Off topic I know, but just to clarify, you don't need to be doing anything concretely illegal (e.g. exceeding speed limit, jumping red light etc.) to be charged and convicted with DVDC.

Precisely. There's not much that can be done about that, but definitely it should be advertised to everyone, internally and externally, to give everyone a fair chance to present themselves as the ideal candidate. I don't know about any other universities, but the university I graduated from only ever advertised their temping/part-time/admin jobs externally once they were unable to find anyone internally. By internally, I mean both current employees AND also those who had done work for the uni before but not currently working for them. This was particularly unfair given the number of skint students looking for that kind of work. Once you had been employed once by the uni, you were on their list to be contacted about any vacancy BEFORE it got advertised externally. This I found really wrong. It wasn't jobs where you needed any special knowledge or skills, it was just basic admin/office jobs, always done by students on a part-time basis to fund their studies. I know one person who got a job with no reference, interview and without even applying, because they agreed to sleep with their boss (from their first job). I know another person who got a job simply because their sibling was a high-ranking staff member. In both these cases, it was people who had worked for the uni before, and they got offered these vacancies without them ever being advertised at all, internally OR externally. Basically, if you didn't know the right people, there was no chance of getting a job. It was completely corrupt. I had a fantastic time at uni but the blatant employment discimination was something I do not miss something I would like changes. This is why I believe ALL jobs should be advertised in the public doman and everyone, without exception, should be able to apply for them. I've looked on the NHS Jobs website occasionally in my search for work, and there are sometimes job advertisements that say they are only open to current employees.

Hi, it appears Legal Warden has been having a cheap laugh, apologies but the reason I'm just coming onto this thread and writing this is that it appears to be made from my computer...it is shared and obviously one of my housemates is doing this. Many apologies to the OP, and mods feel free to delete LW's account. Really sorry about this. Best wishes to the OP and keep ignoring that ticket.

This is the bit I believe is very unjust, and what I think should be made illegal. I think they should advertise them internally and in the public domain at the same time. Sure, those working internally deserve the right to apply too, it would be completely wrong to deny them that. But those ordinary jobseekers on the outside deserve a chance just as much. Those working internally will often have the experience and knowledge of the company necessary and will get the job over someone who hasn't worked there before, fair enough, but others at least deserve to KNOW about the vacancy and should be given the opportunity to apply to it as well.

I'm really sorry to hear about your cat. This is the last thing you want to go through after losing a pet, I agree it would be distressing and disrespectful to have to exhume a pet's body and take it to the vet just in the interest of signing a form. This would still be unpleasant and upsetting, but a bit less so than taking it to the vet - could you get the vet round to your house, dig up a bit of the ground just to show that the cat is there, and put the earth back again? Then the vet can see that the cat is dead without you having to go through the traumatic process of exhuming a 3-week old body and taking it away. As an aside, I'm sorry it had to take this event to show you how greedy, unethical and immoral the whole insurance business is.

Good point, I'm sure it is cheaper for businesses not to advertise vacancies and just offer them to the first taker they can find in their company, regardless of skill or suitability for the role. Sadly that's all too true. Still, in the difficult times we find ourselves in, I think the priority should go to the jobseeker and not to the business. Yes it will cost them more to advertise but they are also more likely to find a good candidate who, with the right skills and a good performance, would probably make the business better off than if they'd just offered the job to the first person they could find.

