Electric cars.

Yes, they're only looking for people that can afford that sort of money. Hikers are not allowed unless they pay exorbitant prices

Flights in and out of Bhutan are expensive.

Last time we went, pre-Covid, we organised a small coach load and flew to Delhi and on to Darjeeling. Met the coach, with guides, there and gradually drove through the Himalayan foothills, all Indian, and in to Bhutan. So crossed the border at Phuentsholing. Out the other side and flew home from Calcutta (I'm still old-fashioned).

Flights in and out of India are much cheaper as there are so many of them. Having it arranged through a Bhutan agency (think it's compulsory now) made everything run smoothly especially as they also got commission for the Indian side of the trip.

Twenty two on the coach, five in our group, 21 days, four and five star hotels, guides and entrance fees (including the Darjeeling Himalayan mountain railway), breakfast and evening meals came to about £4,000 per head - but it was out of season. Also managed to visit friends in some of those places.

 

I know of a very good travel counsellor who arranges all sorts of holidays, including 'trip of a lifetime' type things - she may well be able to help. Happy to put you in touch with her if it helps.

 

One of many that I have seen and good on them I say. The amount of cameras (not just ULEZ) that have sprung up in recent months is sinister.

 

Electric cars have the potential to be worse - maybe not now, but it is a matter of time until they are part of the 'internet of things' and then your every move will be watched. "Sorry, you can't to and see Auntie Sheila today as you've exceeded your carbon credits for the month" - that is the end goal here, along with a China-style social credit system.

 

The law is fairly clear on what a 'video image capturing device' (smart doorbell or CCTV) is allowed to do. It is not supposed to take images, or voices, that are not on their property. This is in breach of GDPR and, under The Human Rights Act, covers an individual’s right to privacy. That comes under ECHR Article 8 - “Everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence”.

In theory the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) is supposed to deal with complaints about it under GDPR but they rarely bother. There have been private cases taken to court, and won, and a couple of years ago the judge ruled that a (particular) doorbell breached a neighbour's privacy rights and the owner was fined.

The ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) mentioned above has been in the news a lot lately as the current government keep saying that they intend to pull out of the ECHR. That is because they want to send people to Rwanda and it would be in breach of the ECHR .

The ECHR has absolutely nothing to do with the EU. It was the brainchild of Churchill after the atrocities of WWII and many of our lawyers and politicians were instrumental in drawing it up. We were the first signatories on it. It eventually came in to force in 1953.

It has worked well for all these years, with some quirks, and I'm totally opposed to us pulling out of it. If they continue to want to pull out of it I have already told our Conservative MP (a very good one) that I, and a lot of my local friends that vote for him will not vote for him in the next election. He is also a personal acquaintance of mine.

 

Either, stop you going completely (car disabled until your credits renew, or you buy more)

 

The ones I am referring to are not domestic - they are on the roads, CCTV/ANPR/ULEZ etc etc... loads of them

 

It is a violation of your rights, not something they can be throw in jail for but against the law of privacy. The ICO are supposed to deal with complaints but it is quite often easier and quicker to take out a civil action. I think this will happen more frequently after last year's successful case.

 

Dashcams are sadly an absolute necessity nowadays - indeed, here is a perfect example why, as this happened to my mother on Wednesday:



The van involved, despite initially stopping, chose to drive off. Police have been informed, so he is likely to get a knock on his door.

Going by experience of how insurers 'tick' having dealt with them through work, without the footage, this one would have gone down as 50/50 at best. Indeed, without the footage, the potential exists for the registration number not to be available, given that he scunnered off before exchanging details, so that would have been an 'at fault' claim to repair the damage to the car (wheel, bumper, wing) - this footage shows clearly it is non-fault and will also provide evidence for police.