Hypothetical question. Smoke alarms are there not to prevent fire but to prevent death. Fire in house. Alarms allow the safe evacuation of inhabitants.
Will their insurance company refuse to pay out because their functional alarms which worked as intended were not the specific type required by Scotland's new law?
Most insurance policies have a clause about complying with legislation. But that's always so far been about things like building codes (which Grenfell did!). So it's a letter vs spirit of the law question...
Messing around with insurance companies is probably not a smart move in general. If you give them a loophole to get out of paying, or paying less than you expect, then don't be surprised if they take it. It seems that's the assessors job post-incident.
I'm going to get it done because I can. But as 95% of existing smoke alarms are not compliant there will be an awful lot of people who won't be. Because they don't know, can't afford it, or think it's stupid.
So it's back down to how much of a row the insurance industry wants to have up here. Invalidating one person's policy because they had functional smoke alarms that did their job is one thing. If they try and do that to a lot of people, it may be the insurers in trouble.
I suspect that insurance companies will be more reasonable than jobsworth bureaucrats.
Er... Insurance companies are staffed with jobsworth bureaucrats.
According to the new standards I need to fit alarms on either side of my living room door. Which makes total sense really...
Scientists in Cyprus have identified a new 'Deltacron' Covid strain in 25 patients that combines the Delta and Omicron variants.
If any of those people can also get "regular" flu and some form of avian bird flu all at the same time they will probably become immortal. Or Patient Zero of the apocalypse.
Have been doing some reading on the new interlinked smoke alarms legislation up here from next month.
As I haven't yet clicked the button to buy new interlinked alarms to replace the existing interlinked alarms I was curious about the whole fiasco.
Various MSPs and councillors demanding a further delay as so many people don't know about it or don't have the cash or think they are already compliant.
We got ours fitted just before Christmas. Don’t want to give the Insurance Company any excuse not to pay out in case of fire.
Balls. Going to have to get them, aren't I.
I had extension done ten years ago. They had to be fitted then, i was told. Maybe that was because it was building regs for a part of the house that was effectively new build?
There is hope! I'll check them tomorrow morning.
iirc, you can check by pressing the test button on one alarm for three or four seconds, and then the other will respond if it is connected.
To be honest I would have thought making them all mains wired rather than battery would save more lives, but that is a bigger change.
This is the thing though. Loads of people don't have PB to consult.
Admit I was blissfully unaware of the need for new fire alarms until I read it here.
Have been doing some reading on the new interlinked smoke alarms legislation up here from next month.
As I haven't yet clicked the button to buy new interlinked alarms to replace the existing interlinked alarms I was curious about the whole fiasco.
Various MSPs and councillors demanding a further delay as so many people don't know about it or don't have the cash or think they are already compliant.
We got ours fitted just before Christmas. Don’t want to give the Insurance Company any excuse not to pay out in case of fire.
Balls. Going to have to get them, aren't I.
I had extension done ten years ago. They had to be fitted then, i was told. Maybe that was because it was building regs for a part of the house that was effectively new build?
There is hope! I'll check them tomorrow morning.
iirc, you can check by pressing the test button on one alarm for three or four seconds, and then the other will respond if it is connected.
To be honest I would have thought making them all mains wired rather than battery would save more lives, but that is a bigger change.
This is the thing though. Loads of people don't have PB to consult.
Admit I was blissfully unaware of the need for new fire alarms until I read it here.
Have been doing some reading on the new interlinked smoke alarms legislation up here from next month.
As I haven't yet clicked the button to buy new interlinked alarms to replace the existing interlinked alarms I was curious about the whole fiasco.
Various MSPs and councillors demanding a further delay as so many people don't know about it or don't have the cash or think they are already compliant.
We got ours fitted just before Christmas. Don’t want to give the Insurance Company any excuse not to pay out in case of fire.
Balls. Going to have to get them, aren't I.
I had extension done ten years ago. They had to be fitted then, i was told. Maybe that was because it was building regs for a part of the house that was effectively new build?
There is hope! I'll check them tomorrow morning.
iirc, you can check by pressing the test button on one alarm for three or four seconds, and then the other will respond if it is connected.
To be honest I would have thought making them all mains wired rather than battery would save more lives, but that is a bigger change.
This is the thing though. Loads of people don't have PB to consult.
Admit I was blissfully unaware of the need for new fire alarms until I read it here.
Hypothetical question. Smoke alarms are there not to prevent fire but to prevent death. Fire in house. Alarms allow the safe evacuation of inhabitants.
Will their insurance company refuse to pay out because their functional alarms which worked as intended were not the specific type required by Scotland's new law?
Most insurance policies have a clause about complying with legislation. But that's always so far been about things like building codes (which Grenfell did!). So it's a letter vs spirit of the law question...
Not looking forward to having to install a heat pump. There’s a railway tunnel somewhere under where we live!
Unless you have a very big garden, air source is the better option.
Even with a big garden, air source is probably the better option.
Scientists in Cyprus have identified a new 'Deltacron' Covid strain in 25 patients that combines the Delta and Omicron variants.
If any of those people can also get "regular" flu and some form of avian bird flu all at the same time they will probably become immortal. Or Patient Zero of the apocalypse.
Hypothetical question. Smoke alarms are there not to prevent fire but to prevent death. Fire in house. Alarms allow the safe evacuation of inhabitants.
Will their insurance company refuse to pay out because their functional alarms which worked as intended were not the specific type required by Scotland's new law?
Most insurance policies have a clause about complying with legislation. But that's always so far been about things like building codes (which Grenfell did!). So it's a letter vs spirit of the law question...
Not looking forward to having to install a heat pump. There’s a railway tunnel somewhere under where we live!
Unless you have a very big garden, air source is the better option.
Even with a big garden, air source is probably the better option.
1. Paying for energy than EU competitors 2. Paying more than EU competitors for carbon offsets due to a lack of liquidity in the UK go-it-alone system 3. Facing US steel tariffs that don't apply to EU competitors, possibly because of the Article 16 nonsense.