I think it's grossly unfair that so many job vacancies go completely unadvertised to the masses and are only offered to whose who are already working in a certain company. I think there should be a law created that makes it mandatory for all employers to publish job vacancies in the public domain (doesn't matter where - a newspaper, a jobs website, a notice in the local shop), banning them from concealing vacancies from the general public. It is disgusting that nowadays the reality is it is more to do with who you know than how good a candidate you are. I have been looking unsuccessfully for a job for several months and am sick of hearing stories from people who have been offered jobs and/or promotions "unofficially" by their bosses, without the general public being made aware of the vacancy at all. I am not talking about last-minute urgent cover jobs etc. - obviously when this need arises a company needs to find someone asap and the way to do that is to get a current employee to do it. What I'm talking about is genuine vacancies (part-time, full-time, temp, doesn't matter). Especially in a recession, it's all the more disgusting that all these good job offers are being concealed from the vast majority and are being offered exclusively to people who already work in the company, when there are millions of excellent candidates out there who are looking tirelessly and unsuccessfully for jobs and are being discriminated against for not knowing the right people. It's time to put an end to this shameful culture of unadvertised jobs going straight to people on the inside without even needing a reference or an interview. What does anyone else think? I have created a petition on the Downing Street petitions website about this. It is still being checked as I only did it yesterday, but when it hopefully goes online I shall post the link here. Good luck to all those hard-working, deserving people out there looking for jobs.

Sure, but the guideline is to treat the "road side" (as opposed to the pavement side) of a row of parked/stationary cars as the edge of a pavement curb...i.e. when you get to the outer side of between two parked cars you should look both ways and check it's clear before walking out into the moving traffic, rather than just walking out without even bothering to look. Obviously I wasn't there so it's hard to comment but from the OP's story, the pedestrian deserves at the very least some of the blame. Also I'm not sure the speed of the car matters, for example a car insurer would certainly not care...look how often you see people coming on here and other forums admitting they were at fault for an accident but saying they feel it's unfair because the other car was speeding. As I'm sure you know, the insurer couldn't care less how fast the other car was going and it doesn't affect the placement of blame if you were the one that started it. Surely it's the same with a pedestrian: if you decide to walk out into a road (or across a road behind a load of stationary cars), and a car is driving past right at that minute and can't stop, it doesn't matter if the car was going at 5mph or 100mph, you still should have been looking where you were going.

Sorry but the argument that you should have been driving according to the conditions etc. doesn't wash. Not morally and not legally. I take it that those who claim this always brake to less than 5mph EVERY SINGLE TIME you see a pedestrian anywhere near the side of a pavement? Imagine you are going through a 20 zone at 20mph, in fine normal conditions etc., there is a sole pedestrian walking along the pavement, showing no intention whatsoever to walk out. Then, just as you are driving past, the pedestrian jumps into the road right in front of you, you have no chance to react and you hit him. Don't lie, you would deny completely it was your fault, wouldn't you? And you'd be right, it would be the pedestrian's fault. You are actually saying a driver is at fault if a pedestrian walks out right in front of their car just as they are driving past?! I agree completely with Hillwalker and Mossycat. The pedestrian was negligent for obviously not looking where he was going on a known busy road in very busy traffic, and also omitting to use a designated crossing. If you choose to walk out into a road, it's completely your responsibility to ensure you look where you are going. You can't blame an innocent car driver for hitting you if you are weaving between cars and stepping out in front on moving vehicles with no warning. Give the OP a break, he's said enough times that he would only use court action as a defence in case the pedestrian went through one of those injury claims solicitors you see on TV constantly between Countdown, Deal or No Deal and Place in the Sun. If this had happened to me I would do exactly the same thing. If the case landed in my office I would without the tiniest shred of doubt fight for the driver in this one. While I have sympathy for the injured man, that should NOT cloud your judgment - by the description given it is clearly his fault, and any damages arising should be paid by him and not the driver. Last time I checked, being injured due to your own negligence is not an excuse to avoid being held culpable for your actions. There is a tendency for people to emotionally jump to the defence of the more injured party just out of sympathy, even if they are clearly in the wrong. This is understandable but the wrong thing to do. This is seen on a weekly basis when innocent car drivers involved in accidents with motorcyclists who die attempting plain stupid manoevres are villified despite being the innocent party. Yes, the pedestrian has the right of way on our roads, but that doesn't make you immune from blame if you are stupid enough to walk out right in front of a moving car.

