pap

Well, been on the phone to them. They are going to conduct an investigation. The person at customer services sounded a bit floored when I explained that I'd given the keys to one of their staff and they didn't do a walkaround. Think that may well be the crux of the matter. Told them that I would blog about it and reference them on Twitter. I have done just that. Blog here. Twitter link here. If you feel like helping out a fellow Saints fan in his fight against the corporate behemoth, gis a retweet

Very nice. Will be using this in the phone call tomorrow. Ta.

The missus made an interesting point. The letter is dated 1st June, the day that I left the car there. Actually left it there quite late ( around 16:40 ), and it was a Friday so a lot of people were returning cars. Anyway, in the few short hours that were left on that day, they were apparently able to determine the damage, the extent of it and charge my card. £800 happens to be the amount of the excess. So they're either super-efficient or trying one on. They didn't notify me about the damage via phone - I was actually stuck at the airport until 9pm. Plus there is the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, nothing was wrong with the car. Going to be an interesting phone call tomorrow. Belfast International is the airport.

At the same time, the only proof I have that the car is damaged is their letter, handily dated 1st June and giving me 10 working days to respond. Arrived yesterday and their offices are closed until tomorrow. Going to ask them to justify their claim - not really prepared to lose £827 on the basis of a letter alone. Hired the car in NI, so inspecting it myself is not practical.

Got a nice letter from a car hire company telling me that they'd charged the "pap exchequer" £827 for damage on a car I recently rented. I know for a fact that there was nothing wrong with it - I always clean the car out on the final day of the journey as the buggers have charged me for "valeting" in the past. Not a scratch on the thing. Obviously, I'd like to dispute it - but not sure what my options are. Did what I normally do - just passed the keys to a member of staff on the way out - so I didn't go over the car and verify stuff with the airport staff. Genuinely feel like I've been diddled here and am planning on calling them in the morning. Has anyone been involved in this sort of dispute before? What's the best way of contesting it?

I went to New Jersey last March on work and had a weekend free to explore Manhattan. It's great. Spent an inordinate amount of time looking up. Went to Chinatown and Little Italy for a lot of my shopping needs, although the places in Manhattan are very reasonably priced too. Definitely the most "European" place I've been to in the US. Even neighbouring NJ is still "car world", but people walk in Manhattan. Completely recommend the place. Was honestly buzzing off it for months after visiting.

I do love this argument whenever someone is brave enough to whip it out. Stalin was a dictator. Socialism or communism never got past the "temporary dictatorship to put everything in place". Stalin would be the prime reason that this didn't happen in the USSR. Wasn't interested in the politics, just the power - and as you say, killed a lot of people to maintain it. Now, if you can connect Stalin's purges to fervent belief in socialist doctrine, you might have a point - and I'll concede right now that the various Five Year Plans were utterly indifferent to the day-to-day needs of people and caused millions of indirect deaths. However, I suspect that your real focus are the purges. That's got feck all to do with socialism, and everything to do with Stalin being a complete c**t willing to murder anyone to hold onto his power.

Or perhaps in Holy Grail style... "I am Juan Carlos, King of Spain. We seek your masters' assistance in an EU bailout". "I'll ask them, but I don't think they'll be very keen. We already did some, you see!". "What do you mean, already did some?!" "We already did some, and they were very nice!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY

You can just imagine the "sacre bleu" when they got the leccy bill. How did the fella deal with his arrest? Surely if his gear was any good a couple of "pure crow" big boys would have settled matters

Hmm. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/08/eurozone-crisis-germany-suffers-imports Spain to formally request a bailout tomorrow. I wonder how many more the EU can afford.

Not only impossible, but prohibition is pointless and costly. The OB like to do the odd press release after seizing a lot of gear, but they're never going to solve it or get on top of it. Why are we spending money on drug enforcement when we could be a little more honest, legalise it and see a feckton of new cash in the tax system?

If this was homework I'd set for you to do overnight, Sergei - I believe my conclusion would be "must try harder". One extremely ill-suited candidate is a very poor return for the amount of thinking you claim to have done, especially when we've already covered the folly of presenting a worst-case scenario as the only game in town! That's not to say SuBo is actually the worst case choice. There's a strong argument that anyone who suggests SuBo as a possible monarch would actually be worse than SuBo herself.

Sort of, but far less tacky. I'd like to see the selection process be as trusted and held up as something we do right. Not sure we'd do ourselves too many favours by Cowell-ising it (even if we do get Dennis "been down pit" Skinner to decide ). Anything's better than "ah yes, you emerged from a very specific hole before any of your brothers, so you get to lead Britain"

I'm not sure that the short-cutting and labelling actually works too well. I know people who have smoked weed their whole lives, so I've seen the long-term effects. Can definitely agree that it makes people paranoid, can lead to some bad decisions and is obviously hazardous to your health when smoked with tobacco. I even know some people who went a bit mental after doing too much as teenagers. Wouldn't recommend any mind-altering substance when your brain is still in the process of sorting itself out in those final years of adolescence. That all said, the stoners of this world are a lot easier to get on with than the drinkers of this world. If pot were legal, the activities of stoners would take up far less police and hospital time than those of drinkers.

