mercuryg

All interesting stuff, but the actual fact is that wind and solar power are not efficient, and are not going to halve our carbon emissions. It isn't going to happen - plain and simple. Of course the industry is creating jobs- governments are subsidising these things - but even Germany, the leader in such technology, is having to build more coal fired power stations to back up its wind supply. What's the point in subsidising wind and solar if that's what is needed (and it is, both there and here.) My aim is not to dismiss alternative power sources but to wish, seemingly endlessly, that the governments of the world would accept that what they are aiming to achieve - this massive and seemingly imperative reduction in carbon emissions by huge amounts - is simply not acheivable and driven by unproven theories that are largely based on highly disputed cod science. To cover this country in wind turbines is an expensive mistake that will not solve the impending problem of a power deficit, and the money spent subsidising it to keep the green lobby happy could be put to better use. I see heat pumps mentioned; great idea, but very, very expensive and high maintenance. We need nuclear reactors.

That is part o the problem in putting forward a 'negative' view. I can't disagree at all that there is great justification in looking at our dependence on fossil fuels, but the problem lies in the way the last twenty years of government have been swayed by the anti nuclear and pro 'green' brigade. Don't get me wrong, i'm not against the idea of clean fuels and renewable energy, my problem lies in excessive investment in unproven and inefficient power sources that are never going to provide the answer to the problem. I talk mainly of wind and solar power. Solar power is a non starter in the UK; despite Monsta's assertions - which are those of many who have been misled by the advertising and promotion of those with massive government grants - solar panels, even the most efficient ones, do not operate efficiently in anything other than the brightest of clear sunlight. This should be clear to anyone who reads that they need to be fitted south facing. furthermore, they don't work at night, and there is no facility for storing surplus energy and using it later without losing a great deal of it in the process. The quoted installer even admits that there is a possibility of 40-60% savings on electricity bills - there is no guarantee, and when you consider that teh winter months and many more will have to be subsidised by other sources of power it becomes obvious that something is not quite right here. The simple test is to look around you - solar power has been with us for a hundred years, yet it is hardly used. There is s reason for that. Look around in California and you'll see a different aspect. Wind power is my biggest bugbear, for I firmly believe that it is a complete and utter waste of money in terms of the national grid. There is clear research data that states a wind turbine will only ever operate at 30% or less of its capacity; given that all the calculations of power provision are taken at full capacity this means we are financing an immediate and accepted shortfall. this is a ridiculous situation, and it has to stop. Recent estimates state that we need a further 2,000 wind turbines to reach the proposed output levels; that means, in truth, we need more than ten thousand, and if we are to achieve anywhere near the levels needed given that different parts of the country see different levels of wind that figure is most likely - and this isn't my estimation, it's accepted scientific fact as provided by in depth research - to increase further. we need, therefore, a further 17,000 or so wind turbines in order to reach the current output levels, and that is not to produce all of our energy, but less than 40%. The money spent on subsidising wind power - and it is vast - would be far better spent addressing the problem in hand - our impending lack of power with the closure of the nuclear stations and the coal fired. Germany, by the way, has been the biggest investor in wind and solar power over the last twenty years, and has just committed to building a series of new coal powered stations to supplement the lack of power being provided by its failed 'green' infrastructure. We cannot rely on nature to power our industry and our homes, because nature does not respond to our demands. It's that simple. we need more power stations, and we need them now.

That's no way to continue a discussion, Monsta; I want to hear your side of the 'research' now. I read as far as this in that suppliers blurb to realise it's a con that's going to cost each and every one of us a lot of money. Here - it reads: "It is anticipated that a 3.3kw system could save in the region of 40%-60% of electricity that an average 3 bedroom semi detached property uses. " Anticipated? Don't they know? 'Could'? What about 'will'? 40 - 60%? What about the rest? Come on, I want to hear why I should be in support of something that neither promises nor guarantees anythin, and claims to be free but actually isn't!

