I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
On the cost of two kinds of illegal entry: About ten years ago, I read a story about sham marriages in a local newspaper, the Northwest Asian Weekly. As I recall, the American groom (or bride) was being paid about 30K then. (Curious, I wrote the reporter and asked her how the people arranging these things found Americans willing to make these sham marriages. According to her, one of the best places to find recruits was at gambling casinos.)
Somewhat to my surprise, I've seen similar prices quoted for illegals paying for places in shipping containers coming from Asia. Sometimes they get credit -- and then pay the money back as they work, for example, doing dishes in an Asian restaurant,
(Those interested in the economics of these two types of illegal entry to the US are free to speculate on what changes in the prices could tell us.)
I was contacted recently by an American woman who was fed up with living in the States (guns and Tump, mostly) and who loves Britain - could I find a Brit willing to marry her so she could get leave to remain in Britain? I explained that that doesn't guarantee it any more. However, she was advised by a British immigration lawyer that she could arrange to come so long as she could prove she wouldn't be a burden, so she's sold her $800K house and is excitedly preparing to move. Has she had good advice? - I didn't think it was that easy.
I notice Leon is busy making the case for the popularity of over-sexed middle aged men. I wonder why? Other than during the covid wartime spirit period Johnson's personal ratings never threatened positive territory as PM. He won an election against a staggeringly unpopular Labour leader. As for London ditto Livingstone. Perhaps he was popular there but then being Mayor was about his level.
Lesbians are overall more committed to long terms relationships than gays. That's a couple of percent at least.
The stat that has always intrigued me is that lesbians have less sex than heterosexuals who in turn have less sex than gay men
Men love sex, any sex; women are choosy, and generally need to be persuaded by a guy
Stephen Fry managed to get away with saying:
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f***ing rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"
And he still isn't cancelled.
It's also bollocks though.
Lots of women love sex. But, they want it with a trusted partner they can be intimate with.
Which is why it isn't bollocks. Gay men go cruising - whether in saunas or cruisy spots in parks etc - and don't care about the trusted partner bit. They are there to get some, and anyone half-way functional will do.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
The earth could easily support 50 or 100 bn people, and quite possibly a lot more, albeit there would need to be some fairly substantial lifestyle changes to achieve this.
With that said, given reproduction is now in the easy control of humans (almost anywhere), birth rates have absolutely collapsed.
So the likelihood of the world population exploding (or even growing particularly quickly), seems pretty remote.
ISTR something posted a few years back (possibly by you) showing the world has already reached peak child. There will never be more children in the world than there are now. There will be more people, as that peak moves up the age ranges, but it will stabilise at around 11bn, before gently declining. Now 11bn is not without its challenges; and nor is a population decline. But I am moderately optimistic about our ability to meet those challenges.
Median world household income is about $10,000. your optimism has to include optimism that the poor are going to be happy staying poor, because in terms of resource consumtion bringing them all up to the living standards of very very poor westerners is equivalent to doubling (at a guess) the population.
I'm also genuinely optimistic that the future will see the average individual have a better standard of living while consuming less.
Less proper meat. Through wind, solar and batteries there's no need to drop anyones standard of living long term
Everyone should have meat. And livestock are a valid part of good rotational farming and stewardship of the land.
I will do virtually everything and anything else but meat is the one thing I won't compromise on (as my profile suggests).
I think its climate "impact" is massively exaggerated, usually by those with other ideological PETA agendas, and no-one should be taken in by it. The only bit I can agree with is that clearing rainforest for beef grazing is stupid.
Fundamentally, we have a problem because we burn billions of tons of fossil fuels each year; not because a few cows are farting.
I tried to seriously look in to climate about 17 years ago. What I took away from it is that we have a very poor understanding of how the weather works because it is so chaotic and it also became very clear that we have an extremely poor understanding of human environmental impact in general. I don't think it is getting any better, because it is now highly politicised and a type of pseudo religious fervour has overtaken the debate, which I keep seeing whenever anyone tries to approach the subject in the real world.
AGW is not in any sense a religion. It's based on evidence not faith. Equating it to a religion is a technique of deniers. If you took another plunge into it now you'd see this, I'm sure.
Huge amounts of evidence for sure, but for the future projections, a bit more faith based. And the is a feel around the discussion that dissent is unwelcome, not unlike religion.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
The earth could easily support 50 or 100 bn people, and quite possibly a lot more, albeit there would need to be some fairly substantial lifestyle changes to achieve this.
With that said, given reproduction is now in the easy control of humans (almost anywhere), birth rates have absolutely collapsed.
So the likelihood of the world population exploding (or even growing particularly quickly), seems pretty remote.
ISTR something posted a few years back (possibly by you) showing the world has already reached peak child. There will never be more children in the world than there are now. There will be more people, as that peak moves up the age ranges, but it will stabilise at around 11bn, before gently declining. Now 11bn is not without its challenges; and nor is a population decline. But I am moderately optimistic about our ability to meet those challenges.