There was another article with someone at a British steelmaker. They are looking to move as much production to Spain as they can. They won't move it back if the specific issues are sorted out - there's no point.
Have been doing some reading on the new interlinked smoke alarms legislation up here from next month.
As I haven't yet clicked the button to buy new interlinked alarms to replace the existing interlinked alarms I was curious about the whole fiasco.
Various MSPs and councillors demanding a further delay as so many people don't know about it or don't have the cash or think they are already compliant.
We got ours fitted just before Christmas. Don’t want to give the Insurance Company any excuse not to pay out in case of fire.
Balls. Going to have to get them, aren't I.
I had extension done ten years ago. They had to be fitted then, i was told. Maybe that was because it was building regs for a part of the house that was effectively new build?
There is hope! I'll check them tomorrow morning.
iirc, you can check by pressing the test button on one alarm for three or four seconds, and then the other will respond if it is connected.
To be honest I would have thought making them all mains wired rather than battery would save more lives, but that is a bigger change.
This is the thing though. Loads of people don't have PB to consult.
Admit I was blissfully unaware of the need for new fire alarms until I read it here.
Is this a Scotland-only thing?
First I've heard about it.
Yup.
Why not say whenever a alarm needs replacing (and they do after around 10 years whatever the power source or connections) then you have to install an interconnected one?
Hypothetical question. Smoke alarms are there not to prevent fire but to prevent death. Fire in house. Alarms allow the safe evacuation of inhabitants.
Will their insurance company refuse to pay out because their functional alarms which worked as intended were not the specific type required by Scotland's new law?
Most insurance policies have a clause about complying with legislation. But that's always so far been about things like building codes (which Grenfell did!). So it's a letter vs spirit of the law question...
Messing around with insurance companies is probably not a smart move in general. If you give them a loophole to get out of paying, or paying less than you expect, then don't be surprised if they take it. It seems that's the assessors job post-incident.
I'm going to get it done because I can. But as 95% of existing smoke alarms are not compliant there will be an awful lot of people who won't be. Because they don't know, can't afford it, or think it's stupid.
So it's back down to how much of a row the insurance industry wants to have up here. Invalidating one person's policy because they had functional smoke alarms that did their job is one thing. If they try and do that to a lot of people, it may be the insurers in trouble.
I suspect that insurance companies will be more reasonable than jobsworth bureaucrats.
Er... Insurance companies are staffed with jobsworth bureaucrats.
According to the new standards I need to fit alarms on either side of my living room door. Which makes total sense really...
Question - is not hearing an alarm somewhere inside a single property really a thing?
Obviously, interconnected systems make sense in blocks of flats. But unless you accidentally live in Edinburgh Castle, is there really a problem with not hearing fire alarms in the kitchen from the bedroom etc?
Boris Johnson has been urged by an influential Conservative MP to end all Covid-19 restrictions in England by the end of this month, or face a massive revolt within his party and the prospect of a leadership challenge later this year.
Mark Harper, chair of the lockdown-sceptic Tory Covid Recovery Group, said Johnson should announce by January 26 — when most current rules expire — that he will end them and never bring them back.
I have a lot of sympathy with the idea of rolling back on plan b on the 26th, assuming things are moving in the right direction. But saying you will never bring them back? No sensible person should ever do that.
I think they're positioning themselves as Spartans to force Boris into dumping restrictions and not ever going down the "restrictions just in case" like we had this time. Clearly plan b has made little difference, at least 10-12m will have had Omicron by now, that took 6 months with Delta. We didn't have "lockdown just in case" because the 100 MPs and Cabinet pushed back. Now we need to get to a place where restrictions like plan b actually need to backed up by real world data, not just fear mongering from scientists about some unlikely outcomes of not having them.
Yes, presumably what Harper is angling for is an assurance that such extreme measures need to be proven by hard data in future. It’s probably a negotiation position.
It’s worth remembering that even the Plan B restrictions would have been anathema as recently as mid-2019.
Hypothetical question. Smoke alarms are there not to prevent fire but to prevent death. Fire in house. Alarms allow the safe evacuation of inhabitants.
Will their insurance company refuse to pay out because their functional alarms which worked as intended were not the specific type required by Scotland's new law?
Most insurance policies have a clause about complying with legislation. But that's always so far been about things like building codes (which Grenfell did!). So it's a letter vs spirit of the law question...
Not looking forward to having to install a heat pump. There’s a railway tunnel somewhere under where we live!
Unless you have a very big garden, air source is the better option.
Even with a big garden, air source is probably the better option.
A hydrogen fuelled gas boiler is the best option.
As long as you don't mind the risk of your next door neighbour's house turning into the Hindenburg.....
Because hydrogen is very safe as long as you remember that it is insanely dangerous.
Hypothetical question. Smoke alarms are there not to prevent fire but to prevent death. Fire in house. Alarms allow the safe evacuation of inhabitants.
Will their insurance company refuse to pay out because their functional alarms which worked as intended were not the specific type required by Scotland's new law?
Most insurance policies have a clause about complying with legislation. But that's always so far been about things like building codes (which Grenfell did!). So it's a letter vs spirit of the law question...
Messing around with insurance companies is probably not a smart move in general. If you give them a loophole to get out of paying, or paying less than you expect, then don't be surprised if they take it. It seems that's the assessors job post-incident.
I'm going to get it done because I can. But as 95% of existing smoke alarms are not compliant there will be an awful lot of people who won't be. Because they don't know, can't afford it, or think it's stupid.
So it's back down to how much of a row the insurance industry wants to have up here. Invalidating one person's policy because they had functional smoke alarms that did their job is one thing. If they try and do that to a lot of people, it may be the insurers in trouble.
I suspect that insurance companies will be more reasonable than jobsworth bureaucrats.
Er... Insurance companies are staffed with jobsworth bureaucrats.
According to the new standards I need to fit alarms on either side of my living room door. Which makes total sense really...
Question - is not hearing an alarm somewhere inside a single property really a thing?
Obviously, interconnected systems make sense in blocks of flats. But unless you accidentally live in Edinburgh Castle, is there really a problem with not hearing fire alarms in the kitchen from the bedroom etc?
