Monday, 29 October 2012

Denton Autocare - a great place for car accessories

I recently had a bulb blow on my car. What an unbelievable nightmare to change! I had to actually remove the light cluster to get at the bulb, and when I eventually managed to achieve this; the stupid bulb was of an unusual and rare design.

After trying three separate petrol filling stations all of which had fully stocked shops selling everything from disposable nappies to canned tomatoes but very few auto bulbs or car accessories, I gave up and headed to Denton Autocare on Stockport Rd in Denton, one of the few remaining independent car shops left in the borough. The person serving was very courteous and he immediately knew what type of bulb I needed. He thought he had one in stock but unfortunately he couldn't find it, however after checking with an on-line supplier he assured me he would have one in by 9am the following morning. He was good to his word and the next day when I went in the bulb was there waiting. The bulb cost £1 which was a bargain. How do I know it was a bargain? Because I had no alternative but to go to Halfords the same night I ordered it because I needed to use the car and could not do so without going through the whole process of reinstalling the light cluster. Halfords did actually have the bulb I needed, I bought it out of sheer necessity, how much did Halfords charge? £3 compared to £1 for the identical item from Denton Autocare.

What's the moral of the story? Don't assume that small independent businesses will be costlier to use than their large national competitors, independents usually offer better customer service too.


Anytime Locksmiths Tameside| said...

That is definitely true- so often brand name and big stores are actually more expensive than the small less well known ones. Need a locksmith in Tameside - Anytime locksmiths Tameside can help call 0161 870 6391.

Anonymous said...

Had an Anonymous leaflet pushed through my door this morning giving details of Jackie and Dawson Lane's vast wealth. Cash details and property in Dukinfield and elsewhere

Anonymous said...

There are very few 'poor' councillors in Tameside. Many make a very good living from their part time jobs as councillors.

Take car to dealer, bring your chequebook said...

The independent car spares shop opposite B and Q in Hyde, that you mentioned previously, is back open.

If you want a REAL nightmare try changing the headlight bulb on the previous shape Volvo V70. The manufacturers do it on purpose, two of their favourites are: virtually impossible access with tiny gaps and awkward angles, and asymmetrical clips holding the bulb in.

Anonymous said...

TC do you think I've got a right to be concerned that our neighbours, house CCTV cameras are filming the whole of our front garden also covering our front door.?
The reason I know this, because I've seen the footage in court.
If you look at the footage of The deputy leader of the Council, leaving the house you can see the whole of the front of our house on their house CCTV cameras.
I just can't believe that they are allowed to film us like this.

V for victory said...

Flick the Vs every single time you leave the house.

Tameside Citizen said...

Take Car To Dealer, thanks for the info, it’s great to hear that the car spares shop opposite B&Q has reopened. Is it the same team? They were a great bunch of guys. I’m due some windscreen wipers soon so will go in and do a ‘mystery shop’ and report my findings here.

You’re dead right about car manufacturers and their wilful practice of making what should be simple routine maintenance tasks very difficult for amateurs. The idea is, as you say; to force you to go to the franchised dealers. My car was in for its long life service fairly recently and I received an advisory that a prop shaft rubber was partially perished and might need replacing - at a cost of £259, for a round piece of rubber, what a con!

Tameside Citizen said...

Anon@15.25, I am no expert on law, but I do believe you are allowed to film or photograph anything which can be viewed from a public highway. If your garden and front door can be viewed from the street/pavement, I don’t think there is a lot you can do about it.

Seriously, what is it with these fiends? said...

A woman was sexually assaulted by a teenage boy in a subway after being followed from the bus station.

The victim, 21, entered the subway at Manchester Road, which lead to a nearby Asda supermarket at about 11.20pm on Thursday October 25.

While in the subway the offender, believed to be a teenage boy, approached the woman and sexually assaulted her

The victim fought with her attacker and managed to kick him causing him to run off.

He is described as an Asian teenager, possibly as young as 14, about 5ft 2in tall, of medium to small build and wearing dark clothing.

Detective Constable Russ Clarke said: "This was a horrific and violent attack which has left the victim feeling badly shaken up.

Anonymous said...

TC well Alan Kibble of New Charter says different to you.

Legal restrictions on photography (this applies to video too) said...