Hi all, Thank you very much for your replies and good words, I really do appreciate it as I am a complete novice to accident/insurance protocol. He hit me at about 10mph, as a result of which my boot doesn't open. I don't know what his damage is. There's a bit of a dent on my boot (his car was a lot higher than my Peugeot 306, as his is a 4x4) but I suspect there is some hidden damage underneath as often happens with rear-enders even at low speed. Thanks for the advice, there are a lot of things you have all mentioned that I would have forgotten about myself, which I will mention on the claim form. I'll keep in touch, though I suspect I should be OK with the evidence:-|

Sadly I had my first ever accident today after 5 years of driving. I feel I am not at fault but the 3rd party is disputing liability. I was at a red traffic light at a pedestrian crossing in a small town. I was the first and only car stopped there. The lights turned green but at that moment a cat ran into the road so I stayed stationery until I could guarantee I could move off without hitting the cat. Then, Bang, I am hit from behind by a businessman in a black 4x4 who then comes up to my window, banging on it and swearing at me, the normal "who taught you to drive" crap. I had had my foot on the brake the whole time, so my brake lights had been on the whole time and I checked later that they are both working. So he could clearly see I was stopped. He says I am in the wrong because it was a green light so I should have been moving and not stationery. I say he is in the wrong because he hit me from behind, simple as. Added to that, I was very clearly stationery, my brake lights were on and it was a straight piece of road and he could easily see me from a long distance behind so he had ample time to spot me and slow down. He thinks just because it was a green light, it is always safe to go and you should just blindly move off regardless of any hazards. The weather was cloudy so he can't say he couldn't see my brake lights in the sun. I'm fairly (but nervously) sure the insurance companies will agree it's 100% his fault and not mine, but being in my 20s and him in his 50s and probably with years of experience and hundreds of thousands of miles of driving, I am aware he will probably (a) lie very cleverly about what happened, and (b) try to influence the decision of the insurers. And me being young, the insurer won't hesitate to give me a fault claim so they get more money. My word against his, they will obviously go with him, there's no doubt about that, that's just life. The police weren't called because there were no injuries, and the other guy was in a rush and didn't want to stop other than to exchange details and to patronise me about how I should be in nappies rather than behind a wheel. There were no witnesses, but there is a shop right by the traffic lights. I went in there and asked if their camera covers the crossing and the nice lady said it does so if need be I could ask the police/insurer to look at the CCTV to prove my case. So in short, do I have a chance at being 100% not to blame?

Hi all! Sorry for my prolongued absence, I was away for a few days but am back now (obviously!). Thank you for all your advice, and it's great to have several people contribute: the more opinions/angles, the better. Skonk: Yes, you have understood it perfectly. 9 1/2 hours work, all standing up, with 20 minutes' unpaid break, which in reality is just under 15 minutes because we won't get paid for the remaining 10 mins if we take all 20 mins for the break. E.g. Start lunch break at 1pm, back to work at 1:20, means we won't be paid until 1:30. So we take just under 15 minutes so we can be paid from 1:15...or we just don't take a break at all, because it takes a good 5 minutes to sort things out and get out of the workplace and go to the staffroom or to your car and another 5 mins coming back in. Work starts at 9am. If we arrive at 9:01, we don't get paid until 9:15, as the clocking in machine measures in quarters. So we can be working for up to 14 minutes unpaid. Surely this is illegal? Yes, it's your responsibility for arriving to work on time, but even if you are late, you should still be paid from the minute you get there...shouldn't you? Likewise: work finishes at 6:30pm. If we clock out at 6:29, we will only be paid up to 6:15. Again, up to 14 minutes' unpaid work. Yes, the big boss is one of those people who sits on his arse all day in a big comfy chair in a backroom, doing what appears to be very little at a computer. The business is an individual business, not a chain. Sadly I am not in a union, but I am only a part-time summer worker for this particular business. Does the fact that I'm part-time change anything regarding lunch breaks or unpaid work? Perhaps some of my full-time colleagues are in a union, but I don't know. Thanks.

Nothing.