I have no fucking idea - I only realised earlier today that my interconnected alarms are not interconnected enough. Perhaps a big red flashing light will be the next requirement
Just seen the FA Cup draw. Could it possibly be duller?
Kidderminster v. West Ham should be interesting!
It should. But that's about it. Big clubs all at home with easy ties.
Leicester City away at Nottingham Forest is quite tasty. It must be nearly a decade since we last played them or Derby.
OK. Apart from Kiddy/WHU, Forest/Leicester and possibly Peterborough/QPR, the other 13 ties would be better if the away team were at home. Seriously dull.
Hypothetical question. Smoke alarms are there not to prevent fire but to prevent death. Fire in house. Alarms allow the safe evacuation of inhabitants.
Will their insurance company refuse to pay out because their functional alarms which worked as intended were not the specific type required by Scotland's new law?
Most insurance policies have a clause about complying with legislation. But that's always so far been about things like building codes (which Grenfell did!). So it's a letter vs spirit of the law question...
Not looking forward to having to install a heat pump. There’s a railway tunnel somewhere under where we live!
Unless you have a very big garden, air source is the better option.
Even with a big garden, air source is probably the better option.
A hydrogen fuelled gas boiler is the best option.
I suspect fully electric houses will be the medium to long term solution. Solar and wind power are the sources that are getting cheaper year on year.
Boris Johnson has been urged by an influential Conservative MP to end all Covid-19 restrictions in England by the end of this month, or face a massive revolt within his party and the prospect of a leadership challenge later this year.
Mark Harper, chair of the lockdown-sceptic Tory Covid Recovery Group, said Johnson should announce by January 26 — when most current rules expire — that he will end them and never bring them back.
I have a lot of sympathy with the idea of rolling back on plan b on the 26th, assuming things are moving in the right direction. But saying you will never bring them back? No sensible person should ever do that.
I think they're positioning themselves as Spartans to force Boris into dumping restrictions and not ever going down the "restrictions just in case" like we had this time. Clearly plan b has made little difference, at least 10-12m will have had Omicron by now, that took 6 months with Delta. We didn't have "lockdown just in case" because the 100 MPs and Cabinet pushed back. Now we need to get to a place where restrictions like plan b actually need to backed up by real world data, not just fear mongering from scientists about some unlikely outcomes of not having them.
Yes, presumably what Harper is angling for is an assurance that such extreme measures need to be proven by hard data in future. It’s probably a negotiation position.
It’s worth remembering that even the Plan B restrictions would have been anathema as recently as mid-2019.
But they wouldn't, would they? Not if, say, we had a new pandemic which we had no idea how to treat, how it was transmitted, what the long term effects were, why it killed some whilst others didn't even know they had it, which was spreading around the World at great rapidity. Then they wouldn't have been anathema in 2019 or any other year. It's just that we didn't.
Hypothetical question. Smoke alarms are there not to prevent fire but to prevent death. Fire in house. Alarms allow the safe evacuation of inhabitants.
Will their insurance company refuse to pay out because their functional alarms which worked as intended were not the specific type required by Scotland's new law?
Most insurance policies have a clause about complying with legislation. But that's always so far been about things like building codes (which Grenfell did!). So it's a letter vs spirit of the law question...
Messing around with insurance companies is probably not a smart move in general. If you give them a loophole to get out of paying, or paying less than you expect, then don't be surprised if they take it. It seems that's the assessors job post-incident.
I'm going to get it done because I can. But as 95% of existing smoke alarms are not compliant there will be an awful lot of people who won't be. Because they don't know, can't afford it, or think it's stupid.
So it's back down to how much of a row the insurance industry wants to have up here. Invalidating one person's policy because they had functional smoke alarms that did their job is one thing. If they try and do that to a lot of people, it may be the insurers in trouble.
I suspect that insurance companies will be more reasonable than jobsworth bureaucrats.
Er... Insurance companies are staffed with jobsworth bureaucrats.
According to the new standards I need to fit alarms on either side of my living room door. Which makes total sense really...
Question - is not hearing an alarm somewhere inside a single property really a thing?
Obviously, interconnected systems make sense in blocks of flats. But unless you accidentally live in Edinburgh Castle, is there really a problem with not hearing fire alarms in the kitchen from the bedroom etc?
That's a good point. My kitchen one is about 3 metres from the hallway one.
But neither will be connected to the flat with three kids in it two floors up.
Hypothetical question. Smoke alarms are there not to prevent fire but to prevent death. Fire in house. Alarms allow the safe evacuation of inhabitants.
Will their insurance company refuse to pay out because their functional alarms which worked as intended were not the specific type required by Scotland's new law?
Most insurance policies have a clause about complying with legislation. But that's always so far been about things like building codes (which Grenfell did!). So it's a letter vs spirit of the law question...
Not looking forward to having to install a heat pump. There’s a railway tunnel somewhere under where we live!
Unless you have a very big garden, air source is the better option.
Even with a big garden, air source is probably the better option.
A hydrogen fuelled gas boiler is the best option.
As long as you don't mind the risk of your next door neighbour's house turning into the Hindenburg.....
Because hydrogen is very safe as long as you remember that it is insanely dangerous.
I liked the bit when the British Gas engineer who serviced our boiler earlier in the year, described doing the hydrogen training course.
It was all simulated. Because the training site wasn't able to set up (yet) a safe environment to play with hydrogen.
My big question is about slow leaks - hydrogen can leak through a lot of things, including some apparently solid materials. The smell agents they add to natural gas won't work in such a circumstance - the molecules are much larger than hydrogen. So they would get filtered out.
The traditional way of checking for hydrogen tightness in industry for new instalations is to pressurise the system and test if you get any drops in pressure over a period of time. With actual hydrogen.....
Then, in operation, have tons of leaks detectors and lots of ventilation.
Not sure how that is going to work in the domestic context....
Hypothetical question. Smoke alarms are there not to prevent fire but to prevent death. Fire in house. Alarms allow the safe evacuation of inhabitants.
