It wouldn't work. They cannot raise a levy that disadvantages foreign drivers. If they have to pay a thousand pounds to enter the UK, UK drivers would also have to pay the thousand pounds. We had something similar in Germany, they wanted to scrap road tax and put up a motorway toll for cars and visitors would have to buy a vignette, which would have worked out more expensice, which would mean German drivers would be better off than visitors. That would have been illegal under EU law.

Wedding photographer fail:

What, doesn't every man dream of marrying a centaur?

Amazon. Really.

I ordered 'Gravity' on BR from them back in December. It came out this week. I don't have prime anymore since they rolled lovefilm into it - which I didn't want and wouldn't use - and put the price up by 40 quid. They didn't respect that I did have prime when I ordered it and sent it 'super saver' delivery.

It will arrive, apparently, on Friday. It cost me 15 quid.

I could have walked into Sainsburys on my way home last night and bought it for 12 quid.

[LIFTED] Amazon. Genuinely, [LIFTED] them and all who sail in them.

Indeed. Amazon's prices aren't as low as they used to be for a lot of things these days.

I know they have been getting more and more expensive. eBay is better value now and I found a number of items that can be found cheaper elsewhere.

Cancer risks

http://imgur.com/3gGtgLt

But not until a radio program actually points it out on air.

Why a court order? Even banks don't require them, just a death certificate and proof you are the executor (unless it is a very large sum).

What makes Apple so special?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9300 mit Tapatalk

I agree. I would also expect Apple to have to pay costs if they insist on a court order.

That's just not the way the large majority of business works. If any business says to me 'you need this form of ID/certification to access our services' I don't expect them to offer to pay for that. Whether the requirement is valid and reasonable is a separate issue.

IIRC, in the register thread on this story, it was pointed out that the 'court order' is in fact not a court order at all in the common usage of the word, it's a standard post-mortem document which is a recognised way of declaring right of probate. It's not an unusual thing at all. Whether Apple should require that specific document rather than the other form of proof which has already been offered is a matter for debate but the story seems to have become somewhat sensationalised.

If they wanted a specific court document then they should request it. If they are asking for information above and beyond what could be considered reasonable then yes they should expect to pay any specific costs. To prove I am who I say I am I might have to provide some form of official documentation, and that is reasonable. In the case of someone who is dead then a death certificate is official documentation. So refusing official documentation and demanding a court order should require them to pay costs. If the solicitors request with a death certificate does not work would a court order with bailiffs be sufficient?

Hotmail/Outlook as per fcuking usual.