• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

The TPU UK Clubhouse

Arrgghhh. Bloody Virgin Media. Local blackout. External box has a red LED on the 'opt in'. Checked some forums, means the incoming cable is bust or faulty. No TV, web, or anything. It's the dark ages.
 
Ironically, that's what I do most of my week.
 
the54thvoid said:
Arrgghhh. Bloody Virgin Media. Local blackout. External box has a red LED on the 'opt in'. Checked some forums, means the incoming cable is bust or faulty. No TV, web, or anything. It's the dark ages.
Click to expand...
Can you share your mobile broadband with your other devices?
 
Count von Schwalbe said:
Seize thine pen of quill and make marks upon the parchment as even did man of yore.
Click to expand...

For some reason. your post reminded me of that pigeon sketch from black adder.

 
the54thvoid said:
Arrgghhh. Bloody Virgin Media. Local blackout. External box has a red LED on the 'opt in'. Checked some forums, means the incoming cable is bust or faulty. No TV, web, or anything. It's the dark ages.
Click to expand...
Could it be a loose cable on the modem box , when I had it and at my parents house this frequently came loose and needed re tightening, I mean the input one with screw in connection at the wall to the modem.
 
No. Very much local area. Got an email to say as much. Back on now.
 
Wanting to surprise my relatives with a photo book mailed to their house from all the adventures we went on, but when I go to ASDA checkout on their photo UK site it asks me for a UK address and phone number to be able to checkout...

Does anyone know of any international payment photo shipping companies located in UK? I suppose I could just do it locally then mail it overseas, but that seems unnecessarily expensive...
 
Is there anyway a UK person can pay it, then you pay them via Paypal?
 
I suppose I can ask one of my friends, was hoping not to ask though, cause my plan was to surprise them with one next. :D

If it ends up coming down to it though I will ask them yeah... hopefully someone knows something though, so going to wait for more responses here.
 
Is the address for delivery, or just to create an account for you to use?
 
the54thvoid said:
Is the address for delivery, or just to create an account for you to use?
Click to expand...
this is what the final checkout page looks like, delivery address is the page before this, where I just put my relatives address. thing is I am not sure if billing address has to match my payment method when it gets charged to the card... so yeah not sure I want to risk it heh. thought it would be much simpler than this, like a Paypal option lol

https://www.asda-photo.co.uk/ that is the website

1695534425188.png
 
You could try. Worst that will happen is it will be rejected. It just looks like card verification details. As long as you use a recognised card, I think it'll work.
 
the54thvoid said:
You could try. Worst that will happen is it will be rejected. It just looks like card verification details. As long as you use a recognised card, I think it'll work.
Click to expand...

I will have to ask my friends to use their address then, I tried using my American one and the post code area would not change from red. So, yeah worth a try with my friends address, I will have to think of a different gift for them now, but that is ok. Lots of stuff out there. :toast:
 
Space Lynx said:
I will have to ask my friends to use their address then, I tried using my American one and the post code area would not change from red. So, yeah worth a try with my friends address, I will have to think of a different gift for them now, but that is ok. Lots of stuff out there. :toast:
Click to expand...
Why not get it sent to them but with your name on it and let them know you bought something in a sale that was a good deal and you will pick it up next time you visit, once they confirm it has arrived you can tell them to open it as it is a gift for them, for me that still makes it a surprise.

Notwithstanding any payment concerns but I have not had issues over here buying something by card and sending to an address different to my billing address.
 
its all done, they got it and no issues.

they love their dogs, as many people in England do, so most of the photos were of the dogs from my visits. lol

I am glad Sunak is banning American Bulldogs though, they are more aggressive and ruin it for everyone, while it is true its all about the owner, that breed is inherently a bit more aggressive by nature.
 
Space Lynx said:
I am glad Sunak is banning American Bulldogs though, they are more aggressive and ruin it for everyone, while it is true its all about the owner, that breed is inherently a bit more aggressive by nature.
Click to expand...
That's why I wholeheartedly disagree with banning breeds. What if they banned some breeds of humans due to being inherently a bit more aggressive or prone to some sort of illegal action by nature? Also, what about mixed breeds? Legislation based on classification opens a massive can of worms that we don't want to open.

I think owners of powerful breeds of dogs should be vetted to see if they're fit for the role.
 
