Paul

So people complain he doesn't pay UK taxes, but he is one of the highest UK tax payers. People ask what has he done for charity? He financially supports a number of charities in the UK and around the world, he also donated US$500,000 to the Australian bush fires appeal. People criticise the sponsors on his overalls for not being British. What would you rather see, Jaguar? Rolls Royce? Bentley? Is it his fault that due to our governments ongoing policy of courting "overseas investment" that we have very few British companies left capable of sponsoring him? People don't like his attitude, but his first comments after any race are for his fans, his team, the words "I couldn't do this without you" follow every race win. He has openly said a number of times he does not want to live in the UK because of the intrusion of the UK press, and who can blame him. He makes no secret of the fact that tax breaks in Monaco are also a factor. I wonder if those people berating him for living overseas are the same who posted their outpourings over the death of Sir Sean Connery, the famous Scot who lived the Bahamas, was extremely outspoken in the Scottish Independance debate despite not having lived there for decades and refusing to return to garner support in person because of the limited number of days per year he could spend in the UK before paying income tax? We don't all like everyone, there are people I don't like, but don't hide your dislike behind lies and falsehoods, man up and 'fess up and admit you just don't like the man, don't try and make it his fault.

Amen to that, though I never continue discussion in pm's (where it is my understanding the same TOS apply). If it cannot be debated in open forum then in my eyes it should not be debated.

I fail to see the difference between wearing a t shirt and footballers taking a knee or making a salute, and you should be careful making statements which suggest he broke the law, which could be considered libelous. Whilst IMHO unwise, the BLM demonstrations which took place throughout May and June were deemed legal under the UK's right to protest, known as Article 11, which a high court judge ruled could not be repealed or rescinded by section 22 of the Corona Virus act.

So it is not acceptable for one sportsman to campaign against racism and inequality but it is perfectly acceptable for another to tell government how it should spend YOUR money. One who's salary would buy 11 children school meals every minute, night and day.

Before you start judging people you need to understand this story fully, as it seems people are reading some small part of it as reported by the tabloid press and jumping to conclusions. Lewis Hamilton's company first applied to trademark his name, Lewis Hamilton is respect to product endorsement, something which many public figures do. It was Swatch that objected based on the fact that they felt it was too closed the the Hamilton watch trade name which they owned. Hamilton's IP44 company responded by trying to stop Swatch marketing Hamilton watches with perceived association to him, such as changing the font of their branding from their traditional script to one identical to that which he used to have on his car, and the chequered flag motif. They are not the official timekeeper for formula 1, or any of it's teams, that is TAG Heuer. Is it unreasonable of Lewis Hamilton, or his company to try and stop somebody else associating themselves, deliberately or otherwise with his success? The problem for Lewis is that the name is theirs, not something that was ever in dispute and the chequered flag is a generic symbol and very difficult to prove as being used with any fixed association. I do believe he was on a hiding to nothing in trying this case, but it's his money, if he wants to spend it on lawyers that's his business not mine, and not yours. many celebrities have successfully trademarked their names in relation to cosmetics, perfumes etc, to vilify Lewis Hamilton when trying to do the same is grossly unfair and extremely bigoted.

Before committing to booking cottage and boat separately be sure to check the weekly "day boat" prices, some can be pretty eye watering. The link above for example want £560 for a week for their smallest six seat boat for the half term week in February. You could get a modern cruiser from Herbert Woods for the same week for much less. Herbert Woods have their cottages of course and I think give a free one day hire with them, and discount on extra days.

I agree, but there comes a point where one person so thoroughly eclipses all others that despite the peculiarities of different eras you have to bite the bullet and acknowledge them. Hamilton is that man, in my opinion, so much so that I won't even mention anyone else, or compare him to other greats, as there is nobody that compares.

I watched both, as always when they coincide, and count myself as a big fan of both, though I found this years BTCC somewhat tedious, no JP to follow and Jack Goff in an uncompetitive car meant watchng to see which of the front runners I dislike least won the title. It's amazing how many so called BTCC fans bad nouth Formula 1, though they need to take a close look at the racing, BTCC has become quite processional at times in the last couple of years To the two obvious titles to which you refer you can probably add the two at Benetton as it is pretty certain that they were still using outlawed driver aids in the 1994 and '95 seasons. Flavio Briatore was in charge of Benetton in those days, need I say more. There has never been a bigger cheat in the sport than Briatore. Schumacher was not above using any means to win and there is a fine line between single mindedness and cheating, and IMHO he explored both. Of course he was learning the sport when Senna and Prost were pioneering the bumper car strategy and the unwillingness of the sport's inept governing body to intervene was seen by many as officially sanctioning such a policy. Had they dealt with Senna in 1990 they might have saved a few similar events afterwards. It is getting very difficult not to crown Hamilton as the greatest driver ever.

Norwich is still technically at least an inland port, and so navigation to it for commercial vessels should, in theory at least be maintained. The closure of the flour mills and decline of other waterside industries in the latter half of the twentieth century saw a massive decline in commercial shipping on the Yare, and the last regular coastal vessels supplied the sugar works at Cantley. I believe they stopped in the 1990s. There have been very infrequent commercial incursions since but few and far between. Most of the riverside is now occupied by density housing but it would be interesting to see what would happen if a riverside business decided to use the navigation again. Beccles too was once an inland port, but subsidiary to Great Yarmouth and ended any commercial traffic when the grain mills closed, mostly between the wars.