Two quick questions, thanks in advance for any help. 1) My working day is from 9:00am to 6:30pm. We are entitled to just 20 minutes' unpaid break around lunchtime, and no breaks at any other time (except quick toilet breaks). Is this legally enough, given the very long working day? 2) It is a retail environment. The boss insists that all employees remain standing up at all times, to "look professional". This even includes when there are no customers whatsoever in the shop, and anyway to be honest I don't think the customer could care less whether you were standing or sitting at the till. It is incredibly exhausting standing up for 9 and a half hours...if we were moving around it would be OK, but standing up in exactly the same place without moving from the till for this length of time is physically painful and exhausting. Are either of these two issues OK legally? Is the boss allowed to declare that we may not sit down for this length of time, irrespective of any individual's health situation etc.? Re: question 1, no-one actually ever takes this 20 minute break in reality, because the clocking-in/out system is done on a 15-minute rota basis: so if you clock out at 1pm and clock back in at 1:20 after your break, you don't get paid until 1:30. So people either take a 10-minute break (to guarantee being back before the 15 minutes is up) or no break at all.

The non-premium rate number for the head office customer services is 01332 854321. Every premium rate phone number also has a normal geographical landline number that they never tell you. Here is the website to find non-premium rate numbers: SAYNOTO0870.COM - Non-Geographical Alternative Telephone Numbers

Just returned from one hell of a hotel stay that I feel compelled to write about to warn others! I couldn't get the "add a review" bit to work (was a dead link, mods feel free to move if there is a better place for this). The hotel is in a very convenient location close to the docks of Folkestone and Dover, and to the Eurotunnel terminal, which we were using. Sadly that is all the good that can be said of this 'hotel'. It is in a dodgy and run-down part of town. The 'private and secure' underground car park was teeming with unpleasant-looking people smoking drugs, drinking and staring into people's cars. We were scared to leave our car there and moved it before going to bed. We checked in fairly easily, but they have a draconian and untrusting policy whereby guests are not allowed to leave the hotel with their room keys under any circumstances, we had to drop them in a box at the reception. Under any circumstances even meant to go to our car to bring our suitcase in. By the time we had done that, there was a huge queue at reception and we had to wait 15 minutes just to get our room key back. The room was big and had a view over the sea, but the bathroom was absolutely appalling, frankly we should have asked for our money back. The bath and plug hole were covered in hairs, obviously it had not been cleaned. The toilet roll had not been changed and had an ominous brown stain across it. Upon tentatively nearing our noses, it was clear what the brown stain was. There was no bin in the bathroom so all private hygienic articles had to be disposed of in the open-topped bin in the bedroom. The bedsheet was also dirty, had a mysterious yellow stain, which we insisted was changed. The restaurants close very early (7:30pm). We had had a long journey and only arrived at about 7 so had to rush our food. The food was average, nothing else to say about it. It was clearly aimed at elderly people I'm afraid: vegetables overboiled to a pulp, stew, and mushy puddings, this in mid-June. The breakfast resembled an army camp. All the food was in enormous metal vats and trays and was very basic. The bacon was half-roar and the fried eggs burnt to a crisp. I am not at all a fussy eater and eat almost anything, and I love a good English fry-up, but I had to draw a line at some of the things here, I wouldn't feed it to my cat. At £20 pppn including breakfast, it is attractive if you are on a budget, but also the staff used the price to make us feel guilty and ungrateful when we complained. I regret not pushing it further, but I'm back home now and still alive. To sum it up, this hotel is a cross between an old people's home and a prison/army camp. I have stayed in hostels in desperately poor parts of the developing world that can still provide a clean bedsheet and unstained loo roll. This is the worst hotel I have ever stayed in.

