threegee

Yes, technically their and theirs are both pronouns, and you choose according to sentence make up and emphasis. Their chair. The chair is theirs. In the chair's leg you've formed a possessive noun from chair. i.e. chair is already a noun, and not a word that refers to a noun. If you try to apply apostrophe S to the example pronouns above ( I's; you's) it will be become clear that this makes for nonsense English (here she's and it's have entirely different meanings).

Britain to enter recession with 500,000 UK jobs lost if it left EU, new Treasury analysis shows Now hang on there civil service: you've been feeding us this "uncertainty" guff for weeks, now it's a firm "would". That doesn't sound anything like uncertainty to me! Anyway, it's nice to know we have an unbiased, entirely impartial, civil service that doesn't take sides! Knighthoods all around, eh?!

It HAD to happen Dave starts dealing in second hand cars! (Apologies to second hand car dealers everywhere for any offence by association.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/prime-minister-buys-used-nissan-micra-for-his-wife/ There's a distinct resemblance to Tricky Dicky, don't you think?

The elites calculate that more Brits living in the EU are likely to vote "Remain" - principally because of the campaign of fear and misinformation - so they are scraping the bottom of the barrel by spending public money on this advertising. Also, they reckon that far more people who are inclined to vote "Remain" don't feel very strongly on the issue, so haven't bothered to register. This has never happened before! You can bet your boots that if they thought it would attract more "Leave" voters there would be no such advertising. I'm beginning to listen to those who say that if the country provides the elite with the "wrong" result it will be required to "think again" - in traditional EU fashion! The ex-MI6 chief's warning of a "populist uprising" on a "Remain" vote may be an informed one! Our banana republic is moving more in this direction every day!

"25 peerages for those “supportive” in the referendum campaign" is about par for the course. The honours system is now so discredited I think that any thinking person should be demanding a total clean out, and simply refuse to vote for any party that isn't totally committed to this. Labour has had umpteen opportunities to do this too, and has failed the people every time they've been elected. Anyone who believes that Corbyn will be any different needs their head examining - his amazing overnight switch from strongly anti-EU to passively pro vividly illustrates that he's already bought and paid for by the elites, and that his posturing on other issues is simply a cruel deception.

Advantages: Safety; Lower pollution; Better/dynamic community traffic management; Vastly higher vehicle utilisation; Elimination of city-center/hub car parking; True door-door journeys; No wasteful cruising for a free parking spaces; Elimination of time-wasting driver navigation errors and sub-optimal routing; (for fleet operators) increased passenger capacity, and greatly reduced per-mile cost. I can explain to you why those predictions were silly (already touched on a bit of this earlier), and why autonomous vehicles are anything but - though it's too lengthy an ask tonight. I think you might want to rethink the wine thing: good quality wines here come in min. 5 litre containers and can easily cost less than drinking water. My point entirely: they are fully committed to autonomous vehicle technology in all phases, whereas Detroit may need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the party.

Here's Duplicitous Dave's preferred occupant of the White House... Trump tells it as it is, and he can't cope with that!

You'd need to provide me with a link to that! Tesla have vastly more orders than they can handle, and their stuff is hardly cheap. Show me a Detroit metal basher who is in that happy situation. Follow the money - the Chinese and Koreans are!

Not really; it's saying the sub-systems very necessary for DCs will reduce accidents and so reduce premiums. Those don't necessarily even need to be deployed IN cars, and are going into smart-cars first. Fully autonomous cars themselves will be notionally more expensive, thus cost more to insure. There's a phased approach. This link will make things clearer: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/features/how-long-until-we-have-fully-driverless-cars/ Tennis sounds "sexist": I'm beginning to like it!

Sorry: Greedy beggars the FT - nothing but money, money, money! What's a set, and what's the difference between a game and a match?

Game, set, and match! (If only I followed tennis, and knew quite what that meant. ) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91c4ef40-1d0b-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122.html#axzz497iAhbpg

OK, so the inevitable took a tad longer - as it often does. Just hope no one here got lumbered with one in a fire sale "promo"; I was tempted at one time.

Not exclusively you're not! How do you know a tiler has fixed them all properly? Supposing someone doing other work on your roof damaged them unbeknown to you - or a neighbour, or a criminal? Maybe a bit of an aircraft fell on your roof and dislodged them? Freak weather conditions; even a manufacturing defect in the tiles themselves; or the fixings... The real world is complex and driver-less cars don't add too much to that, and in other ways greatly simplify things. The real legal test is can lawyers make money. If they can't then there will be insuperable obstacles placed, but the driver-less car is just another welcome income source to them. They didn't kill aviation - simply ensured that taken in the round no one else ever makes any money out of it! I could provide you with a link to an impeccable source to confirm this truism?

Totally brilliant! Dave has been asking for this for a long time.

If a tile falls off your roof and kills someone then who is at fault? In fact with all the instrumentation and video there will be little argument as to culpability, so the lawyers might be a bit poorer - is that a bad thing?

Neither can a human. A cast iron case for banning motor cars I think - people get killed! Oh, and you forgot to mention that they frighten the horses, and that people will black-out in them. Everything is insurable - at a price. I'd imagine that if regular insurers aren't interested Google will throw the odd billion at the sector and show them how to make money.

"of course"? Why the of course? The thing which is conspicuous by its absence is the much vaunted Sovereignty Bill. Another of Duplicitous Dave's shoot-from-the-hip promises ditched at the first hurdle. Why? Because it will clash with the diktats of our new rulers in Brussels - OF COURSE!

An interesting article that explains why we should listen to the many "out-of-step" economists who don't engage in their fatal group-think habit, and almost invariably are proven right! In simple terms: precedent strongly indicates that the more economists Desperate Dave can cajole into signing his scaremongering the more likely it is they are wrong, and that the courageous dissenters are right! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/18/economists-have-a-century-of-failure-behind-them-no-wonder-they/

It's not too often I borrow Guardian content, but I believe The Guardian took it from Ukip in the first place.

You can take this "no links" policy too far Maggie! Football? no?.

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP believes that it's likely that there is written proof in the Downing Street files that our joke for a PM was plotting with Serco boss Rupert Soames (does that name ring a bell?) to keep us firmly in the EU just days before he was telling parliament that he "ruled nothing out" over campaigning for Brexit. What's the betting that the establishment and civil service will keep this one under wraps until well after the referendum? Tip of the iceberg here I think, and Cameron is going to end up even more discredited that Teflon Tony! This also explains why Soames has been putting out such obvious twaddle as to what his grandfather would have thought about Britain losing control of its own affairs - especially to Germany!

I can't see the EU sucking all the water out of the Thames just yet; but, yes, metaphorically and economically they are going to suck us dry! There's a tiny bit of merit in the upper picture, if you can see what I mean (and think of all those senseless billions saved on renovation), And, look: - as per usual - St Paul's is spared!

If you hate endless told-you-so's then VOTE LEAVE!

I was tempted to add a reference to Genesis 25:31 for Vince's consumption! Having just devoured my own (self-imported) porridge, and read some of the morning Camscares it seems quite appropriate. Because of what you say Malc a lot of economic activity is "off the books", so people have learned to get by. I suspect things are even more so in Greece - if that were possible! This is very bad for employment, and is no incentive to improve productivity or invest lest you attract unwanted attention. It's probably part of the explanation of the much vaunted "superior German productivity".