Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

Petrol: what's the situation in Lewes?

On 29 Mar 2012 at 2:54pm Fuming Mad wrote:
Are we all being sensible and not rushing to top up? Any queues at Esso or Tesco?
Strikers need to give 7 day notice anyway
On 29 Mar 2012 at 3:07pm On Fumes wrote:
The situation is, do what you normally do. People really are utterly selfish.
On 29 Mar 2012 at 3:13pm Small drip wrote:
Heard that terms for talks have been agreed via ACAS so NO STRIKE IS IMMINENT.
On 29 Mar 2012 at 3:55pm Cliffite wrote:
Oh come on, this is Lewes, people panic buy the moment there's a whiff of an imminent "disaster" on the news. Last time I couldn't get into Waitrose because of the solar storms, it was ridiculous.
On 29 Mar 2012 at 4:14pm Lord Landport wrote:
Pathetic, sad individuals. Even when we had the shortages a few years ago, i never once had to queue for petrol.
Some people really do need to have a word with themselves.
On 29 Mar 2012 at 7:19pm Boris wrote:
I couldn't agree more, absolutely pathetic.
I've come to the opinion that most people are just completely thick>
On 29 Mar 2012 at 9:10pm lewisian wrote:
Esso in lewes have stated they will be empty by tomorrow morning and have no idea when there next delivery will be
On 29 Mar 2012 at 10:09pm Fairmeadow wrote:
Paul a bit quiet in this glorious week of Tory triumphs?
On 30 Mar 2012 at 12:05am Southover Queen wrote:
I filled up in Tesco this lunchtime (I had less than a quarter tank left so was hardly panic buying) and found no panic, all pumps open and the station only slightly busier than usual.

Friends in North London say that there's no petrol to be had within a radius of several miles, so actually it seems we've all been reasonably sensible in comparison.

(I am utterly bewildered by government incompetence on this. I know they're busy trying to blame the unions, but honestly even the most rabid of Tories can't be terribly impressed by this mess)
On 30 Mar 2012 at 12:47am Gooseberry wrote:
Have you considered that this petrol thingy might be an elaborate April Fool?
On 30 Mar 2012 at 3:16am Fairmeadow wrote:
No, its an Osborne anti-union ploy that was as spectacularly successful as his economic policies
On 30 Mar 2012 at 9:30am Cliffite wrote:
Well with all those people panic buying the petrol at the highest prices, am sure it's doing the government coffers a world of good.
On 30 Mar 2012 at 9:35am Winterbourne Wanderer wrote:
Hubby just texted to say Esso in chaos because there were no espresso lids left. (Petrol seemed fine.)
On 30 Mar 2012 at 9:41am Shanks Pony wrote:
If you believe the Metro newspaper, the extra fuel duty collected on wednesday alone was £32m. People panic buying the very thing that most complain is too expensive. Eh?
I'd have been more impresed if the government had suggested people drive a lot slower, and only use their vehicles when absolutely necessary. Some people could even try walking short journeys.......
On 30 Mar 2012 at 10:36am Rods Tiger wrote:
I keep hearing this thing about "extra" fuel duty, which is a nonsense. It's just the same duty for the next couple of weeks coming in early. People aren't buying "extra" petrol, now they've all filled up sales will drop for a week or so. . . . and so will the tax generated. Simples !!
On 30 Mar 2012 at 4:44pm Rookie wrote:
I wouldn't mind betting that some filling stations have raised their prices to take advantage of the situation.
On 30 Mar 2012 at 6:18pm Enemy of sq wrote:
There she goes again!! Blame! Wonder what her thoughts were when Blair messed up in 2000.
On 30 Mar 2012 at 6:40pm Clifford wrote:
Rookie, there are people on this site who believe in the sacred 'law' of supply and demand and think that if more people want something then the price must automatically rise. It's a fiction, of course, but they stake their lives on it.
On 30 Mar 2012 at 8:06pm Southover Queen wrote:
Gosh, I'm honoured to have acquired an enemy. Shame it takes three readings and a bit of a punt to get a sense of what s/he might be complaining about.

