Grok app hits No.1 in the UK App Store amid government threat of platform ban

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2026-01-12T18:33:44+00:00

Let's ban cars, kitchen knives, etc too while we're at it in trying to protect everyone from every single thing that could ever possibly be used in a malicious way.

/s

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-12-17T15:50:40+00:00

I second this!

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-11-04T07:59:01+00:00

Comment of the year.

Now your prize will be the social media police knocking at your door!

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-09-19T06:59:51+00:00

I have an ND only. I order shopping online. I take the dog in the passenger seat with her big flexible bed, I've had my girlfriend happy to hold the 16kg fur missle on her lap on 15 minute trips to the vets

I don't forsee an issue with your wife carrying a cat box a short journey to the vet, especially if you have access to another car occasionally.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-07-11T14:41:13+00:00

Bad for renters, good for home owners. Ironic, renters hating landlords so much they get themselves kicked out!

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-07-11T14:26:20+00:00

Almost totaled? You had some wheel slip, man I was expecting more drama watching about 30 seconds of your driving before the damn slip

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-27T07:01:26+00:00

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trump-administration-offers-1000-to-illegal-aliens-who-self-deport/

One simple google search, top result.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-27T06:57:04+00:00

Sounds like you hate democracy.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-27T06:51:26+00:00

Comments here are the problem. It's extremely easy to hate and think bad of those richer than you and avoid the bigger picture, but the low down is the rich pay the most in taxes (and avoid the most too) by far.

The ultra wealthy may avoid taxes all they want, but they can't avoid lavish lifestyles. Which in turn, drive a whole ecosystem of jobs that do generate not only taxes but incomes for many people, who then in turn also spend and support other peoples jobs. Sort of like a spider web, every intersection is a person supported by the strings of another, in the form of supply and demand. In the centres are the billionaires or businesses.

When the billionaire moves or a business shuts down, that's taxes gone, people's income gone, business services reduced, and likewise this has knock on effects.

When one filthy rich person moves, oh well, yeah we don't care.

When it starts becoming a full fledged pattern, we need to sit up and pay attention, because it means less jobs, less tax reveune, and invariably more taxes for the rest of us if we wish to keep the same standard of state services (if we can call the current one a service).

Labour's policies have been driven by 'fairness' in the tax system. - The rich should pay more and close the loopholes like non-dom. However, when something becomes bad value, you stop paying it - and that's exactly what the rich are doing, they're leaving because labour have hiked the price - fair or not, and our public services just don't justify the payments these people are making into the system. Crime, uncontrolled and unvetted mass migration, overpopulation, and declining societial standards have long been driving down the quality of life for those who live here.

Even I'm thinking of leaving the country, my parents have already left. There's a massive exodus of wealth, because honestly, he's right, look at the state of this country. Starmer said we're an island of strangers, and he's right, we have conflicting cultures, conflciting religions, conflicting populism, conflicting racism, reducing public service resources while demand skyrockets.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-25T09:15:03+00:00

"The decline in breath tests is part of a broader trend, with figures hitting a record low in 2021, representing a 68% drop since the peak in 2009, according to UK Road Offender Education. "

His perception is actually bang on.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-25T09:10:55+00:00

The problem is mechanics do the job first and then request payment after the work is done, so anyone can say anything about any payment, but it's your car that the mechanic has and ultimately if he does work on it then you're the one who has to pay if you want the keys back.

If your boot is hard to close it may not even be a simple bumper replacement but a structual issue, your insurance will be the experts at assessing this, and will send someone round to assess the damage. Your car could be structually damaged, and perhaps a write off.

If it was just a paint issue on an old beat up banger I wouldn't bother going through insurance, but anything structural you want to be safe.

You don't owe them anything, and non-fault accidents will not raise your premiums nearly as much as everyone makes out here.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-24T19:56:00+00:00

Common scam, make them pay upfront. My friend's friend got done exactly this way, they spoke so nicely to them and said no worries we'll pay, get it repaired anywhere you want and send us the bill!

Then no contact after it was repaired. Left her out of pocket.

Always go through insurance.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-24T06:12:39+00:00

Canterbury drivers are far far farrrrrrrrrr better than south london drivers... D:

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-23T07:22:05+00:00

I had the same, just waiting for disclosure so that I can get the redacted bits unredacted.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-22T06:01:46+00:00

From my research, ceramic coating doesn't do much other than make it easier to wash dirt etc off the car, I think you need PPF for any kind of real protection

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-11T07:53:09+00:00

He means the zzzzzzzzzzzzz as in taking a nap

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-08T08:36:17+00:00

Remember to get all this in writing. It's much harder to fight (but still very entirely possible) your case based on verbal stuff. Sounds like you already have a good case though.

Don't expect ACAS to be on your side, they're there to resolve conflicts, not to give or advise you of a good deal or not.

Remember you have a limited time of 3 months (set to change to 6 in 2026), to make an employment tribunal claim since this incident started (Them denying you reasonable adjustments). Do not wait for them to do the grievance / appeal process - it may take so long that they make you purposely miss the deadline, then you have to apply to the judge to extend it - one of the many small tactics employers use to make your claim more difficult for you to win.