yes! They do, but not very well, as you will - of course - know if you have 'researched' solar panels, i'm sure. Even the very best in solar panels that are available now are nowhere near as efficient on days when there is no sun as opposed to those where there is; this isn't hidden by the industry at all, it's openly admitted. As for 'wow, free electricity' you are kidding, right? people - like me - who laugh at the current trend for renewable energy sources are often met with a 'how dare you' response, as if it's sort of a law, as if it's a crime to dare to point out that in fact these so called saviours of our impending power generation problem are not the answer. Solar, wind, wave - it's all flawed, and most of it to great degrees. As with our discussion about the electric car you're reading the positive and failing to take into account the negative - research, as you implore me to undertake, involves balancing both sides of the scales and seeing which weights down the heaviest. It's no good looking at limited time government initiatives that promise free electricity and assuming that because they do that source of power must be the way forward; you have to ask questions, and there are many. Let's start with the same one we started with when we talked about electric cars: if solar power is so good, why isn't it more widely used? After all, it's been around for decades (centuries even) and is one of the most obvious forms of alternative power? Builders now incorporate solar panels in many new houses, but not with the intention of replacing the national grid - why is that? because they are not very efficient. On a bright sunny day you'll be able to power your lights and most of your home by it, but on a cloudy day you may be able to generate only a small percentage of its available capacity. And therein lies the problem that is present with solar, wind and wave power - it's not 'on demand'. I don't want to be patronising, but if you've researched solar power - and alternative sources - this won't be news to you; we don't have ways of storing large quantities of electricity, hence we can't rely on solar power when it's not able to be generarted in the capacity required. Power stations churn out electricity to exceed demand all the time - they have to, or we wouldn't be able to operate - it doesn't come from a big storage plant, it isn't generated over night and used the next day, week, year - it's made as we use it. We can envisage a brilliant 'green' future as much as we like, we can talk about building the required three or five thousand new wind turbines needed to meet the quota, and we can all install solar panels, but we still have to accept that they are not 'on demand' sources. If you seriously think that there's going to be a future where electricity is free because we all create it ourselves with personal windmills and solar panels then you're not doing your 'research' at all; solar power is expensive, inefficient and unreliable, and as with every single commercial enterprise somebody has to meet the bill. Nobody is making these solar cells for free, they don't maintain themselves, and they don't install themselves; somebody has to pay for it, and whether it's by massive misguided government subsidies or otherwise, that's you, and me. I would rather that money spent on modern nuclear power stations which give on demand power - wouldn't you?

I'm not sure they will become too popular, threegee, I think it more likely that very few people will take it up as they realise that solar power in the UK is a bit of a non starter!

That's not quite the only proviso is it, threegee? You missed this bit: "* We will be installing onto roofs that fall within a 1hr travel zone from Junction 36 of the M1 motorway..." As junction 36 is south of Barnsley and just north of Rotherham I don't think any of us are likely to qualify........

Good points, but hardly comparable, and I don't think many people thought the iPhone would be a flop. As for the Prius, it is hardly a runaway success, is it? In 12 years of worldwide sales just over a million - in the whole world - have been sold. That's a good indication, in fact, of the sort of market that such vehicles are aiming at. Further, i'm not saying electric cars will be 'a flop' - I firmly believe that manufacturers will sell the numbers that they want, as they are not intended for anything other than short runs.As a replacement for the traditionally powered car they are simply not viable, and that's before we consider the cost o teh infrastructure and the extra power needed for them. These too are very good points, and I can't disagree that strongly with them. Alcohol powered cars are prevalent in South America and other parts of the world, and do the job neatly; the problem, again, is in installing an infrastructure that enables the pumping of alcohol into cars, and in converting the millions of existing models to alcohol based power. Hydrogen suffers from similar problems to electric power in that it has to be produced, and to produce it you need - you guessed - electricity, and lots of it. It is, I would say, a more likely choice to take over from electric batteries when the petrol eventually runs out. Where you are being a little alarmist is in predicting a £5 a litre petrol price in a decade; despite the scaremongers telling us otherwise (and if you believe those scientists who were estimating when I was at school then there would be no oil left by now) oil reserves are healthy, and the increases we see inpetrol come not from the cost of oil but from taxation. I can see it doubling in price, but a 400% increase in ten years would require something akin to a third world war. Possible, but hardly predictable. Furthermore, and something that you are missing - not deliberately, I understand - is that if your predictions about oil prices rising were to be correct then we would undoubtedly see a similar rise in the price of electricity - and even without your predictions the cost of electricity is rising very quickly all the time. Either way, this leads us to your last sentence, and it's one that, again, backs up something you've missed; as i've said, when the internal combustion eventually dies - and it will - any replacement will be too expensive, too impractical and so on, for individuals other than those with a hell of a lot of money to spend; the car, as such, as personal transport, will also die. We will rely on public transport.