Agreed, speed is the MAIN factor in a minority of accidents. However, it is A factor in all accidents (sorry, collisions...). The speed of the vehicle at the time of impact dictates the seriousness of the damage and injuries caused to the vehicle/people. Even if the main factor is drink, mobile phone, lack of control, bad observation, etc., speed is still a factor in the collision - the faster you are going, the worse the damage/injuries. There are too many people who use the "but speed is only the main factor in a small proporition of accidents" excuse to justify them going inappropriately fast...I say inappropriate because of course a large amount of accidents happen below the speed limit but still when the vehicle has been going too fast for the conditions. I lay part of the blame on the DSA on this mentality of having to go at the maximum posted limit, because on the driving test you have to go at the very maximum limit if possible, otherwise you are failed for failure to make adequate progress. This part of the test encourages impatient and dangerous driving as it implies to impressionable young/new drivers that they must drive at the absolute limit. Yes of course you shouldn't drive at 40 on a clear, straight 60 road, but there is nothing wrong with going at 57 or something. Basically what I meant to say is people use this "main factor in very few accidents" mantra to make themselves feel justified/less guilty about speeding even though they know deep down that what they are doing is wrong and potentially dangerous, which I find a bit cowardly to be honest. As well as because it's illegal, I prefer not to speed as it makes my life easier and saves me from losing sleep over "I wonder if I got caught by that camera I saw today", etc.

The car is a dark green, could be confused for black or blue but definitely not grey. Still, it was 10am so no excuses for consusing the colour! Thanks wheelergeezer, yeah I thought that was the most likely thing they must have done by accident. I will put up an image of the PCN when I can find it again under my heap of more important paperwork!

I've just come across this thread and it's been a very interesting read. Here's my pinch of salt. I do understand the OP's frustration, given the circumstances, however at the end of the day he has no-one else to blame and he should take the punishment and continue his life. Fair play to him, he did admit it was his responsibility, he made a mistake and hopefully as it's happened now, it should save him money in the future. Yes, there are plenty of speed limits all over the place that are pointlessly slow for the road, also there are those that are dangerously fast - I'm thinking of the A5 through Snowdonia, a very bendy mountain road with hairpin bends and drops of hundreds of metres by the side of the road, but this road has a 60mph limit except through villages, even though in places you can only safely go 25-30 max. But this is all opinion and just because I think it's too fast/slow, doesn't mean it is, I'm not a perfect driver. Yes, it is infuriating that the majority of roadworks you come across are completely unattended by any workers and are sometimes just a line of cones in the road blocking a lane but nothing whatsoever is going on behind the cones. To top it off they have temporary limits to protect their invisible workers. But - and a big but - our opinion of speed limits doesn't matter: they are there and it is our legal requirement to obey them, and if we don't, we can be punished. Everyone knows that and thus there is no excuse for speeding. What miffs me if people who try to wriggle out of a speeding charge with groundless claims that the technology was faulty and other such desperate excuses. Also those who get caught and act as victims. That is intolerable and I have no sympathy for those people. I do have understanding for those who have made a genuine mistake and accept their punishment and move on with their lives. As someone else said, anyone who says they never speeds is a liar. I always stick to the speed limits on principle but sometimes I have caught myself going a bit over due to looking at the road rather than the speedometer, and when I notice this I slow down. Speed cameras: yes, dangers are caused by drivers suddenly braking at the last minute, but it is the drivers who are to blame for this, not the cameras. If the drivers had been obeying the speed limit in the first place they would not need to brake. Also I'm not sure if the revenue argument washes - those who habitually speed know if they didn't speed, no revenue would be made, but the same people continue to speed and voluntarily fund these cameras they claim to disdain so much. They are paying their worst enemies to stay put. Here's my thought on some temporary speed limits: sometimes I feel I am the only person on the whole motorway who is going at the 50 limit while everyone sticks to 70. Thus it is actually me who is the danger.

I got my first ever parking ticket yesterday! Sadly I am not optimistic as it was in a proper council car park and not a PPC. I actually bought a valid ticket and displayed it on my dashboard, but as I was in a rush I think when I closed the car door I annoyingly didn't check and the ticket must have blown over to its other side from the force of closing the door, as this is how it was when I got back to the car later. The warden even saw me buy the ticket and put it on my dashboard but obviously went and checked when I'd gone. There is an inconsistency though and I was wondering if it would be enough to make it unenforceable? My car is very clearly green, but on the PCN the colour is marked as "grey". All other details are correct though, i.e. location, car make and number plate, so I'm resigned to having to pay. Thought I'd check with you guys anyway just in case. Thanks in advance for your help. Tom.