So, enemy-mine, are you perfectly happy that the government advised everyone to top up their tanks whenever possible and to fill up jerry cans with petrol? Advice which seems to have led to a woman in York sustaining 40% burns? That's okay is it?

I'm not entirely sure what I've done to attract such opprobrium. Obviously it's offensive to have opinions and be capable of expressing them. Shall I tell you what? I'm not apologising for being articulate and for sustaining an argument.
On 30 Mar 2012 at 8:52pm Boris wrote:
I thought it was good advise from the government and more likely than not reason why those dick heads from Unite have pulled back and decided to sort it out round the table.
All the time people have fuel in there tanks it weakens the trotsky's position.
On 30 Mar 2012 at 8:56pm Clifford wrote:
Boris, do you think the employers may have a part to play in a dispute, or do you think it's always one side only? Either way, one thing they don't need is idiot politicians or their pathetic little cheerleaders involving themselves.
On 30 Mar 2012 at 9:07pm Paul Newman wrote:
I am looking forward to Thick Ed distancing himself from Unite, in more news Orville distances himself from Keith Harris,.
On 30 Mar 2012 at 10:02pm For Goodness Sake wrote:
If (Paul Newman) you are referring to Ed Can Do, I take offence as I feel his posts are some of the most logical and fair comments made on here. Whereas Southover Queen's leave a lot to be desired (as do yours)
On 30 Mar 2012 at 10:19pm jrsussex wrote:
Man yesterday morning filled up his car then proceeded to fill three largish cans. Must have noticed all eyes on him all clearly thinking what an idiot. Yes several garages have put their prices up, their reason when I asked was that demand had increased, unbelievable they clearly look upon their customers as mugs. Remember who they are and when the scare is over make a point of telling them why you will not be purchasing their petrol in future. Finally to complete my download why on earth are a group of men who are simply truck drivers earning 45k per annum even considering going on strike in the current economic climate of the UK.
On 30 Mar 2012 at 10:25pm Southover Queen wrote:
For Goodness Sake: and your posts do make sense? Logical? Fair?

I imagine, because I retain some awareness of what's going on in the big wide world, that Paul is slagging off Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour Party, rather than Ed Can Do. Just a guess.
On 30 Mar 2012 at 11:40pm For Goodness Sake wrote:
@Southover Queen. I find your posts irritatingly patronising. Please be mindful to respect others opinions, just as you demand that others respect yours.
On 31 Mar 2012 at 10:02am Enemy of sq wrote:
Well said FGS,I ts not personal,how can it be when we sit behind our screens typing!! But for some reason Sq you really do have a good way of winding me up!! So be thankful and grateful that you have a one person fan club!
On 31 Mar 2012 at 10:44am Southover Queen wrote:
Of course it's personal "Enemy of sq". Where you sit is pretty irrelevant, and so is the medium you use. It's called trolling.

FGS: I don't intend to be patronising, but I also don't really see why I should moderate the way I express myself either. I do often have difficulty understanding what a poster is getting at here, because they seem to imagine that everyone shares their point of view and can put their comments in context. Your reaction to Paul Newman's reference to "Thick Ed" was a very good case in point - of course the insult is aimed at a Labour politician and not at a poster on this forum.

I think it's a shame that in a thread about a petrol shortage scare escalating into a full-scale panic I am not allowed to move the discussion on without attracting the attention of trolls. It's not patronising to disagree with someone else, and neither is it patronising to set out one's reasons for disagreeing.

I don't label myself anyone's enemy either. That's because I'd rather evaluate someone's opinion based on what they say, not on whether I've decided I don't like them. I might disagree with Paul much of the time, but I defend his right to express those opinions. JRSussex and I have had the odd strong disagreement too, but equally you'll find several occasions where we're singing in perfect harmony. Try that, rather than blind prejudice.
On 31 Mar 2012 at 10:47am Deelite wrote:
I for one think SQ is usually right on the ball.

Hard not to patronise someone who manages to confuse Ed Can Do with Ed Milliband when it's so glaringly obvious PN was talking about Ed Milliband.