AusWolf said:
That's why I wholeheartedly disagree with banning breeds. What if they banned some breeds of humans due to being inherently a bit more aggressive or prone to some sort of illegal action by nature? Also, what about mixed breeds? Legislation based on classification opens a massive can of worms that we don't want to open.

I think owners of powerful breeds of dogs should be vetted to see if they're fit for the role.
Click to expand...
Not sure how anyone would know what dog anyone has or even if you own a dog, I agree though that in many cases it's the owners more than the actual dogs to blame in most of the extreme cases we are seeing currently, however vetting owners is never going to happen because if it were to each local authority would have to hire an extra 50 staff just to enforce it (if you calculate that it would also need a registration system that currently does not exist) and we all know they are either skint, in serious debt or bankrupt :)

Maybe the only "common denominator" therefore realistically is the breed, I mean .......... for example if a single breed makes up 3% of all dogs but is responsible for 50% of all fatal and near fatal attacks can it just be about the owners?

Maybe start off by getting a real feel for what we are dealing with, start with every Vets surgery and get them to complete a breed analysis for all of their dog customers because ATM I am not sure that dog owners or the government have a clue how many so called "dangerous" breeds are out there and in what numbers.
 
Tatty_Two said:
Not sure how anyone would know what dog anyone has or even if you own a dog, I agree though that in many cases it's the owners more than the actual dogs to blame in most of the extreme cases we are seeing currently, however vetting owners is never going to happen because if it were to each local authority would have to hire an extra 50 staff just to enforce it (if you calculate that it would also need a registration system that currently does not exist) and we all know they are either skint, in serious debt or bankrupt :)
Click to expand...
Sorry, I meant vetting of future owners. You could be presented a questionnaire about your lifestyle (how active you are, how much free time you have), and some statements that you agree to, for example to properly exercise your dog and enrol it in formal training. They could also check your understanding of dogs with a theory test and practical assessment before letting you buy one. Then, if your dog attacks someone, you, the owner could be prosecuted for not taking every possible precaution and/or failing to comply with the terms you agreed to.

Tatty_Two said:
ATM I am not sure that dog owners or the government have a clue how many so called "dangerous" breeds are out there and in what numbers.
Click to expand...
That's another reason why banning breeds is a bad idea - it's hugely ineffective (also due to mixed breed dogs). Also, what happens with existing specimen of that breed now? Will they be put to sleep?

Tatty_Two said:
Maybe the only "common denominator" therefore realistically is the breed, I mean .......... for example if a single breed makes up 3% of all dogs but is responsible for 50% of all fatal and near fatal attacks can it just be about the owners?
Click to expand...
You can also apply that logic to humans. What if a single "breed" (race?) makes up of 3% of the population but is responsible for 50% of sexual assaults, for example? This is the can of worms we'd better avoid.

You can't judge an entire breed of dogs by statistics, just like you can't judge an entire race of humans, either.
 
Last edited:
The human analogy is bogus. We are one race (homo sapiens sapiens). Different ethnicities, but one race.

Dogs are bred for qualities, and different breeds serve different functions. Working dogs (collies for example) are used for herding animals. Gun dogs (historically) for flushing and retrieving game. Nowadays, there are those who breed the most overt traits to create more niche breeds. I read the Bully XL is just a larger version of another established breed.

The issue is, these dogs were bred as fighting dogs. Short ears (less easy to bite into), powerful jaws, wide mouths. Bred to fight.

The human analogy would be to attempt to breed physiological and psychological traits, to create a specific purpose human. Fortunately, that's bad science, as it can't really be done as inbreeding humans (which is where you'd eventually be) creates problems with genetic corruption. Then there's the notion that nurture plays more of a role in psychosocial development than nature.

Few people (if any at all) are born 'bad'. And even being a sociopath doesn't make you a killer. Successful CEO's, bankers etc, tend to score high on sociopathy scores.

But dogs? You can create breeds that are primed to be dangerous. Even a well natured XL, if pushed, can bite. But when it bites, it's been bred to shred.
 
the54thvoid said:
The human analogy is bogus. We are one race (homo sapiens sapiens). Different ethnicities, but one race.
Click to expand...
Considering our vast physical and cultural differences, I beg to differ. We're one species, but different races (breeds, with the dog analogy). There's nothing wrong with it, it's just fact.

the54thvoid said:
Dogs are bred for qualities, and different breeds serve different functions. Working dogs (collies for example) are used for herding animals. Gun dogs (historically) for flushing and retrieving game. Nowadays, there are those who breed the most overt traits to create more niche breeds. I read the Bully XL is just a larger version of another established breed.