On the contrary; early in the discussion Monsta clearly stated that once 'people get a taste for electric cars' sales of diesel and petrol will plummet and the internal combustion will be dead; he is, in fact, wholeheartedly proposing the electric car as a viable replacement for the traditional version; this, as my argument has always been, is not the case now, and won't be for a long time - if at all. It's not an argument, as you claim, based on price but on practicality. There is no practical use for electric cars as they are able to be produced now other than for short runs. That's been the case for a hundred years, and will likely be so for another. Monsta - i'm not 'against' electric cars at all, and nor am I arguing against them; I maintain they have a purpose, but it's not as a replacement for the traditional powered car. I use the bus because I don't need a car; that, I might add, is about as green as it gets. Your point is not relevant though; the government isn't going to give me one for nothing, it costs £23,000. If I buy a car now, and I am - coincidentally - in the process of looking for one - it will be so that I can visit people further afield, go to weekend race meetings at Donington, Oulton, Brands and so on, get in and go whenever I want and take on a bit more freedom than I currently have with the bus and rail network. I certainly won't be buying one that offers me no greater range than the X21 and costs over £20 grand, and neither will anyone who isn't very wealthy and wants a trendy plaything.

That's an interesting statement, and I'd question why you think I'm being defeatist when I've clearly acknowledged that electric cars are a great idea for what they are being built for - short journeys, city cars, etc. That i'm trying to get it across - and it shouldn't really be that difficult (and has, in actual fact, been acknowledged by yourself and Monsta) that there is absolutely no chance of the electric car replacing the internal combustion engined car for a long time thanks to a vast amount of impracticalities in both the design and the principle isn't defeatist - it's reality. If i'm expected to bow down because two of you have come up with counter ideas - one of which is not to use a car at all as it wouldn't be able to do the job - then you're missing my point; a £23,000 car that doesn't go very far is not a practical replacement for the current mode of personal transport that is favoured. I fail to see how you can argue otherwise. You want to know what we can do? I've already told you; the car, in its fossil fuelled and electric form, will eventually die out and we will rely on a greater public transport infrastructure. As you said, we'll all take the train or, more likely, the bus, tram or whatever. This is the only way that we cvan get around the problem of having to generate enough power to charge up 20 million electric cars on a regular basis. Again, that's not defeatist, it's logic. Here's the rub - currently I don't even own a car; i'd love one, but I don't need one. I use the bus. I can assure, though, that if I had £23000 to spend on a car it wouldn't be a limited range Nissan Leaf or similar - in all honesty, would you buy one? BTW, Monsta - get the names of the 50,00 on that US waiting list and i'll bet you they can all afford a trendy electric plaything.

Hang on, the two of you have just defeated your own argument; you're openly admitting that the Nissan Leaf, one of the most advanced and modern of the new breed of electric cars, is utterly useless for anyone wanting to travel any distance. In suggesting that it's better to use an alternative you're pointing out its mighty limitations. besides, I don't want to take the train, because I've just spent £23,000 on a car, and for £23,000 it should be able to do the job without me having to take the train. When i get to my destination I want to be able to get in my car and visit brighton, pop over to Goodwood for some racing, call on relatives in Maidstone, etc; I don't want to be limited by having to use the train. Battery replacement is, in an ideal world, a great idea, but the same limitations apply - you can only go so far on one set of batteries, and you will have to have these battery replacement centres every few miles as not everybody is starting from the same place and heading for the same destination. Monsta, batteries last 100 miles, but not at a safe and steady 60mph on the motorway they don't, and no matter how much you try to dress it up, battery technology isn't advancing at the rate of 'twofold every couple of months' - as already pointed out in 60 years battery technology, as needed for cars, is simply static. Furthermore, you again point out the limitations in electric cars design as you state, quite correctly, it is designed for urban transport; it might have passed your notice that all but a very few (the Tesla etc) are designed for urban transport, because - quite simply - of the problems i've highlighted. I've already stated electric cars are great as 'city cars' - but who other than the wealthy looking for a plaything and an 'I'm green, I am' sign is going to pay £23,000 for an urban car? As you said, take the train, or the bus. I'm interested to see how many Nissan Leaf's are sold in the UK in the next twelve months - i'll bet yo any money its in two figures, no more than a hundred.