Will their insurance company refuse to pay out because their functional alarms which worked as intended were not the specific type required by Scotland's new law?
Most insurance policies have a clause about complying with legislation. But that's always so far been about things like building codes (which Grenfell did!). So it's a letter vs spirit of the law question...
Messing around with insurance companies is probably not a smart move in general. If you give them a loophole to get out of paying, or paying less than you expect, then don't be surprised if they take it. It seems that's the assessors job post-incident.
I'm going to get it done because I can. But as 95% of existing smoke alarms are not compliant there will be an awful lot of people who won't be. Because they don't know, can't afford it, or think it's stupid.
So it's back down to how much of a row the insurance industry wants to have up here. Invalidating one person's policy because they had functional smoke alarms that did their job is one thing. If they try and do that to a lot of people, it may be the insurers in trouble.
I suspect that insurance companies will be more reasonable than jobsworth bureaucrats.
Er... Insurance companies are staffed with jobsworth bureaucrats.
According to the new standards I need to fit alarms on either side of my living room door. Which makes total sense really...
Question - is not hearing an alarm somewhere inside a single property really a thing?
Obviously, interconnected systems make sense in blocks of flats. But unless you accidentally live in Edinburgh Castle, is there really a problem with not hearing fire alarms in the kitchen from the bedroom etc?
That's a good point. My kitchen one is about 3 metres from the hallway one.
But neither will be connected to the flat with three kids in it two floors up.
In blocks of flats, interconnected fire alarms should be mandatory.
Hypothetical question. Smoke alarms are there not to prevent fire but to prevent death. Fire in house. Alarms allow the safe evacuation of inhabitants.
Will their insurance company refuse to pay out because their functional alarms which worked as intended were not the specific type required by Scotland's new law?
Most insurance policies have a clause about complying with legislation. But that's always so far been about things like building codes (which Grenfell did!). So it's a letter vs spirit of the law question...
Messing around with insurance companies is probably not a smart move in general. If you give them a loophole to get out of paying, or paying less than you expect, then don't be surprised if they take it. It seems that's the assessors job post-incident.
I'm going to get it done because I can. But as 95% of existing smoke alarms are not compliant there will be an awful lot of people who won't be. Because they don't know, can't afford it, or think it's stupid.
So it's back down to how much of a row the insurance industry wants to have up here. Invalidating one person's policy because they had functional smoke alarms that did their job is one thing. If they try and do that to a lot of people, it may be the insurers in trouble.
I suspect that insurance companies will be more reasonable than jobsworth bureaucrats.
It's an interesting one. I understand that they get arsey if people have non-functional alarms. But what of you have functional alarms that do the job but aren't strictly compliant?
This is the mess we have with this new law. Even the deadline isn't a deadline. Law says homeowners have a "reasonable period" afterwards to be compliant.
So, 3rd April. Fire. Everyone out as the alarms go off. You're the insurance company. How do you handle it?
Of course the Scottish government say everyone must know about the new rules as advertised in a locked filing cabinet in the basement with a sign that says beware of the leopard
It was made known 2-3 years back but covid caused a delay. Further publicsed by a commercial alarm firm blagging itself as official and sending leaflets to everyone.
Hypothetical question. Smoke alarms are there not to prevent fire but to prevent death. Fire in house. Alarms allow the safe evacuation of inhabitants.
Will their insurance company refuse to pay out because their functional alarms which worked as intended were not the specific type required by Scotland's new law?
Most insurance policies have a clause about complying with legislation. But that's always so far been about things like building codes (which Grenfell did!). So it's a letter vs spirit of the law question...
Not looking forward to having to install a heat pump. There’s a railway tunnel somewhere under where we live!
Unless you have a very big garden, air source is the better option.
Even with a big garden, air source is probably the better option.
A hydrogen fuelled gas boiler is the best option.
As long as you don't mind the risk of your next door neighbour's house turning into the Hindenburg.....
Because hydrogen is very safe as long as you remember that it is insanely dangerous.
The safety studies that have been performed show that on balance hydrogen is no more dangerous than natural gas in a domestic setting.
And if your neighbour's house is made of flammable canvas they should be concerned.
Hypothetical question. Smoke alarms are there not to prevent fire but to prevent death. Fire in house. Alarms allow the safe evacuation of inhabitants.
Will their insurance company refuse to pay out because their functional alarms which worked as intended were not the specific type required by Scotland's new law?
Most insurance policies have a clause about complying with legislation. But that's always so far been about things like building codes (which Grenfell did!). So it's a letter vs spirit of the law question...
Not looking forward to having to install a heat pump. There’s a railway tunnel somewhere under where we live!
Unless you have a very big garden, air source is the better option.
Even with a big garden, air source is probably the better option.
A hydrogen fuelled gas boiler is the best option.
As long as you don't mind the risk of your next door neighbour's house turning into the Hindenburg.....
Because hydrogen is very safe as long as you remember that it is insanely dangerous.
I liked the bit when the British Gas engineer who serviced our boiler earlier in the year, described doing the hydrogen training course.
It was all simulated. Because the training site wasn't able to set up (yet) a safe environment to play with hydrogen.
My big question is about slow leaks - hydrogen can leak through a lot of things, including some apparently solid materials. The smell agents they add to natural gas won't work in such a circumstance - the molecules are much larger than hydrogen. So they would get filtered out.
The traditional way of checking for hydrogen tightness in industry for new instalations is to pressurise the system and test if you get any drops in pressure over a period of time. With actual hydrogen.....
Then, in operation, have tons of leaks detectors and lots of ventilation.
Not sure how that is going to work in the domestic context....
Hmm. Just had an interesting thought on Boris’s replacement.
Thinking outside the box…
Robert Halfon
He’s one of the few Tory mp’s who could win/extend the red wall. Generally regarded well within the party. Decent backstory. Likeable. Unthreatening.
No offence to the geezer, but he does not pass the close your eyes and imagine him standing outside No 10 as new PM test.
Maybe not but he is a very popular local MP.