It's s shame for you that you don't have an identity outside of being an enemy of SQ, Enemy of sq.
On 31 Mar 2012 at 11:10am Clifford wrote:
jrsussex wrote: '...why on earth are a group of men who are simply truck drivers earning 45k per annum even considering going on strike in the current economic climate of the UK.'

If you read a bit more widely about the dispute rather than taking a knee-jerk pro-employer line you might see what the cause is.
On 31 Mar 2012 at 12:44pm Rookie wrote:
To put up prices this week is just blatant profiteering.
On 31 Mar 2012 at 12:53pm Southover Queen wrote:
Right, back on track then....
JRSussex, as I understand it the reason that there is a possibility of industrial action is nothing to do with wages. There is a concern about safety standards and proper training of drivers - people who have charge of what amounts to a huge bomb travelling on our roads. Safe handling of fuel must be a priority, and it seems quite reasonable to me for a union to raise this if it becomes aware of dangerous or potentially dangerous practices. That's exactly what I would expect a union to do.

I'm afraid I think the Government cynically seized on this issue to whip up a panic which they could then blame on The Unions. It's not the first time they've done this, and it won't be the last. On this occasion however it backfired (sorry bad pun) because they handled it so badly, dispensing dangerous and even illegal advice. My guess is that most right-thinking people believe this has been a whole series of own-goals for them.
On 31 Mar 2012 at 2:00pm jrsussex wrote:
Clifford/SQ - You are among my favourite posters, always interesting. You will recall from previous discussions that prior to becoming a licensee I was a truck driver, both uk based and international. I have driven tankers, petrol, diesel and oddly enough wine (from Spain, Italy and France) and yes there is training involved in how to deal with the product you are carrying in an emergency, but by and large there is little difference in driving large vehicles irrespective of the load, Someone will disagree with that but it is a fact. Becoming a tanker driver has always be difficult for no other reason than it has always been considered, and I go back as far as the 60's, a top job for a trucker to have because of the high wages and very good conditions. That has been achieved by those in the industry and the backing of their union. The point I make is that in the current climate their wage and job security are such that striking when others are in dire straits (good name for a band) is wrong. Whatever they say is the reason they are considering going on strike you can almost guarentee it will include an increase in their wages.
On 31 Mar 2012 at 2:24pm not from around here wrote:
Clifford - if you were to not always take the knee-jerk brother-employees line then that might make your posts a bit more credible.
On 31 Mar 2012 at 2:34pm Southover Queen wrote:
Thank you JRSussex. You are always courteous and clear in your posts as well, which is why I enjoy engaging with you.

It won't come as a great surprise if I say that I am an active member of my union - a small, niche one none of you will have heard of, probably. Most of its day to day business is actually to do with terms and conditions of employment rather than pay, because ours is an industry where exploitation of workers (mostly young freelancers) is rife. We're struggling to hold the line most of the time, but at least our members aren't generally putting anyone except themselves at risk.

I gather from reading around the subject that the concern of the drivers is to do with the safe handling of the fuel, so making deliveries to petrol stations for instance. A central issue they're identifying as being dangerous is the substitution of untrained agency drivers and a lack of oversight into the proper H&S qualifications of everyone involved, including requiring drivers to make deliveries to unmanned petrol stations. It sounds as if the employers agree that there's a problem to be addressed as well. To be honest, it's a shame that the only way for these issues to be discussed is for the union to poll its members - and let's remember that's all they did. They were carrying out their proper function in representing their member's concerns; it was other agencies who escalated that into a full-scale panic for their own ends.
On 31 Mar 2012 at 5:29pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Excellent responses, SQ!
I think having an enemy on here means is ragther cool, actually. Wish I had one.
On 31 Mar 2012 at 5:38pm Enemy of ACT! wrote:
No need to feel left out ACT!!!

This thread has reached its limit now
Why not start another one


Arched gateway 5:132
Arched gateway

I recently ran into a bit of a dilemma at my shop and thought my experience might be helpful for anyone in a similar situation.... more
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
Thomas Paine