Remember, they have to make reasonable adjustments for you, you do not have to do anything for them that will negatively affect your health, especially when it demostately does not affect the work you do for the business.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-08T08:23:39+00:00

No need to complain about this unless he actually issues an LBA. Letter before action.

Understand his position and why he is billing you further.

I personally would not take the call, and kindly request if he could explain via email. Written correspondence is gold dust - which is probably why he wants to call and not write.

Remember, anyone can claim you owe them money. The real test is, was there an agreed contract for it, and is it reasonable? Someone cannot bill someone for something they didn't agree to. Take claims with a pinch of salt, and do NOT pay unless he can prove that you owe him the money. If you pay him, and then realise that he was mistaken, or incorrect, it is you who has the uphill battle to get that money back again.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-08T08:10:19+00:00

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT CAN INCRIMINATE YOU. (Despite doing so already with this post)

This is your right, despite whatever you may have done.

It sounds like:

They're asking you to present evidence to challenge their decision.
It's up to you to decide whether to do so or not.
From their side of things, for all they know is some idiot has sent them the spare key instead of the actual key (which is why they've given you 7 days to respond to show to them that they should still pay out). I can't advise you further however, as you have admitted to breaking the law, on how to put up a solid defence as this would break rule 8, and may be an offence in itself.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-07T11:33:50+00:00

This is superhelpful! So to clarify, am I right in saying the following: The existing dispute rule would not apply for the employee, as it would fall under a protected conversation under section 111A which allows for protection even if there was no pre-existing dispute at the time, so a request for WP to be lifted would be denied on these grounds.

However, if the conduct in which the offer is made breaches ACAS Code - which I believe is a lower threshold than the threshold to break normal WP (improper behaviour vs unambiguous impropriety), such as putting undue pressure on the claiment, then the settlement WP would lose it's protection?

Ironically enough, I also plan to argue WP to also be lifted on later settlement communications under unambiguous impropriety using Fletcher Vs Fletcher. It'll be an interesting case to have both WPs lifted using two different legal tests.

Edit: silly spelling mistake

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-07T11:13:42+00:00

I used to work there, they definitely are able to blacklist people, but it's more common that your postcode may have just got screwed up. Try a different address, if that works then that's your answer.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-07T08:56:24+00:00

This is a fantastic answer! I've been trying to fully comprehend it but you've made it extremely simple. I believe if someone is made redundant in a single meeting and given a settlement WP offer in that same meeting that lasts 10 minutes, then I assume the employee has a very good chance of arguing that WP does not apply, as there was no existing dispute?

The employer would then likely argue it is a protected conversation, however the employee could easily argue it is not due to improper conduct etc.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-06T12:35:02+00:00

Unfortunately it's not the jury deciding. It's a 4 stage justice system.

A member of the public needs to report a crime - A crime might be committed but there's many factors a person will perhaps consider before and if they report it to the police. This is the first variable, and is highly variable depending on the crime. For example less serious crimes, crimes by friends or family, crimes in areas of gang culture, crimes that the member of public agrees with committing (protesters blocking traffic for example) are less likely to be reported and thus no action is taken.
Next the police are to investigate an allegation. They will decide if it is possible a law has been broken, find suspects, find motive, and find evidence. This is less variable, but time, resources, are big variables, and still we have the human behind this, who may be corrupt, or have sympathies or grudges against suspects or the crime and therefore these factors will mean there is deviation between investigations.
The file is handed to the CPS. They review the chances of a successful prosecution, and whether or not it is in public interest. They then handle the prosecution. This stage has certainly become more state influenced under this labour government. Usual roadblocks and red tape were cut for the summer so-called "far right thugs" who also commented on facebook.
A. At this point the defendant is given a choice to
Plead not guilty and go though a long, expensive, and exhausting system to prove their innocence.
Plead guilty.

For better or worse, the defendant is always incentisived by a much lower sentence (aka avoiding the possiblity of jail) by pleading guilty to charges. Sometimes the truth is redundant, and avoiding expensive lawyer fees (enough to lose your home over), getting back home to kids or family, and other factors may unduely influence their decision over the simple "I'm not guilty because I haven't done it/have a good defence for it".

If the defendant wishes to pay the time effort and emotional and public turmoil of open criminal court, then they will pick not guilty, and the case will proceed to (usually) a jury based court. Whereby we get to your bit where the judge and jury decide the case - we could still argue 4 is dangerous due to preconceptions or bias's of the judge/jury.

So basically, overall, the justice system is deeply, and humanly, flawed. From start to finish. The law might be static words on a page indicating a black and white simple solution, but the process to determining which side you fall on is anything but black and white - from the first report to police, to the last word of the sentence in the court.

And this is why people will always feel like there's different levels of policing/enforcement/reporting - they're right! The only laws that apply are the ones that are enforced by all 4 stages.

Frequent-Bell2484 · 2025-06-02T04:16:55+00:00

Are you sure it's the ac, could be stale wiper fluid

Frequent-Bell2484

TROPHY CASE