He has turned Harlow from a Labour seat before he was elected in 2010 to one where the Conservatives got 63% of the vote at the last general election and it is now not even in the top 150 Labour target seats
I’m sorry to post this again but the reality of claimants taking legal action against individual journalists rather than media organisations leaves few options. Libel is a cripplingly expensive business.
I’m sorry to post this again but the reality of claimants taking legal action against individual journalists rather than media organisations leaves few options. Libel is a cripplingly expensive business.
One definitely correct decision, in the UK, was to vaccinate by strict age priority, using "wastage" in the early part of the vaccination program for medical staff.
One definitely correct decision, in the UK, was to vaccinate by strict age priority, using "wastage" in the early part of the vaccination program for medical staff.
Greatly helped by our having an NHS number to be honest. Each one linked to a date of birth.
My brother drove me back to London as he had real estate meetings. He is buying a freehold of land thing on peoples homes and flats all over the country, driving to London to buy it in Yorkshire and Lancashire, for just a few thousands of pounds and then offering freehold to home owner for lots of times more than he paid, and like putting in planning to build on the freehold, like on top of block of flats to coerce them to buy it off him.
I told him he is going to jail. He said it’s not illegal, it’s very easy to do and easy money everyone’s doing it.
I told him it’s utterly utterly unethical, will cause nice people so much grief, so it’s bound to be illegal in this country. I told him I disown him, and if I was high up in Church I would excommunicate him but he was in such a cheerful mood he just laughed ☹️
I’m sorry to post this again but the reality of claimants taking legal action against individual journalists rather than media organisations leaves few options. Libel is a cripplingly expensive business.
I’m sorry to post this again but the reality of claimants taking legal action against individual journalists rather than media organisations leaves few options. Libel is a cripplingly expensive business.
What does she expect? And what media organisation does she expect Banks to sue instead of her? She wasn't writing in a paper or appearing on a TV programme which could edit what she said, she was giving a speech in which she allegedly libelled someone. It seems obvious that she, rather than any media organisation, would be the target of the subsequent law suit.
I’m sorry to post this again but the reality of claimants taking legal action against individual journalists rather than media organisations leaves few options. Libel is a cripplingly expensive business.
What does she expect? And what media organisation does she expect Banks to sue instead of her? She wasn't writing in a paper or appearing on a TV programme which could edit what she said, she was giving a speech in which she allegedly libelled someone. It seems obvious that she, rather than any media organisation, would be the target of the subsequent law suit.
It also seems she has been doing a bit of a reverse ferret over the course of the case. This from February:
"In the meantime, my defence of the case has changed. In November there was a further hearing to clarify what, in law, my TED talk meant.
Following this hearing I dropped two out of my three defences – that of limitation and truth. The defence that is left is legally the strongest – that the subject of the TED talk was incredibly important and it is in the public interest that this speech was made."
Hmm. Just had an interesting thought on Boris’s replacement.
Thinking outside the box…
Robert Halfon
He’s one of the few Tory mp’s who could win/extend the red wall. Generally regarded well within the party. Decent backstory. Likeable. Unthreatening.
No offence to the geezer, but he does not pass the close your eyes and imagine him standing outside No 10 as new PM test.
Maybe not but he is a very popular local MP.
He has turned Harlow from a Labour seat before he was elected in 2010 to one where the Conservatives got 63% of the vote at the last general election and it is now not even in the top 150 Labour target seats
I think more of an issue with Halfon is that it appears he is happier with influencing from the back / sidelines than being in control. I would put Steve Baker in the same category.
I’m sorry to post this again but the reality of claimants taking legal action against individual journalists rather than media organisations leaves few options. Libel is a cripplingly expensive business.
What does she expect? And what media organisation does she expect Banks to sue instead of her? She wasn't writing in a paper or appearing on a TV programme which could edit what she said, she was giving a speech in which she allegedly libelled someone. It seems obvious that she, rather than any media organisation, would be the target of the subsequent law suit.
It also seems she has been doing a bit of a reverse ferret over the course of the case. This from February:
"In the meantime, my defence of the case has changed. In November there was a further hearing to clarify what, in law, my TED talk meant.
Following this hearing I dropped two out of my three defences – that of limitation and truth. The defence that is left is legally the strongest – that the subject of the TED talk was incredibly important and it is in the public interest that this speech was made."
Am I reading that right? She has now dropped the defence that what she said was true. So she is accepting that she said something that was untrue but thinks she should still have been able to say it as it was 'in the public interest'
Not to be overly nit picking but haven't we all been "living with COVID" for the best part of two years?
I suppose that the argument is that we still have (and need to remove?) major impositions in the shape of mask mandates, WFH guidance and isolation penalties - but I can’t read that story. Will look on Twitter.
I’m sorry to post this again but the reality of claimants taking legal action against individual journalists rather than media organisations leaves few options. Libel is a cripplingly expensive business.
I really liked this quote from the link. Underneath a photo of Johnson.
I'M SO TIRED OF HIM
'I'm so tired of him. I"m tired of people pretending he knows what he's doing. I'm tired of his lies. I'm tired of his bluster. I'm tired of his constant gaslighting. I'm tired of his hair, his voice, his face, his laziness. I'm tired of his refusal to take responsibility for anything, Ever. Just so tired.......'
I’m sorry to post this again but the reality of claimants taking legal action against individual journalists rather than media organisations leaves few options. Libel is a cripplingly expensive business.
What does she expect? And what media organisation does she expect Banks to sue instead of her? She wasn't writing in a paper or appearing on a TV programme which could edit what she said, she was giving a speech in which she allegedly libelled someone. It seems obvious that she, rather than any media organisation, would be the target of the subsequent law suit.
It also seems she has been doing a bit of a reverse ferret over the course of the case. This from February:
"In the meantime, my defence of the case has changed. In November there was a further hearing to clarify what, in law, my TED talk meant.
Following this hearing I dropped two out of my three defences – that of limitation and truth. The defence that is left is legally the strongest – that the subject of the TED talk was incredibly important and it is in the public interest that this speech was made."