That's just it - you've hit the nail on the head; to achieve practicality you would have to have millions of these 'pod points' across the UK, one every few miles on every road, or you're going to have electric cars stopping left, right and centre just short of their recharging point. How much is it going to cost to install them everywhere? What if you want to take your family for picnic in the wilds of the Yorkshire Dales - is there going to be one at every remote beauty spot? Looking at the various blurbs for these systems they claim to be free - how can that be so? Who is going to pay for the electricity - the power fairies? I want to drive down to London to visit my sister - i'm going to have to stop every 80 miles and wait half an hour while my car is charged; given that at 60mph, on the motorway, it's going to take me five hours (that's at constant speed) to start with, and that 60mph isn't going to give me 100 miles from my shiny new £23grand Nissan, i'm probably looking at charging every 60 miles at least. That's four charges, that's an extra couple of hours on my travelling time, and that's optimistic. Seven hours to drive to London in £23,000 brand new car - you do see the problem, surely? I understand that you see a shiny new petrol free future - and granted, that would be brilliant - but until these simple, practical problems have been ironed out the electric car is suitable only for short journeys into and out of towns and cities - great as that is, it's a limited market that is unlikely to extend to many moe than a handful of Nissan leaf's being sold to some wealthy people who can afford the extravagance. This isn't me not wanting electric cars to be successful, it's me being extremely practical and seeing that it's a long way in teh future.

Great, so that's £23,000 for a car that goes 100 miles on a full tank. have you thought about this - what if you want to go somewhere that's 60 miles away? How do you get home?

yes, that's true, but that's for a mobile phone, not a car. If it's F1 i'll have the press release; check out www.updatef1.com, it's the biggest independent f1 website, i.e. not run by a publishing house, in the world today, and I edit it. The thing is that F1 has nothing to do with road cars. Anything that goes from F1 to road cars is minimal. Those machines are designed to last a four hundred miles and then need a complete rebuild. An example of where F1 does it wrong - last year the FIA introduced KERS, kinetic energy recovery systems (as used by the Leaf, and mentioned by Monsta) as they were said to be seen as the next big thing in road car technology. In fact they're not; they are expensive, inefficient systems that are unreliable and return poor results, and this after fifteen years - at least - of research and development by some very, very bright bods (indeed, Mclaren introduced KERS on its F1 car in 1997 - it was instantly banned). The auto industry sees KERS as something with very limited use, but also views it as a 'look, we're doing something' message, which is why it appears on the Leaf, and others, but not on conventional road cars. (Incidentally, the biggest development house for KERS in Europe - Williams Grand Prix Engineering. That's right, and the reason it costs that much is not because it isn't mass produced, it's because th technology it uses is bloody expensive, not green at all, and not conducive to use on the roads. It's in its infancy, unproven, and the car itself is very, very slow. Even the modern, current electric cars that Monsta is championing (and don't get me wrong, i'm all for althernative fuels and !*!@#, it's simply that we are noweher near to viable replacement for the combustion engine) will give you a hundred miles, but at a snails pace; take one on the motorway and start cruising at 60mph and you'll get to Newcastle before it stops. I'm not kidding, not exaggeratiing, this is as far as they have got, and this is with the might of the world's manufacturers working together. Granted, we'll have electric vehicles one day, but as a personal form of transport, as a viable car, they simply are not ready yet; that's why production levels are low. The simple facts in all this is simple. I can't agree with you, although there is a point to be made, but the thing you're missing is that the oil companies are desperately lookign for alternatives to their current product because it will, eventually, run out (although nowhere near as quickly as th doom-mongers will have us told). Further, it's not up to teh governement, and again, if the government were so keen why are they offering incentives for electric cars? I think it is unprovable, but then it's not the government that makes cars. Look at it this way - which car manufacturers does our government have any influence over now? None. I feel that as the one putting electric cars down here i'm being somewhet mis-heard; i'm not against electric cars - give me one that is safe, efficient, has a great range, can be 'filled up' once a week and take me to where I want to go every day, there and back, doesn't increase my electricity bill by a fortune, won't necessitate the building of vastly more power stations than we already need, doesn't use materials in the batteries that involve raping the areas they are found, doesn't need the expensive batteries replacing every 5000 miles, and so on, and i'll happily welcome it, but it doesn't exist. Electric cars, as we know them now, as the Nissan Leaf and it's compatriots are, ar simply vanity toys for rich people to say 'look at me, i'm saving the planet' when, in fact, they're not. That's not an opinion, it's a fact, and it's borne out entirely by the £28,000 price tag of a 21st century electric, state of the art Nissan that gets you a hundred miles. here's the way I see it - in 50 years, say, when the cost of petrol and diesel is prohibitive, the personal car will be a thing of th past; we will have electric vehicles, but not cars - buses. Public transport will be king.