In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However landowners are permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography. Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Mayor,[1] and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks.[2]

Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment.[3]

It is an offence under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to publish or communicate a photograph of a constable (not including PCSOs), a member of the armed forces, or a member of the security services, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. There is a defence of acting with a reasonable excuse, however the onus of proof is on the defence, under section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000. A PCSO cited Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to prevent a member of the public photographing them. Section 44 actually concerns stop and search powers.[8] However, in January 2010 the stop-and-search powers granted under Section 44 were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

Following a prolonged campaign, including a series of demonstrations by photographers abused by Police Officers and PCSOs, the Metropolitan Police was forced to issue updated legal advice which now confirms that 'Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel' and that 'The power to stop and search someone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 no longer exists.'[9]

It is also an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only a photograph as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful.

Private property said...

Photography may be prohibited or restricted within an area of property by the property owner.[37] At the same time, a property owner generally cannot restrict the photographing of the property by individuals who are not located within the bounds of the property.[37]
Photography on private property that is generally open to the public (e.g., a shopping mall) is usually permitted unless explicitly prohibited by posted signs. Even if no such signs are posted, the property owner or agent can ask a person to stop photographing, and if the person refuses to do so, the owner or agent can ask the person to leave the property. In some jurisdictions, a person who refuses to leave can be arrested for criminal trespass, and many jurisdictions recognize the common-law right to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser; a person who forcibly resists a lawful removal may be liable for battery, assault, or both.[38]
Entry onto other private property usually requires permission from the property owner.
Some jurisdictions have laws regarding filming while in a hospital or health care facility. Where permitted, such filming may be useful in gathering evidence in cases of abuse, neglect, or malpractice.

Members of the public have virtually no privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, or inside a private residence. This legal standard applies regardless of the age, sex, or other attributes of the individual.[citation needed]
Photographing private property from within the public domain is legal, with the exception of an area that is generally regarded as private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room.[37] In some states, there is no definition of "private," in which case there is a general expectation of privacy. Should the subjects not attempt to conceal their private affairs, their actions immediately become public to a photographer using an average lens or video camera.

Many places have laws prohibiting photographing private areas under a person's clothing without that person's permission. This also applies to any filming of another within a public restroom or locker room. Some jurisdictions have completely banned the use of a camera phone within a restroom or locker room in order to prevent this. It is expected that all 50 states will eventually have laws pertaining to surreptitiously filming a person's genitalia.

THX 1138 said...

A multicultural Third World subhuman sludgeland is on the rapidly approaching British horizon.

Anonymous said...

Alan Kibble (new charter housing) says that there are laws preventing home owners from filming their neighbours using CCTV on the front of their house.

A police state created by anti-fascists said...

Given that the key thing about twentieth-century fascism was its extreme authoritarianism, you might reasonably expect those who describe themselves as ‘anti-fascist’ to be anti-authoritarian. You might imagine that these campaigners, more than most, would know the dangers of giving the state too much power and trusting it to determine who may speak and who may not, who is a ‘decent’ person and who is not.

But you would be wrong – certainly if the events in the north-east London district of Walthamstow this weekend were anything to go by. There, anti-fascists campaigning against a protest planned for Saturday by the right-wing, allegedly fascistic English Defence League (EDL) demonstrated that they are uncritically pro-state, and unabashedly pro-authoritarian, trusting the powers-that-be to police public protest and political discourse more broadly.

The modern anti-fascist left has provided plenty of justification for increased state control over political to and fro in modern Britain. It has strengthened the use of public-order laws over political freedom, and it has empowered the state to govern all forms of political speech. That control extends not just to the statements and actions of ‘fascist’ groups, but also to the statements and actions of left-wing groups and anti-fascists, too.

Anonymous said...

I really don't get this trick or treat nonsense going round knocking on strangers door at night.
Can someone explain this American bollocks to me.?

Greatest Horror Theme said...

Cob coaling and carol singing became unfashionable, and as with much else in our society a tacky American trend became widespread. It actually originated in Scotland over a hundred years ago. Annoying as it is, it won't be around forever as muslims regard it as haram.

Anonymous said...

I think it's the biggest load of shite ever to be brought to England, this "trick or treat" from America.
Kids dressed up like freaks going round knocking on doors late at night.
Most people hate it and don't answer the door to them.
Of course there's alot of money to be made from it. But God it's not an English tradition at all.

Noise Nuisance Tameside Council said...

What can I do about noisy neighbours?

Many noise problems, particularly those involving neighbours, can be resolved informally, for example, by explaining to your neighbours the difficulties they are causing. Approach your neighbour and explain politely that you are being troubled by noise. You may find this difficult, but often people are unaware that they are causing a problem. Most will be glad to do what they can to reduce noise. However, approach the matter carefully if you think your neighbour might react angrily to a complaint. If this approach fails the Council may be able to help.