Am I reading that right? She has now dropped the defence that what she said was true. So she is accepting that she said something that was untrue but thinks she should still have been able to say it as it was 'in the public interest'
I’m sorry to post this again but the reality of claimants taking legal action against individual journalists rather than media organisations leaves few options. Libel is a cripplingly expensive business.
What does she expect? And what media organisation does she expect Banks to sue instead of her? She wasn't writing in a paper or appearing on a TV programme which could edit what she said, she was giving a speech in which she allegedly libelled someone. It seems obvious that she, rather than any media organisation, would be the target of the subsequent law suit.
It also seems she has been doing a bit of a reverse ferret over the course of the case. This from February:
"In the meantime, my defence of the case has changed. In November there was a further hearing to clarify what, in law, my TED talk meant.
Following this hearing I dropped two out of my three defences – that of limitation and truth. The defence that is left is legally the strongest – that the subject of the TED talk was incredibly important and it is in the public interest that this speech was made."
Am I reading that right? She has now dropped the defence that what she said was true. So she is accepting that she said something that was untrue but thinks she should still have been able to say it as it was 'in the public interest'
Andy Murray @andy_murray Please record the awkward moment when you tell them you’ve spent most of your career campaigning to have people from Eastern Europe deported.
Andy Murray @andy_murray Please record the awkward moment when you tell them you’ve spent most of your career campaigning to have people from Eastern Europe deported.
I’m sorry to post this again but the reality of claimants taking legal action against individual journalists rather than media organisations leaves few options. Libel is a cripplingly expensive business.
I really liked this quote from the link. Underneath a photo of Johnson.
I'M SO TIRED OF HIM
'I'm so tired of him. I"m tired of people pretending he knows what he's doing. I'm tired of his lies. I'm tired of his bluster. I'm tired of his constant gaslighting. I'm tired of his hair, his voice, his face, his laziness. I'm tired of his refusal to take responsibility for anything, Ever. Just so tired.......'
I think that's how most of us feel
It's certainly how most people feel about her (presuming they've had the misfortune to come across her).
Andy Murray @andy_murray Please record the awkward moment when you tell them you’ve spent most of your career campaigning to have people from Eastern Europe deported.
I’m sorry to post this again but the reality of claimants taking legal action against individual journalists rather than media organisations leaves few options. Libel is a cripplingly expensive business.
What does she expect? And what media organisation does she expect Banks to sue instead of her? She wasn't writing in a paper or appearing on a TV programme which could edit what she said, she was giving a speech in which she allegedly libelled someone. It seems obvious that she, rather than any media organisation, would be the target of the subsequent law suit.
It also seems she has been doing a bit of a reverse ferret over the course of the case. This from February:
"In the meantime, my defence of the case has changed. In November there was a further hearing to clarify what, in law, my TED talk meant.
Following this hearing I dropped two out of my three defences – that of limitation and truth. The defence that is left is legally the strongest – that the subject of the TED talk was incredibly important and it is in the public interest that this speech was made."
Am I reading that right? She has now dropped the defence that what she said was true. So she is accepting that she said something that was untrue but thinks she should still have been able to say it as it was 'in the public interest'
Andy Murray @andy_murray Please record the awkward moment when you tell them you’ve spent most of your career campaigning to have people from Eastern Europe deported.
Andy Murray @andy_murray Please record the awkward moment when you tell them you’ve spent most of your career campaigning to have people from Eastern Europe deported.
Andy Murray @andy_murray Please record the awkward moment when you tell them you’ve spent most of your career campaigning to have people from Eastern Europe deported.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Andy Murray @andy_murray Please record the awkward moment when you tell them you’ve spent most of your career campaigning to have people from Eastern Europe deported.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
The opposite, Scott Morrison will likely get a much needed bounce from all this amongst swing voters ahead of the Australian general election later this year. The loss of a few anti-vaxxers to One Nation on the primary vote is a small price to pay for that
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Why does it look bad for the Australian government?
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
Those "lots of people":
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
Given the comments about Australia/Djokovic, I thought it might be useful to give you an update ahead of the federal election, which will likely be called for May, from a local perspective.
The current polling gives Labor a healthy 2PP lead of 55/45 over the coalition. More crucially opinions of Morrison have soured over the previous year, and the Labor Leader Albanese seems to provoke little reaction from the public, which is in contrast to the negative perceptions a lot of people had about the previous opposition leader. Labor are happy to keep the focus on Morrison's perceived problems with honesty and competency.
The big unknown is what will happen to the 'other' vote, and where will it flow on 2nd preferences. In 2019 what sunk Labor was a strong vote for smaller parties like One Nation and more significantly United Australia (a party founded by a Trump like figure named Clive Palmer). These votes flowed very strongly to the coalition on preferences, helping to sink Labor's chances in Queensland above all. In 2016 the preferences flowed much more evenly, and my guess is this is likely to be the case again.
Also in 2019 the coalition took 11 seats in Western Australia compared to Labors 5. Morrison and the coalition are deeply unpopular in WA (in the 2021 state election Labor took 53 seats compared to 2 for the Liberals and 4 for the nationals), so they can expect to lose seats there.
From a betting perspective, currently the coalition are 2.25 to 1.65 to Labor. Unless something dramatic happens soon Albanese looks on course to take Labor back to power after nearly a decade of coalition rule.
Andy Murray @andy_murray Please record the awkward moment when you tell them you’ve spent most of your career campaigning to have people from Eastern Europe deported.
BBC - If Novak Djokovic does win his appeal there’s no guarantee he'll get to play in the Australian Open. The immigration minister still has the right to cancel the visa again - though if that happened it could be an even worse look for the country than this fiasco has already become.
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Lots of people have said it looks bad for the Australian government, and that the whole thing was a publicity stunt by Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister. A general election is due soon.
All the Aussies I know are moaning that he was even allowed an appeal, say he should have been on a plane back to Europe last week. The Aussie government have treated citizens and residents abroad during the pandemic very strictly indeed, and it won’t be in Morrison’s favour if they’re seen to be making exceptions for anti-vax idiots like Djokovic.