The OP explained that he had indeed declared the convictions when applying for the policy. It seems to me that there has been a mix up and either Confused or your insurance company (or both) are responsible, it doesn't look like it's your fault, although (as Gyzmo's already explained) when the insurance company realises their error, they will probably charge you for the difference, i.e. the extra bit of money they would have charged you for the policy had your details of the convictions got through to them. If on the off chance your company is one of those companies that refuses to insure you if you have more than X number of points and it turns out they wouldn't have insured you in the first place if they'd known your details, I would hope that they would give you a refund for the policy but I wouldn't guarantee it at all, they're like Ryanair, when anything goes wrong it's never their fault! Best of luck, hopefully they will realise you had indeed been honest when applying and it was not your fault that the details were mislaid somewhere in the process, you did everything you were asked and declared everything you should have so I can't see you being in the wrong. If when changing your policy to the price it would be with your convictions and they try and add the customary extra £20 or whatever for altering the policy, don't let them do that, kick up a fuss, that would be really unfair of them to charge you the changing fee as it is their fault and not yours that they have to change the policy in the first place.

Sorry credit allergy, I didn't phrase that very well. What I meant is that on many dual carriageways there are exit sliproads where drivers have to slow to about 20mph to get round the corner, this coming from going at 70mph+ and having a signpost warning of the slow corner only a very short distance from the corner. Sometimes there isn't even a sign warning of the extreme decrease in speed. If you have planned it well, you will already be slowing down to 20 on the DC itself so as to avoid sudden and unpleasant braking on the tiny 'sliproad', but this in itself can make it hazardous to those behind you going at 70+ suddenly meeting a car going so slowly. Obviously a speed that slow is not normally an acceptable and safe speed for a 70 road. Likewise you get the cars who have just come onto the DC from a more-or-less standing start, while those approaching from behind and going past are going at 70+. I think all constructions of DCs in future ought to have longish sliproads to avoid this hazard. On the motorway, on the other hand, there is (in my experience, though I'm sure there are exceptions?) a very long sliproad and you can leave the motorway itself still going at 70 and you have miles of distance and time to gradually decelerate safely with no sudden braking before you get to the roundabout or junction above/below the motorway. Likewise you have the chance to accelerate to a good high speed before getting onto the motorway, rather than starting from almost zero like on those very short DC entrances. Oops sorry for blabbering on:rolleyes:

Unfortunately it is a no-claims bonus, not a no-fault bonus. Therefore even if the accident is deemed to be 100% not your fault (which obviously it is not deemed to be in your case), you will still lose out if you make a claim. It's an absolutely disgusting practice but unfortunately almost all insurers do this as they try and convince you using meaningless statistics that you are more likely to cause an accident in future if you have been the victim of a non-fault accident. You may be interested in this thread talking about a petition urging the govt. to force insurers to stop this practice of increasing the premiums of innocent accident victims. I think the petition has now closed (not sure though) but it's an interesting debate anyhow. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/141040-stop-car-insurance-companies.html

Anyone claiming "you have to drive fast to stay alert": that is just a (very poor) excuse to try to justify your breaking the law, you know it. It won't wash. When I am going on a large hazardous windy mountain road at a maximum safe speed of 40mph like the A5 through Snowdonia, I am much more alert than when I am cruising at 70 in an endless straight line on the motorway. Driving at 90 would be the same if all you are doing is going in a straight line, the only difference being you will be less able to control your car and it will be harder to slow down or avoid a hazard if one suddenly appears, it's not safer at all. I believe 80mph would be a fair limit but it should remain 70 on busy bits of motorway and on dual carriageways as they are narrower and have more corners and sudden entrances/exits.

I am about to finish my undergraduate university degree and in September I am starting another separate degree. I have a summer job which I have held for the last 4 summers. My NUS card expires on 06/06/09, so officially I will no longer be classed as a student from this date until September, am I right? As I will not officially be a student, will I have to pay income tax on my summer job? When I first got this job, it was after I had finished my A-Levels and before I started university, so I was not a student then, and I definitely remember I didn't have to pay any tax then. Will it be the same now or will I have to pay income tax this summer? Thanks for any help.