Massive generalisation, obviously - but I'd have thought that the "giving a f**k" component of being a socialist might have played into this

Anyone can throw a worst case scenario about and attempt to present it as an argument, immediately treating the notion as insoluble. Others would look at that worst case scenario and consider how it would be prevented. The simple fact is that you do not want to consider changing the selection of the monarch, so you whip out your Brucey gag, tag on a keyboard revolutionary insult and consider it a job well done. You did the same thing with Cromwell and Ireland earlier on, as if any dissolution of the monarchy would result in the republican Lord Protector going on a nobility-sponsored land grab. It's your right to do that, just as it's my right to take the opinions of kneelers significantly less seriously when it comes to matters of the monarchy, especially when they're ducking under any of the counter-points too. I've voiced my objections, I've tried to meet you halfway; let you keep your pomp, circumstance and kings and queens while suggesting some consideration of lifetime conduct and contribution to Britain into the selection process. I like the idea of a write-in campaign because it gives an opportunity to get a shortlist without anyone "running for King/Queen". Of course there would be some whittling down of frivolous candidates and that would be fine, provided that the selection committee is transparent about their reasons. Once you get down to a list of serious candidates, put it to a public vote, and hold run-off elections until someone has an overall majority. Now we're off the worst-case scenario, can you tell me why that would be any worse than what we do now?

The ongoing refrain of the 21st century kneeler, along with "it is the way it is". I'm not sure that a typical election would be the right way to go about choosing a monarch, if I'm honest, especially if you intend for them to have the job for life. Not entirely what mechanism should be used, but I certainly wouldn't want party politics involved. A write-in campaign might be a good idea. Better than "that is how it goes", anyway.

Don't agree with this. First, there's a massive assumption that the Royals never exert any power. Next, the existence of a hereditary monarchy hard-wires a lot of stuff into Britain. We can never really have a meritocracy or classless society when we venerate one family above all others just because they belong to that family. The Royal Family sits at the top of the class hierarchy. While they exist, so does the class system, so they can never be politically redundant. As I've said before, I've no problem with Kings or Queens. Don't even have a problem with a King or Queen for life, as long as we pick the right one. Why the hell are we constraining ourselves along bloodlines when we could be choosing the absolute best Briton for the job? People talk about having national treasures in our midst. I'd rather we picked one of those than just accepted the first qualifying heir.

Sergei's vista is understandably limited on account of all the kneeling.

Ah, the EDL - brave defenders of the Jubilee. They start on a load of anti-Jubilee protestors and then start doing Hitler salutes! That's what being English is all about http://tyneandwear.sky.com/news/article/22000

I really appreciate you taking time out of your busy kneeling schedule to write this, kneeler. However, I feel that you've gone wildly awry with your choice of word. It means so many things. People will get confused. Imagine someone going out for fish and chips and coming back with a kidnapped republican or a carpenter. What definition of "chippy" are you using, Sergei? I'd stick to kneeling if I were you, mate. Damn sight easier than English language standardisation.

I do find the myriad of different terms for people who support the monarchy to be a bit redundant. Pro-royal, royalist, monarchist, etc. Can we just dispense with all that nonsense and go for one word? Kneeler. Gemmel might even be able to find an icon for it.

Barring the premature death of either of us, I'd lay money on it that Liz won't. I hope to see the same fawners back on here saying what an inspiration Charles is after that happens.

The best thing about having a monarchy is watching all the Royalists jump on threads like these and attempt to defend it.

I admire your attempts to hoist me up on my own petard, so a small piece of advice. Copy and paste is your friend. Saves on erroneous data entry, I find. I also like the smiley faces that you put at the end of your posts. Please continue to advance this exciting new form of communication to its natural conclusion. Within two years, I want to see every Gemmel communication rendered in nothing but emoticons. It'll be amusing, like a Westerner pointing at pictures of food in a Shanghai McDonalds. Is it great to be British? Of course it is. Financial difficulties accounted for, anyone born here is still a lottery winner relative to most of the world's population. Relative to what we had before? Not so much. I'm genuinely pleased that so many people enjoyed the Jubilee celebrations. We do pomp and spectacle very well here, and I wouldn't want to lose it. I haven't even got a problem with the concept of King and Queens. I just don't like the way we choose them. Give me an elected King or Queen subject to the same laws as the rest of us, and most of my objections go away.