I know the Deadpool game is closed, but after a bad night, I’d have the man in the moon. This moon just ain’t big enough for all of us! And he never washes, is sure where the ‘cheese’ story comes from. Quieter since all the Selenites died and their gallery’s turned to dust. The Selenites used to throw some great parties - very animated on the dance floor. Since 60’s Ruddy Mysterons wake up and light up 06:57 every morning! Always plotting. No chance of a lie in with them on your moon. Every so often a cow floats by and back to earth. “Any news?” We shout up. “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.” It calls back. “Oooooooooooh.” We wonder. “What?”
I know the Deadpool game is closed, but after a bad night, I’d have the man in the moon. This moon just ain’t big enough for all of us! And he never washes, is sure where the ‘cheese’ story comes from. Quieter since all the Selenites died and their gallery’s turned to dust. The Selenites used to throw some great parties - very animated on the dance floor. Since 60’s Ruddy Mysterons wake up and light up 06:57 every morning! Always plotting. No chance of a lie in with them on your moon. Every so often a cow floats by and back to earth. “Any news?” We shout up. “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.” It calls back. “Oooooooooooh.” We wonder. “What?”
I mention it to repeat my rant about BBC weekend and overnight interns blindly following US news channels and filling the front page with American domestic stories. Apologies to any PBers who have actually heard of him.
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
"In March 2020, internal documents leaked to The Intercept revealed that moderators had been instructed to suppress posts created by users deemed "too ugly, poor, or disabled" for the platform, and to censor political speech in livestreams, punishing those who harmed "national honor" or broadcast streams about "state organs such as police" with bans from the platform."
I have never bothered with TikTok. Somebody once described it to me as "For people whose attention span is too small for YouTube Shorts". So surely that would mean that TikTok news coverage would be something like "Here is the news. Thank you for watching. More news in an hour"
Manufacturers have warned that Brexit will add to soaring costs facing British industry, amid concerns that customs delays and red tape will rank among the biggest challenges for firms this year.
Make UK, the industry body representing 20,000 manufacturing firms of all sizes from across the country, said that while optimism among its members had grown, it was being undermined by the after-effects of the UK’s departure from the EU.
One year on from the end of the transition period, two-thirds of industrial company leaders in its survey of 228 firms said Brexit had moderately or significantly hampered their business. More than half of firms warned they were likely to suffer further damage this year from customs delays due to import checks and changes to product labelling.
According to the 2022 MakeUK/PwC senior executive survey, Brexit disruption remains among the biggest concerns facing industry bosses for the year ahead as Britain’s departure from the EU complicates the fallout from Covid-19 and the rising costs facing companies.
Delays at customs, the additional costs from meeting separate regulatory regimes in the UK and the EU, and reduced access to migrant workers were among top concerns raised in the survey.
Sounds very much like the judge will side with novax.
Correct. He has won the case, the visa is reinstated and he will be released immediately.
Notwithstanding that, the immigration minister, Alex Hawke, can now personally intervene and decide to cancel his visa anyway on entirely new grounds. Which the government flagged in court may be something that happens.
If that happens, it could end up back in court because Djokovic would face being banned from Australia for three years if the minister decides to cancel the visa.
Manufacturers have warned that Brexit will add to soaring costs facing British industry, amid concerns that customs delays and red tape will rank among the biggest challenges for firms this year.
Make UK, the industry body representing 20,000 manufacturing firms of all sizes from across the country, said that while optimism among its members had grown, it was being undermined by the after-effects of the UK’s departure from the EU.
One year on from the end of the transition period, two-thirds of industrial company leaders in its survey of 228 firms said Brexit had moderately or significantly hampered their business. More than half of firms warned they were likely to suffer further damage this year from customs delays due to import checks and changes to product labelling.
According to the 2022 MakeUK/PwC senior executive survey, Brexit disruption remains among the biggest concerns facing industry bosses for the year ahead as Britain’s departure from the EU complicates the fallout from Covid-19 and the rising costs facing companies.
Delays at customs, the additional costs from meeting separate regulatory regimes in the UK and the EU, and reduced access to migrant workers were among top concerns raised in the survey.
Comments
FFS.
*Checks link*
Of course those Watermelons aren't happy.
One of the two.
First I've heard about it.
1. Paying for energy than EU competitors
2. Paying more than EU competitors for carbon offsets due to a lack of liquidity in the UK go-it-alone system
3. Facing US steel tariffs that don't apply to EU competitors, possibly because of the Article 16 nonsense.
There was another article with someone at a British steelmaker. They are looking to move as much production to Spain as they can. They won't move it back if the specific issues are sorted out - there's no point.
Obviously, interconnected systems make sense in blocks of flats. But unless you accidentally live in Edinburgh Castle, is there really a problem with not hearing fire alarms in the kitchen from the bedroom etc?
It’s worth remembering that even the Plan B restrictions would have been anathema as recently as mid-2019.
Because hydrogen is very safe as long as you remember that it is insanely dangerous.
Seriously dull.
Just saying...
Not if, say, we had a new pandemic which we had no idea how to treat, how it was transmitted, what the long term effects were, why it killed some whilst others didn't even know they had it, which was spreading around the World at great rapidity.
Then they wouldn't have been anathema in 2019 or any other year. It's just that we didn't.
But neither will be connected to the flat with three kids in it two floors up.
It was all simulated. Because the training site wasn't able to set up (yet) a safe environment to play with hydrogen.
My big question is about slow leaks - hydrogen can leak through a lot of things, including some apparently solid materials. The smell agents they add to natural gas won't work in such a circumstance - the molecules are much larger than hydrogen. So they would get filtered out.
The traditional way of checking for hydrogen tightness in industry for new instalations is to pressurise the system and test if you get any drops in pressure over a period of time. With actual hydrogen.....
Then, in operation, have tons of leaks detectors and lots of ventilation.
Not sure how that is going to work in the domestic context....
Thinking outside the box…
Robert Halfon
He’s one of the few Tory mp’s who could win/extend the red wall. Generally regarded well within the party. Decent backstory. Likeable. Unthreatening.
