silverfox

Loz, it was with Aer Lingus. The online booking form asked questions such as do you wish to have a designated seat (or sit anywhere). As two of us were flying it would be nice to sit together. Did I want to book a bag on to the flight. I do not remember a fee being clearly stated at each point nor a cumulative subtotal being visible as I ticked each box although I do remember being referred to different links for further information about baggage charges/allowances (which is the point I'm trying to make to the e-dealer). Can't remember exactly about the sms confirmation.

the-e-dealer, you may have the luxury of time that allows you to flick between various schedules using new tabs everytime. Show me one clear example that shows the price of a return flight with all taxes included, with a booked seat and a case/sitcase of the permitted weight booked into the hold.

You miss the point the-e-dealer - the prices aren't low they are misleading. The published prices should be realistic. Look at the breakdown above. The presumption should be that most travellers will want to book a suitcase/bag onto the flight and advertise the prices accordingly. Discounts can then be applied for those who don't want to put a bag in the hold. I can see the attraction of these cheap airlines to students who can fly at any time with a toothbrush in their pocket. For most people the add-on charges make a mockery of the airlines' claims to be cheap, competitive carriers.

It's time we sacked the regulators and sent in some real rotweillers to clean up the industry. Earlier this year I booked two return tickets to Ireland. The advertised rate was ?70 return (no doubt with a number of asterisks and footnote numbers following the stated price). By the time I ticked all the boxes for seats and two bags the final figure was ?246.98. Now while I consider ?124 each still good value for a return flight to Ireland the fact is is is nearly ?55 per person dearer than the headline price. Your Receipt Ticket Numbers ************* Issue Date XXXXX Details Fare p.p. Taxes & Charges Total 2 Adult(s): GBP 20.00 GBP 52.99 GBP 145.98 Handling Fee: GBP 24.00 Pre-Paid Bag Fee: GBP 0.00 Sms Confirmation Fee: GBP 1.00 PLUS fee: GBP 68.00 Seating Fee: GBP 8.00 TOTAL GBP 246.98 The ''Total'' figure above is a cumulative amount applicable to your booking reference to date and is not in addition to what you paid for your original booking. Last Payment XXXXXX Restrictions/Endorsements NO RFND/CHG FEE APPLIES CXL BY FLT DT OR NO VALUE (Apologies for the formatting, the preview shows it keeps defaulting)

I've never flown Easy Jet and hopefully never will. However, the revised fare is probably still cheaper than travelling by train, although given check in times hours before your flights probably no quicker. O'Leary is a scoundrel but he has opened up air travel for the masses

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > silverfox Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Tom Micklewright, get a life > > How ironic! > > Tell someone you've never met before to get a life > via an internet forum at 10:15pm on a Sunday night > and then go on to post seven more times within the > next two hours on subjects including consumer > rights, the circus and dog poo! Thanks for keeping count for me Chippy. maybe we should both get a life

True Soya. I stand admonished. Sorry Tom.

Have you thought about placing an order with your local newsagent or do your hangovers give you telepathic powers that your newsagent is meant to foresee?

Soya, you are correct. I've never met Tom, whom, I've no doubt, is a fine, well-intentioned individual. Despite your misinterpretation of Tom's post "...a gent with a passion for animal rights starts a thread that seems to be a discussion about the policing of a small protest. He gives further context, explaining his point of view reasonably enough, and even implies that his primary reason for having being at the protest was to talk to the organizers..." However, Tom clearly states: "...The protest was against the treatment of horses (making them stand on two legs gives them hip and tendon damage / pain). I presume I don't need to state the obvious to you that man's mastery of the horse has coincided with human progress. More recently, the Olympics featured Dressage, demonstrating how clever horses can be - what they can learn with patient training and, if you've never had the chance, have a look at the Spanish Riding School Of Vienna. If you and Tom see of the role of horses as animals to be admired while chomping grass in fields, then you do horses a disservice. Zippos Circus brings untold pleasure to thousands of children each year, which Tom's protest, if thought through, would potentially deprive many urban-dwelling children the opportunity to see just how clever and versatile horses are.