The issue is, these dogs were bred as fighting dogs. Short ears (less easy to bite into), powerful jaws, wide mouths. Bred to fight.
Click to expand...
the54thvoid said:
Few people (if any at all) are born 'bad'. And even being a sociopath doesn't make you a killer. Successful CEO's, bankers etc, tend to score high on sociopathy scores.

But dogs? You can create breeds that are primed to be dangerous. Even a well natured XL, if pushed, can bite. But when it bites, it's been bred to shred.
Click to expand...
That's the history of it, but it doesn't mean that traditionally fighting breeds have to fight. They're born with strong muscles, strong jaws and a high energy level that has to be channelled. If it isn't, it'll result in a heightened level of anxiety and aggression. Similarly to sociopaths making good CEOs, strong breeds can make good hunting or sporting dogs. They don't have to be outlawed just because we, humans are stupid enough not choose a breed that matches our lifestyle when buying a dog. If you live in a flat, or if you don't have the time and energy to give your dog proper and regular exercise and discipline, you shouldn't buy a strong breed. It's that simple.

Even some humans were "bred" to be kings, nobles, or slaves throughout history. It doesn't mean we're still kings and slaves up to this day.

Not to mention I'm very curious what the law says about mixed breeds, or how exactly these breeds are going to be outlawed - are existing specimens gonna get killed? Or is it only breeding that's not allowed? Or the buying of such breeds? What exactly is outlawed? How is it gonna be controlled? My American bulldog fornicates with your American bulldog without our knowledge, so what's with the puppies now?

All in all, I think racism is racism, whether it's directed at humans, or dogs. We are all different, dogs are all different, we should accept it and learn to live with it.
 
Last edited:
In terms of mixed breeds, I think if a dog is half banned breed and half not then it's not a "Bully xl" (for example) and that's fine, however if it were a cross between 2 banned breeds then from what I can tell that is likely to be illegal.

The actual guidance states "Ownership of the crossbreeds of the four banned breeds may also be subject to the same law" The "may" is added in there because the onus is on the owner to evidence history of good behaviour if they appeal against the ruling.
 
Tatty_Two said:
In terms of mixed breeds, I think if a dog is half banned breed and half not then it's not a "Bully xl" (for example) and that's fine, however if it were a cross between 2 banned breeds then from what I can tell that is likely to be illegal.

The actual guidance states "Ownership of the crossbreeds of the four banned breeds may also be subject to the same law" The "may" is added in there because the onus is on the owner to evidence history of good behaviour if they appeal against the ruling.
Click to expand...
Sure, but if your dog is a mix of a banned breed and a legal one, then what? Who decides how much of the banned breed's traits have been passed on? What if it's only 1/4 of the breed?

There's way too many questions and no possible straight answers.
 
Nature, Nurture, I think it funny that our egos allow the domination of dogs to the point where a judge says bully XL bad, and then they're all bad.
I agree with the idea licences should be harder to get, and required.
But for all four legged pets, cats too.

Also humans are the same, some parents shouldn't have been allowed without further training at least, if you raise a child that's ok with stabbing another teenage child then should you not face questions? The kid used Your example.

My cousin has a new style old eng bulldog, IE bread with an American bit in longer nose no breathing issues.
Big dog, trained very well to know what her mouth can do and should not do, but yes right inspiration and she might, het mum is still a touchy bitch I don't trust and I'm a Dog person, she is a bit mental But not That bad until it's a stranger, so not good.
 
AusWolf said:
Sure, but if your dog is a mix of a banned breed and a legal one, then what? Who decides how much of the banned breed's traits have been passed on? What if it's only 1/4 of the breed?

There's way too many questions and no possible straight answers.
Click to expand...
If it's a cross breed it's not a banned breed as I understand it, so normal dog law applies meaning that if a dog attacks and/or harms a person or even another dog it is dealt with accordingly. Non banned breeds get put down by the police on a fairly regular basis as are the issue of "dog control" orders, I am not suggesting the system is good or bad, just my take on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top