I have a bagful of alarms ready to install ...
Darren Grimes
@darrengrimes_
·
8h
Geordies were the most likely to have already broken their Dry January pledge. Makes you proud.
And if your neighbour's house is made of flammable canvas they should be concerned.
...If you are on iSAGE.
Allie Hodgkins-Brown
@AllieHBNews
·
11m
Monday’s TIMES: “We’ll avoid Covid crisis, say upbeat NHS chiefs” #TomorrowsPapersToday
He has turned Harlow from a Labour seat before he was elected in 2010 to one where the Conservatives got 63% of the vote at the last general election and it is now not even in the top 150 Labour target seats
I’m sorry to post this again but the reality of claimants taking legal action against individual journalists rather than media organisations leaves few options. Libel is a cripplingly expensive business.
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1480092784929423365?s=20
Only 82% of NYC over 65s fully vaxxed at least 2 doses. Cf in England >98% double vaxxed and >92% boosted (denominator issues tho!).
Very few countries have as efficiently targeted vax uptake distribution to minimise total population hospitalisation or death risk as the UK.
https://twitter.com/devansinha/status/1480252418248040454?s=12
And let’s not forget:
On this remember when instead of prioritising the most vulnerable, starmer wanted teachers vaccinated
@ThatRyanChap
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55828160
I told him he is going to jail. He said it’s not illegal, it’s very easy to do and easy money everyone’s doing it.
I told him it’s utterly utterly unethical, will cause nice people so much grief, so it’s bound to be illegal in this country. I told him I disown him, and if I was high up in Church I would excommunicate him but he was in such a cheerful mood he just laughed ☹️
No PB-ers are doing this same thing are they? 🤨
"In the meantime, my defence of the case has changed. In November there was a further hearing to clarify what, in law, my TED talk meant.
Following this hearing I dropped two out of my three defences – that of limitation and truth. The defence that is left is legally the strongest – that the subject of the TED talk was incredibly important and it is in the public interest that this speech was made."
Lockdown coming to every chinese city shortly....
I'M SO TIRED OF HIM
'I'm so tired of him. I"m tired of people pretending he knows what he's doing. I'm tired of his lies. I'm tired of his bluster. I'm tired of his constant gaslighting. I'm tired of his hair, his voice, his face, his laziness. I'm tired of his refusal to take responsibility for anything, Ever. Just so tired.......'
I think that's how most of us feel
Andy Murray
@andy_murray
Please record the awkward moment when you tell them you’ve spent most of your career campaigning to have people from Eastern Europe deported.
https://twitter.com/andy_murray/status/1480315965870989316?s=20
Farage in the jungle this year?
Rather bias of the BBC, who says it looks bad for the Australian government?
Majority of the Cabinet are said to favour the move as a solution to rising staffing shortages across NHS and industry
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/09/rishi-sunak-backs-call-covid-isolation-cut-five-days/ (£££)
The Telegraph does later report that Nadhim Zahawi was the first minister to advocate this change.
1. Novax
2. The political opponents of Scott Morrison in Oz
3. er...
4. That's it.
The current polling gives Labor a healthy 2PP lead of 55/45 over the coalition. More crucially opinions of Morrison have soured over the previous year, and the Labor Leader Albanese seems to provoke little reaction from the public, which is in contrast to the negative perceptions a lot of people had about the previous opposition leader. Labor are happy to keep the focus on Morrison's perceived problems with honesty and competency.
The big unknown is what will happen to the 'other' vote, and where will it flow on 2nd preferences. In 2019 what sunk Labor was a strong vote for smaller parties like One Nation and more significantly United Australia (a party founded by a Trump like figure named Clive Palmer). These votes flowed very strongly to the coalition on preferences, helping to sink Labor's chances in Queensland above all. In 2016 the preferences flowed much more evenly, and my guess is this is likely to be the case again.
Also in 2019 the coalition took 11 seats in Western Australia compared to Labors 5. Morrison and the coalition are deeply unpopular in WA (in the 2021 state election Labor took 53 seats compared to 2 for the Liberals and 4 for the nationals), so they can expect to lose seats there.
From a betting perspective, currently the coalition are 2.25 to 1.65 to Labor. Unless something dramatic happens soon Albanese looks on course to take Labor back to power after nearly a decade of coalition rule.
Quieter since all the Selenites died and their gallery’s turned to dust. The Selenites used to throw some great parties - very animated on the dance floor.
Since 60’s Ruddy Mysterons wake up and light up 06:57 every morning! Always plotting. No chance of a lie in with them on your moon.
Every so often a cow floats by and back to earth. “Any news?” We shout up.
“Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.” It calls back.
“Oooooooooooh.” We wonder. “What?”
🥺
TikTok has just overtaken Facebook as the preferred news publisher
(Survey of the world’s top news organisations by Reuters Institute at Oxford University, via R5)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59932429
I mention it to repeat my rant about BBC weekend and overnight interns blindly following US news channels and filling the front page with American domestic stories. Apologies to any PBers who have actually heard of him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_on_TikTok
If Facebook is bad, then TikTok is malign.
Make UK, the industry body representing 20,000 manufacturing firms of all sizes from across the country, said that while optimism among its members had grown, it was being undermined by the after-effects of the UK’s departure from the EU.
One year on from the end of the transition period, two-thirds of industrial company leaders in its survey of 228 firms said Brexit had moderately or significantly hampered their business. More than half of firms warned they were likely to suffer further damage this year from customs delays due to import checks and changes to product labelling.
According to the 2022 MakeUK/PwC senior executive survey, Brexit disruption remains among the biggest concerns facing industry bosses for the year ahead as Britain’s departure from the EU complicates the fallout from Covid-19 and the rising costs facing companies.
Delays at customs, the additional costs from meeting separate regulatory regimes in the UK and the EU, and reduced access to migrant workers were among top concerns raised in the survey.
If that happens, it could end up back in court because Djokovic would face being banned from Australia for three years if the minister decides to cancel the visa.
Mrs C, 'we'? I thought, apologies if wrong, you were seeing yourself as Irish now.