I think you'll find they have. I'm not averse, however, to your suggestion of new nuclear stations; without them we'll be livin in the dark by 2025, never mind runnign electric cars. No they're not - you pay a rental for the batteries, an additional fee to the cost of teh car. No it doesn't - do you actually drive a car? Are you suggesting that climate change wasn't around a hundred years ago? Ok, we'll use the Nissan Leaf as our benchmark, then. £23,000 for a car that does a 100 miles before it stops, dead (and that 100 miles, again, is at a standard 30mph.) Are you suggesting that's 'good value'? Assuming you use it to go to work, and that's a 30 mile round trip (reasonable, and less than the average) - that's easily three charges a week. How much power is taken in charging the car over a five year lifespan (the lower end of the battery life) and how does that compare to an efficient small capacity internal combustion engine in terms of emissions? Sorry Monsta, like I said I admire your commitment to the proposed emission free vehicles, and so on, but this really is barking up the wrong tree. Electric cars are a no go in mass terms.

All very well, and Mr Darn is right in what he says, but he - and you - are talkin about laptops, mobile phones and the like. Here we're talking about batteries to power a car. Not just power the car, remember, but all of its ancilliaries, too - lights, and so on. Indeed, what Mr Darn says is interesting, in that while raising hope he dashes it with one comment - 'My laptop has a four hour range'. Four hours, thats it - to power a laptop. The point you're missing, that i've raised a couple of times already and is the sticking point that even the manufacturers agree upon, is that electric cars are not new; the concept is not new, the technology is not new. In the 1950's it was possible - and it was done - to build an electric car with batteries that would power it for a sixty mile range; what's the average projected range of an electric car now? No, tell you what, what's the range of the Citroen C-zero, also built as a Mitsubishi and set to be one of themost widespread models of all? 80 miles. With constant development, much expense, massive investment and technological advances in all manner of electrical motors and batteries, in 60 years we get an extra 20 miles. And that, by the way, is at a constant 30mph. It has already been universally accepted by the motor manufacturers that electric vehicles are of use as 'city cars', runarounds that will do short journeys, with much stopping and starting (this being teh reason milk floats used electric power it's ideal for them) and that's great, really great, but models like the tesla are simply showcase devices, extremely expensive, which look like major white elephants when compared with similar petrol engined models in their class. So let;s be honest, and take the C-Zero as the benchmark; it will get you 80 miles, you charge it up in six hours (and, remember, pay for that charging), you can do the shopping in it, take the kids to school, all great, and it costs at least £10,000. That's why it's a plaything for rich people. If battery life did, indeed, increase 'two fold' every couple of months, given that the average electric car from the 50's could give you 60 miles, you'd have a range of well over 500 miles by now, Monsta. The truth is, it doesn't, and it won't.

There's such a lot wrong with this post Monsta, but I will say I admire your support of electric cars. The problems are much deeper than you seem to understand, however, and you fall at the first hurdle with 'electric cars are much greener than petrol' - they're not. You even say why yourself - we would have to build more power stations to run them. Lots more. Have you thought about how many cars there are on the roads - just of Britain - today? Have you thought about how much extra electricity - that is, beyond what we use now - would have to be generated to create enough to power a whole nations worth of electric vehicles? As for wind turbines, surely you have realised - as most have - that they are a massive red herring (yes, another one); they operate at less than 50% capacity, sometimes less, cost an absolutel fortune to build, need their turbines refinnin every few years, and when there is not enough wind to power them they have to be kept moving artificially in order that their shafts do not bow - by drawing power from the national grid! Back to the problem with electric cars, and moviong on from the environmental stuff: a short range, th need to charge on regular basis, expensive maintenance, batteries that need replacing every few thousand miles at massive cost, expensive to build, heavy (and therefore inefficient), the need for expensive materials such as lithium to create more efficient batteries, disposal of old environmentally unfriendly batteries, a lack of engin braking hence the need for brake replacement on a regular basis, and so on, and so on. I said it before - has it occured to you why, given that the technology for electric cars preceded that of petrol driven ones and has been improved greatly in the past century, the internal combustion engine is still the method that leads the way? it's simple - it's because it is more efficient. The major manufacturers are working towards clean, super efficient small capacity engines that will provide more power, range, fuel economy and flexibility than ever before, that will be cheap to build as the idea is to create a series of 'world engines' and that will lead the way for many, many years to come. The electric car is, as it always has been and always will be, a toy only affordable by rich people.