Riverside Holidays let a number of the river bank cottages at Potter Heigham and have a deal with Phoenix and Maycraft for weekly launch hire. We have stayed in a number of them down the years, either the October or February half terms. You don't mention if fishing is important or just enjoying the river, but if fishing it is then you have some excellent reaches available above the bridge as well as straight off your own lawn. https://www.riverside-holidays.co.uk

Which, let's be honest would not be the first time they have acted in excess of the law, or are we supposed to say "over zealously" with regard to pandemic restrictions. (One of the shops from the famous "you can't sell Easter Eggs" scandal is quite local). However given the confusion between guidance and legislation and the fact that PCC's are increasingly political figures I am just ever so slightly tempted to have a modicum of sympathy for them.

From what I see, "guidance" is usually more restrictive than "legislation". Let us use the outdoor recreation as an example. Guidance on the .gov website says that you may leave your home for outdoor recreation but this should be locally wherever possible, however the legislation makes no reference to that. A couple of days after lock down we had a circular from our local PCC asking all residents of the county to adher to the guidelines and make policing the lock down easier etc etc, note he states guidelines, not law. It goes on to say that officers will be deployed checking for breaches in the guidelines (there's that word again) and using their powers to issue fixed penalties to those in breach. Now we have sen reports in our local press of motorists being stopped, checkpoint style to check that their journey is essential, which is a very misleading word IMO, as the guidelines make little if any reference to essential, to me "permitted" would be more accurate. What I'm really asking is by what authority the constabulary are policing "guidelines" which to me is exceeding their authority, or is there some wording in the emergency measure bill, or whatever it is called that was passed when the pandemic started that makes government "advice" enforceable?

so then why is there such a variance between government advice and legislation? I am not disputing Meantime's point of view, legislation does still permit many things which "advice" says we shouldn't do.

keep your hair on, perhaps you need to refer that question to DEFRA, it was there spokesman, not I. And no, I can't explain why all those things are open, in my eyes given current "guidelines" they shouldn't be, but as you say there is a difference between guidance and legislation. One we are obliged to follow, the other will only be followed by those wishing to see an end to this pandemic.

you mean the bit that says

The forecast for tomorrow is a bit better, I think I'll do some Christmas Shopping tomorrow, Sweets, they must come from the sweet shop in Beccles, then up to Roys for some presents, some decorations from Lathams, Then perhaps a drive down to Whitlingham for some outdoor recreation. I'll get a takeaway somewhere whilst I'm out. Then drive home to Leicestershire. After all, I will not be breaking any law, shall I? Legally I am not required to wear a face covering because of a medical condition. I can bear one for half an hour, more than that I really struggle, so I do wear one whenever I go into a shop and have since they were made advisory, then mandatory. I make sure I don't go anywhere that I should need to wear one for longer than I can cope with. I don't hide behind the law to escape doing what is right.

The .GOV website states ..... to spend time or exercise outdoors - this should be done locally wherever possible, but you can travel to do so if necessary (for example, to access an open space). I cannot think of anywhere in the UK, even in central London which is twenty miles from a green space. The wording and intent of the current restrictions are, I believe much clearer than those written for the first lock down. They are not in any way ambiguous and are designed to protect us all. I am afraid it is people who decide that these rules do not apply to them who are the main reason this new lock down was necessary and why we are facing a Christmas with restrictions on who we can be with, how many may celebrate together etc.

A magistrate doesn't have to confirm the fine, it's a fixed penalty. You can appeal it to a magistrate's court if you feel you have a valid reason to be breaking the law under which it was issued. In that respect I imagine the success rate will be very low.

that isn't confirmed in the report, do you know more than is printed, or making an assumption. They could be five people from one household making a non essential journey.

I take a walk from the Gherkin to the seafront regularly ... not in a burberry though

HUAWEI E5577C has external antenna ports IIRC, and costs about £100. As far as I'm aware Huawei are about the only portable machines still to offer them. I prefer TP link but I am 90% sure they no longer suit external antennae. Teltonika are more serious options, not considered truly portable as I believe they need a power supply. Once you have chosen a machine you then have the issue of which antennae, there are lots of different options!

A dedicated mi fi router or portable hot spot should provide a better network signal than the hotspot facility of a mobile phone, just as a dedicated camera will take better photos than a phone camera. Like the photos though, the difference might not be sufficient for many people to notice or need to buy a dedicated unit. A quality mi fi router will incorporate a better data receiver than a mobile phone and be capable of faster upload and download speeds. It still needs a data signal to work, so cannot work where there is no signal but will make better use of what signal there is. Such devices come in two distinct types, those designed to be portable stand alone units which simply slip into your pocket and incorporate a rechargeable battery and units designed to be installed which need a constant power supply. Both need a sim to work though portable units increasingly use cloud sims. Portable units rarely have antenna sockets now either, the makers saying the internal receivers are so good they offer no benefit. I don't believe that, and tests conducted by tech mags or on youtube invariably show marked improvement on units with external antenna connections when they are fitted. Portable units offer wireless connection with the best offering 2.4 and 5 ghz connections whilst installation units usually offer wired ethernet ports and greater external antenna connectivity as well.

portable wi fi or "mi fi" devices are nothing new, I'm trying to work out what if anything is different about this one. If you look beyond their own very impressive marketing then reviews are at best mixed. Reports of poor reception, high monthly charges which you are locked in to due to the pre installed non switchable sim card and there is no external antenna connection plus it is not 5g compliant. I don't see that it has much going for it really.

or an alarming number of those 66 million just not thinking.

indeed, as this lockdown did, but that is only a formality. Her Majesty's opposition have already confirmed that they will vote with the government, as long as the "experts" state an extension is necessary. It seems strange to me that the BA seems to have curtailed almost everything, yet in a real National Park the LDNP says pretty much everything remains open and boating in all it's forms, man powered, wind powered or motorised is still permitted.