...a point not really talked about, and that is of course the depression and mental suffering of those trapped by their condition...it is a disability rights issue... Tell that to the Paralympians. There's too much patronising loose talk about 'quality of life' etc, including from the new health minister Anna Soubry. If a person gets to the stage they wish to end his/her life, why should others be dragged into it to share 'the experience'? Isn't it strange how after a protracted legal case to try to change the law to help him with assisted suicide, Tony Nicklinson died, through his own choice/action/inaction, within two weeks of losing his court case?

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, purchased items must be fit for purpose. If you have to plug it in for it to work the sales people should know it will not work on a plane (at least without special adapters which no doubt are available at extra cost). If Curry's badly trained (and underpaid) staff lied to assure you this was the case to get the sale, they, as servants of the company, make the company liable for the misrepresentation, unless the company can prove they acted outside their authority. Personally I haven't darkened Curry's doors for 20 odd years after a dispute. Would Trading Standards be appropriate here?

What the hell was that? At least the real Olympic opening ceremony was PC madness that we could all feel embarassed about

Posted by Electrastar Today, 08:01AM Report it to the council. They will clean it rapidly. If it continues, ask the council to provide a dog poop bin near the site. It may help. If in Southwark, see [www.southwark.gov.uk] Having read this post - minimum ?1,000 council house tax hike for all dog owners

Minimum ?1,000 per dog licence plus dna-ed. Soon stop the ignorant buggers.

Tom Micklewright, get a life

Spot the age band! For those of you under about the age of 45 who have never heard of this may I say the 'Who shot JR' episodes blew viewing figures out of the water - in fact the pubs were empty those nights

Interesting John. The second photo you posted would appear to pre-date the first (Tudor-type-beams in the outhouse wall construction) So the village pond would be where the Pelican crossing to Lloyda TSb now is

Not quite solved unfortunately. However, a good start would be to lock the thousands of delegates in Stockholm in the conference room with 50 barrels of sea water and tell them they'll get no food or water until they come up with a solution. You'll find revolutionary solutions will soon appear

It is a worry but don't forget two thirds of our planet is covered in water. Nasa is working on ways to find and ultilise water on other planets for future colonisation. Scientists need to work harder on practical and economic ways to improve desalination and seed clouds. The Guardian article is interesting in defining the problem but the reports appear short on solutions. Does it really take "...2,500 politicians, UN bodies, non-governmental groups and researchers from 120 countries ... to address global water supply problems..." to state the obvious? Less talking shops please and more action.

But isn't this whole debate about the right of Gay couples to tie the knot in a religious ceremony? "...Marriage is a social contract that makes public a mutual commitment to co-dependency and a pooling of economic resources. There is no reason that gay people should be excluded from such arrangements based on their sexual preference..." Gay people are not excluded from such arrangements, hence Civil Ceremonies

The criticism above is justified. I have obviously been a bit too general and over simplistic in referring to concepts and institutions. I apologise for any confusion. It is of course necessary that we question institutions and concepts, especially ephemeral ideas and institutions that arise from time to time, such as Apartheid, or segregation. I am not trying to justify or defend such injustices or practices. I also accept that Gay Marriage will become law in this country and that there is a sizeable degree of support for this in this country. 'Marriage' however, in its current form, is not some ephemeral, fleeting concept. Nor is it a universal concept. It has however stood the test of time for thousands of years across all cultures and societies. I cannot see how it will not lead to further changes and qualifications (the floodgates argument) once its meaning is redefined. In centuries to come it may be not uncommon for humans to 'marry' intelligent, sentient, robots. Unfortunately I won't be around to give my tuppence worth.

Despite being more expensive, what exactly is organic milk?

Tut tut, you do like jumping to conclusions don't you. I'm simply making the point that once you meddle with established concepts and institutions unforeseen consequences follow. I'm sure the well-intentioned drafters of The European Convention on Human Rights didn't foresee the amount of scoundrels trying to avoid deportation after their crimes claiming protection under Article 8 that provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life"

The term polygamy is too ill-defined for our purposes here as there is no marriage bond between the wives of the husband (Polygyny) or between the husbands of a wife (Polyandry). What we are talking about here is where the group are all joined to each other equally in a matrimonial bond.

No what? Are you discriminating against the idea of Thruples, Quadruples etc?