Same as before - expensive red herrings that represent a technological blind alley. We've been through this before. Put simply, there is a reason that the Internal combustion engine won over the electric car in teh first place (to the uninitiated, electric cars are nothing new and have been around for over a hundred years) and its because they are more efficient all round. The future is small capacity turbocharged high efficiency internal combustion engines, for at least 50 years.

There are some that censor Scunthorpe.

Again, trying to be clever comes back and bites you in the !*!@# ; it hasn't gone down at all, it's an additional menu that runs alongside the standard one, perhaps in recognition of those peiople who consider that one to be more than they wish to pay. Now that's not fair - i'm asking you a serious question and you respond by stating the town is tainted by someone you don't even know! It's a fair point - the vast majority of your posts on here are bitter rants or sly digs at anything and everything - why? What has life done to you that makes you so upset and dissatisfied with everything? Why not add some constructive, interesting points, like others do, rather than insisting on slating everyone and everything and then, half heartedly, trying to pre-empt a wriggle out by adding the much misused and, frankly, redolent of the playground 'lol'? There must be something, somewhere, that elicits at least a positive response? How would that help you? You'd most likely comment on the subsequent news story of the subsequent death of those who follow your instructions by commenting on the run down state of the spine road and how it is useless, pointless, and basically crap.

Someone enlighten me - who, or what, is The Real Renegade??

There is a downside to trying to be clever that often returns and bites you on the !*!@# . Have a look in the window and you'll see a bloody big notice advertising a new 'Traditional English Menu' with all meals at £6.50, running alongside the one you kindly reproduce. I'll not bother to tell you what's on it as you're clearly able to read, but it's more than starters and cheese - 'lol'. Really, I wonder, is it your aim in life to simply put down everything anyone does in Bedlington? maybe you're jealous because you've done nothing of any worth in your life other than exist in a town that you clearly hate? What is it? Your whole demeanour reeks of someone who is quite content to fester away in a life that is giving you nothing and clearly not satisfying you; why, I wonder? Seriously, everything I read from you on here is either a snipe at someone else or an ill-informed judgement that shouts of you being a bit pissed off with everything - anything we can do to help? (again - 'lol')

What an odd response! Of course, Monsta being Monsta you would have to find a poor review more 'believable' than a good one, because that's how you want it to be, isn't it? As it happens, I wasn't even aware i'd posted a 'review', but I have recommended the place on the basis of having eaten good, well priced quality food there. Quite why you should choose to believe one, and not the other, is actually very curious indeed. Furthermore, I have no reason to disbelieve Ms Hair, for she has no reason not to tell the truth; as you point out, no establishment - of any kind - is perfect (much to your lifelong chagrin, I fear) and there will be those who have a bad experience. I'm interested to know what she chose to do about it, for had it been me I would not have hesitated to complain, just as I have in other places. So far I have had no reason to complain about anything at Accolade, but I don't recall ever having said it's 100% absolutely spot on perfect. Perhaps you should try it, and make your own mind up, rather than choosing to listen to others? It can't be that much of a push for you to spend £6.50 on a decent meal one night. Seriously, I - and i'm sure others - would dearly love to hear what you think of it, that's you, yourself, Monsta, after all. In fact, lets all have a whip round and pay for Monsta to have a meal there.....

Of course, what you really mean is 'at last, someone who didn't like it'. Went there for there new menu last week, £6.50 for a choice of bloody good food that puts the Ridge carvery to shame. £6.50 - that's a couple of quid more than a donner. Ms Hair - did you tell them you weren't satisfied, or did you just walk away and leave it at that? If the latter, why? If the former, what was the response (that, Monsta, would be a 'real review....')

Er, no, it means he's still Prime Minister.

Must say, not often I find myself on the same side of the debate as Monsta! (no disrespect intended, of course!!)