• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pappnase


    It somewhat depends on 'how' you know the email address and phone number of the landlord. If you got it from a business card or some other 'public' means then it's probably fine to share it. If you got it because the landlord gave it to you as a favour then perhaps not.


    Personally I find it rude when someone shares my email or phone number so I would do no more than you have done here.

    5 hours ago, stad said:

    I’ve reached out by email and text message to the landlord asking to share it, but so far no response.


  2. Yeah phone or email is probably the way, there is also a 'TheLocal' account that seems to respond, and a few 'xxx at the local' accounts that post occasionally they have also been helpful in the past.

    In general though you should assume it's the wild-west out there and just block the offensive posts as best you can.

    I really wish it were different, but they pay the bills so they call the shots.



  3. Good luck with that, I made quite a concerted effort to find out once upon a time, and completely failed to get a good answer.

    It seems that at some level "the powers that be" don't want to let us know.


    If you do find out it would be great to get the wiki updated, I know that my last edit is out of date but I've no desire to try to chase down a more up to date list.




  4. 7 hours ago, europaeuropa said:

    It almost seems like employers don't know how to tackle this, and in cases where they reject brief periods of home office abroad, they panic and just say "err... it's 'cos of the law. Our hands are tied

    This is probably close to the truth. There are clearly examples where working abroad temporarily is legal (otherwise business trips to foreign countries wouldn't happen) however there are probably many ways in which a longer term arrangement could be problematic. I can think of potential issues around tax law, employment law, immigration law, insurance cover and several others.

    Rather than spending a lot of time investigating those possible issues when there is no real gain to the employer, an HR department might well fall back on "err... it's 'cos of the law. Our hands are tied". I'm sure in most cases they don't even actually bother to check.


    I think your example of the British guy who finally got permission after arguing the case is the obvious example here, his management decided that keeping him was worth whatever effort they needed to go through to satisfy themselves it was legal, and so eventually they caved in. I'm sure if it was actually illegal they wouldn't have done it.


  5. 51 minutes ago, hooperski said:

    Don't have the money. I call bullshit. Nutricious food bought and prepared at home is way cheaper than buying processed crap.


    Where I grew up, the extra cost of the bus fareto the town meant that sometimes it was cheaper to eat fish and chips from the corner than to get a fresh meal.

    If you are living in a hostel and cooking with just a microwave (or in some cases just a kettle) it's hard to make healthy nutritious food.

    If you are trying to fill a belly in the evening to allow your kids to get to sleep, the value proposition of economy beans on whitebread toast is hard to beat.



  6. On 19/12/2022, 18:20:58, Fietsrad said:

    Waste heat? Why are people charged for it?

    Because the pipes and other infrastructure that carry it from the factory to the house has an installation and maintenance cost associated with it. If the company producing the heat just dumped it into the ground or the sky it would cost them much much less, but would be a waste.



  7. 3 hours ago, Gambatte said:

    After all much of what the Church does - or should supposedly do - consist in alleviating suffering of humans. I don't think this should stop.

    I am just fine with people believing whatever they need to get them through the tough times, it's a cruel world out there, but I don't believe the religious should be allowed to have a monopoly on 'goodness', we should all be doing what we can, and it shouldn't require us to believe in anything more than the fact that we are all in this together.


    I would see the churches and the synagogues and the mosques and the temples reduced back to their status as club-houses for the faithful where those who choose to believe can go and worship together, I see no need for the rest of us to be involved, and I think actively enabling this irrationality in society by abdicating our responsibility for the state of the world to some higher power is damaging for us all


    This is not really a subject I want to be drawn on any further, but any god that could let my wife die the way she did has no place in my world..



  8. 3 hours ago, Gambatte said:

    only the Church can administer sacraments

    I would be fine if they restricted themselves to administering the sacraments and conducting religious ceremonies . If that was the limit of their action then it wouldn't matter who was in charge.


    EDIT to add: Oh and if I didn't have to pay the wages of priests, that really gets my goat.




  9. 7 hours ago, SpaceOne said:

    Is there any advantage over (only) being a rezident?

    German citizenship gives me the right to vote and an EU passport gives the right to freedom of movement allowing me to move or work anywhere in the EU.

    Both of these were considerations when I applied, but retaining my EU citizenship was more important to me than it being German citizenship.




  10. Home what a complex concept.

    My family all live in France, my friends are all over the world in the US, the UK, Australia, here in Germany, but none of them are in the town in Wales where I grew up.

    For the longest time Home was the place where my wife lived, but that place doesn't exist anymore.

    I don't think I will ever leave the house we bought and made our own, but if I do it won't be to go back it will be to go forward to the next great adventure.


  11. It's bullshit hoops, she is not being arrested for praying, she is being arrested on suspicion of breaching an anti-social behaviour order.
    The order will have been made by a court with the specific intention of preventing her from protesting or praying at that location.

    It is unlikely that the order will have been issued without a prior court case.

    The question from the policeman will specifically have been to decide if she was doing anything that went against that court order.

    I don't see any problem with asking the question.


    Now the general idea of anti-social behaviour orders, that is a different matter, they are widely abused and are a really crappy public order tool, but this particular arrest is just an example which is being weaponised by the ant-abortion lobby to claim that the woman shown is  a victim not a nasty piece of shit..