Weston Super Saint

Nice one Jeff. Another classic

Meh, I guess we can consider it 'what goes around, comes around' where dim tim is concerned

You know they've printed maps on paper for many years right? You also know that google maps uses GPS rather than data, right? Granted you need to plan a route and that will need data, but you can do that before you leave, connected to wifi I've never made a call from a riverbank or mountaintop (whilst abroad), no. When doing those things I've been on holiday, with the people who I would want to share the experience with so no need to make a call. I've taken pictures whilst there though, but your phone doesn't need data or wifi for that. No need to be bitter because you got stung for roaming charges because you didn't know how to turn roaming off, it's OK, we all thought you were a bit dim anyway so no-one thinks any less of you.

And if they do, no doubt people will switch to using internet based apps to avoid roaming charges as mentioned previously. It's also possible to avoid roaming charges with a little bit of thought. I've owned a mobile since 1993 and travelled extensively throughout Europe and beyond in that time. Not once have I paid a penny in roaming charges. It's really not that difficult to do.

When you mention 'pack', do you really mean 'getting close to half full'?

The new forum has a much better search tool than the last one did

Shhh, don't let a good moan about brexiteers be ruined asking for actual evidence!

Surely if you're travelling to the EU for work you'll use your work phone so if there are charges, someone else will pay. If you're travelling to the EU for a holiday, here's a thought, why not switch the mobiles off and enjoy some time off? Who knows what you'll discover. Having said that, pretty sure the world has moved on from the time of roaming charges when mobile companies could fleece their customers without complaint. The first mobile company that tries to re-introduce them is likely to be signing their own death warrant! Even if they all decided to introduce them at the same time, the development of the internet has far surpassed roaming charges with pretty much every pub, restaurant, cafe and beach bar across Europe offering free wi-fi, people will just use internet based calling / texting and not their mobile data plans - well apart from your wife's mates who don't appear to be the most colourful crayons in the box. (pretty sure Jeff's wife also used to have a couple who were friends and voted to leave, Jeff didn't want anything more to do with them after that though! Must be just a coincidence ) Any more 'project fear' anecdotes?

Yes. It's ecuk that seems to be struggling with this concept. HTH.

Laws such as this? As I stated previously, the laws already exist. Enforcing them is the issue that needs to be addressed....

If they're the ones who said they are going to leave the UK and go and live in the EU, then yes.

I completely understand both yours and Lighthouse's points, but frankly what you're suggesting is akin to Apartheid. Imagine if 'they' were able to move black, brown or any other colour of person on just because they didn't like them being there. Discrimination against a 'race' is the same no matter what the 'race' may be. With respect to the antisocial behaviour, we already have laws that address this. Again, it would smack of Apartheid to introduce more laws that discriminate against this one particular race. The issue, from what I can see, is a reluctance from the police and local Governments to enforce the laws that we already have. I understand why the police don't want to tie themselves up going round in circles trying to prove exactly who was responsible for the crimes being committed, but I don't feel that's a good enough reason for them to not bother at all. It is undoubtedly easier for the police to 'ignore' the crimes / damage / theft and let individuals claim on their insurance than invest their time and effort putting together the proof required, only for the culprits to move on and never show up in court anyway.

I'm not so sure, there are some overt racists on the 'Irish Travellers' thread who probably think that's acceptable. Once a racist, always a racist i guess...

Sadly, you don't make the law! The Equality Act 2010 covers this and declares that 'ethnic' groups are a 'race' : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/9 This has been tested numerous times in court and upheld that 'travellers' are indeed a race : https://www.hospitalitylaw.co.uk/large-awards-for-travellers-refused-entry-to-pubs/ As I stated earlier "incredibly racist", some people on this thread overtly so....

Oh, I see, you were referring to your original statement where you didn't want to call anyone thick, but those that voted to leave were all thickos because of their educational attainments. You've also completely ignored the educational opportunities that have historically been available to previous generations and have based this on modern educational attainment standards and their equivalents. You've also dismissed the fact that until 1975 it was perfectly legal for universities to deny places for women based purely on their sex - that's roughly half the population (who would have been voters in the referendum aged over 55) for whom there was no possibility of attaining a degree. If there's no possibility of attaining a degree, is there any point studying for A Levels? Good job you've not just dismissed several generations calling them 'thickos' based on their education results then!

It's a statistical analysis of the voting pattern of 83 people. Probably about as informative as the views that Soggy gains when he has a chat with his mates down the pub, but certainly not something you would hang your hat on to prove unequivocally that you are right and someone else is wrong....

If you read the post again, I stated that sprinters tended to be black because of their physiology. I've not mentioned anything about long distance runners - except when I've stated that there are plenty of black / African runners who could, if they had the opportunity, become very good cyclists as a result of their physiology. I have never claimed that there are no good white long distance runners as that is clearly ridiculous. I agree with you that different people are good at different things. I also agree that we shouldn't pidgeon hole people depending on their race. I was merely pointing out that different physiologies make different people good at different things. Their race, gender, colour, creed and religion are secondary to that, however, do have an influence on the opportunity available to become good at the different things. I don't think it's 'racist' to point this out.

Lol. Is that yours?

#classicshurlie Quoting your previous posts, isn't 'putting words in your mouth', it is simply 'replicating' your words. Even Pointless and Family Fortunes use a 'sample size' of 100 people. Dunning-Kruger, LOL, which one of us goes to excruciating lenghts to constantly claim everyone else is 'thick' - happy to let the 'audience' decide...

Proof, if ever it was needed, that education is NOT evidence of intelligence...

Don't forget narcissistic!

I've never said you didn't, nor have I claimed it isn't consistent with your statement. I merely included that because of the wider debate that has been running in the posts previous to yours about 'Intelligence' and that 'education' isn't necessarily a guarantee of intelligence. You have, however, stated that Wes's argument is 'bunkum' and claimed that the 'easy way to address that alleged 'bias' and look only at the voting behaviour of the older population with a degree'. You've further stated that the unequivocal fact is that 70% of over 55's with a degree, voted to remain. You've cited a source for this which states in its own appendix that the 'base' used for sampling was a mere 83 people that fit this criteria. I would wager that there are a lot more than 83 people over the age of 55 that have a degree and voted in the referendum, therefore the sample size used in your cited source is simply not big enough for you to claim unequivocally that 70% of over 55s with a degree voted to remain. Once again, you've claimed that I am clearly stupid for wading into a subject that I know nothing about, when it's pretty clear you are the one who has cited a source without bothering to check any of the facts about how the information was gathered. As ever, I will be only too pleased if you can further dazzle me with your undoubted brilliance which proves your claim. So far, you have failed to look 'only at the voting behaviour of the older population with a degree' but have instead looked at the voting behaviour of an insignificantly small proportion of the older population with a degree.

Especially when the entire sample have been given the product for free

Cheers. It can be found here : https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39149/bsa34_brexit_final.pdf table 4 is the relevant table. However, it does take pains to point out that it is 'educational attainment'. Also, looking at the 'bases' for table 4 in the Appendix on page 23, the sample size of those 'polled' does seem extaordinarily small - 83 people aged over 55 with a degree.

No idea - doesn't look like the YouGov data breaks it down that far, it does it by age, sex or degree status but doesn't combine age and degree status. I'm sure you have a handy link though...