* As the country's parliament started asserting it's right to enact laws, the MC became irrelevant, though occasionally and rather obliquely, the Magna Carta was quoted as 'Constitution' granting certain liberties to ordinary citizens.
*You'll see I lack any specific knowledge of details. That is because the Magna carta is barely ever mentioned in school and i really don't want to google it.
What really dictated the UK constitution till we joined Europe, was 'Common Law'. Common law is a law based on precedent and previous judgements are well studied by the members of the UK legal system. Common Law sits along side Statute to define our rights.
After joining the European union, and integrating and aligning most of our laws, we pretty much adopted their 'European Human Rights' laws en masse. That is pretty much the European Union's overriding Constitution. Where European counties start denying human rights, the European Parliament sanctions those countries as best they can.
I hope that rather vagure perspective helps.
Contrary to popular belief, we have quite a civil society. Seriously, our political leaders don't tend to take the kinds of liberties that would get us rioting on the streets... At least since Thatcher. We might occasionally protest peacefully.Quote: onenickelmiracleI don't see them with pitchforks and torches rioting day and night. It must be in effect somehow. Or was that Brexit?
Brexit, was IMHO a monumental mis-sell by certain rabble rousing nationalist politicians ( One of whom was popular with your guy ). The Uk public fell for it by a narrow margin and we are now headed for something of a precipice as the government tries to limit the damage and while others just try to stir up sh1t. We are not in the best place and not heading in the best direction.
Also it seems UK laws get overturned on human rights grounds since Europe seems to recognize squatting as a human right, begging as a human right, pickpocketing as a human right and unlawful border crossing as a human right.
Brexit? First step towards Scottish independence and Scottish control of North Sea oil.
Quote: OnceDearAs an aged Brit, quoting from experience and opinion only, without googling it...
Thank you. This is all rather interesting and I'm sure could be discussed for hours. My learning curve is very steep at this point, so can't think of any good cross talk at this point. I will say the Wiki entry on the Constitution of the United Kingdom seems a good source.
Let me ask a couple of questions:
1. What are the rights to trial by jury in the UK?
2. How far do freedom of speech rights extend?
No, I would sit in my assigned purchased seat(some people pay extra to pick their seats). Only after everyone was seated would I attempt to engage in any seat switching if there were open spots.Quote: vegasIf you have a seat in the middle of the row and a seat is open on the isle.....wouldn't you grab it also?
The plane was still boarding. When I get to my row some fat ass chick is in my window seat. For all I know, she isn't even in the correct row, so, if I just take the open spot someone else might come along and tell me I'm in their seat. It just causes a big clusterF***, I have seen it time and time again. I didn't make her move since it would have held up everyone behind me, and I didn't really care all that much about the seat on such a short flight. Then she wouldn't shut up and wanted to talk to me the entire flight with her boring life story.
Get your ass on the plane, find your correct seat, quickly put your sh*t up and sit the F down.