Median world household income is about $10,000. your optimism has to include optimism that the poor are going to be happy staying poor, because in terms of resource consumtion bringing them all up to the living standards of very very poor westerners is equivalent to doubling (at a guess) the population.
I'm also genuinely optimistic that the future will see the average individual have a better standard of living while consuming less.
Less proper meat. Through wind, solar and batteries there's no need to drop anyones standard of living long term
Everyone should have meat. And livestock are a valid part of good rotational farming and stewardship of the land.
I will do virtually everything and anything else but meat is the one thing I won't compromise on (as my profile suggests).
I think its climate "impact" is massively exaggerated, usually by those with other ideological PETA agendas, and no-one should be taken in by it. The only bit I can agree with is that clearing rainforest for beef grazing is stupid.
Fundamentally, we have a problem because we burn billions of tons of fossil fuels each year; not because a few cows are farting.
I tried to seriously look in to climate about 17 years ago. What I took away from it is that we have a very poor understanding of how the weather works because it is so chaotic and it also became very clear that we have an extremely poor understanding of human environmental impact in general. I don't think it is getting any better, because it is now highly politicised and a type of pseudo religious fervour has overtaken the debate, which I keep seeing whenever anyone tries to approach the subject in the real world.
AGW is not in any sense a religion. It's based on evidence not faith. Equating it to a religion is a technique of deniers. If you took another plunge into it now you'd see this, I'm sure.
It has certainly had religious aspects in the past - the rubbishing of anyone who has proposed dissenting views, the suppression of any evidence which doesn't sound alarming enough. And it makes people sceptical in a way which dry reporting wouldn't. I dunno. Maybe if people won't believe the truth you have to lie to them. But I think the religious approach is counterproductive. We had to go on a carbon literacy course at work. The fella leading it was a berk of the first order. The science he did present was overshadowed by his mockery of the straw man who disbelieved it - an approach which made me more sceptical, not less. And I'm not a denier. I do believe AGW is real - and if it isn't, most of the remedies to it are things it would be good to do anyway, leading to cheaper energy and less reliance on questionable regimes. But the climate lobby do themsleves no favours.
It’s Saturday night so I see we’ve moved on from politics and global warming to sex and women’s propensity thereof but back to the weather.
I’m on one of those “expensive Mediterranean holidays” though not too expensive as we took our own car and arrived by ferry this morning at L’Ile Rousse in Corsica.
It’s beautiful but the seawater is troublingly warm. Unpleasantly so. No hint of refreshment left. It must be 30C. Crystal clear, but lukewarm. Reminiscent of the time I paddled in the heavily policed sea off Dubai during a work conference. Apparently NW Med temps are the hottest on record and I believe it.
I'm also on the Med. It isn't expensive, and the primary reason for being here is Mrs RP's dad who we hadn't seen for 2 years due to fucking Covid.
Have just walked up and down the promenade here in El Campello. Its Saturday night at the end of the first week of Spanish summer holidays and I have never seen the place this busy. A load still on the beach half an hour back, the restaurants and cafes rammed, and everyone else also promenading up and down.
I know that its a steady sunny 22c back home, but I doubt there are mad crowds promenading down Fraserburgh's vast sandy beach, even though its longer than here...
I notice Leon is busy making the case for the popularity of over-sexed middle aged men. I wonder why? Other than during the covid wartime spirit period Johnson's personal ratings never threatened positive territory as PM. He won an election against a staggeringly unpopular Labour leader. As for London ditto Livingstone. Perhaps he was popular there but then being Mayor was about his level.
Lesbians are overall more committed to long terms relationships than gays. That's a couple of percent at least.
The stat that has always intrigued me is that lesbians have less sex than heterosexuals who in turn have less sex than gay men
Men love sex, any sex; women are choosy, and generally need to be persuaded by a guy
Stephen Fry managed to get away with saying:
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f***ing rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"
And he still isn't cancelled.
It's also bollocks though.
Lots of women love sex. But, they want it with a trusted partner they can be intimate with.
Which is why it isn't bollocks. Gay men go cruising - whether in saunas or cruisy spots in parks etc - and don't care about the trusted partner bit. They are there to get some, and anyone half-way functional will do.
Gay men don't really have to worry about rape, tho. I know it happens, but it is vanishingly rare compared to the same crime against women
And it's not just rape, women are smaller and weaker and are easier prey for any criminal. So it is understandable that women don't "cruise" as solo sex seekers
The crucial stat is the way sex dies *within* lesbian relationships. It even has a name. Lesbian Bed Death. It's not very politically correct but the stats don't lie
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
Well I see no reason for objecting to that. We flood old gravel workings quite regularly for the purposes of nature reserves.
I notice Leon is busy making the case for the popularity of over-sexed middle aged men. I wonder why? Other than during the covid wartime spirit period Johnson's personal ratings never threatened positive territory as PM. He won an election against a staggeringly unpopular Labour leader. As for London ditto Livingstone. Perhaps he was popular there but then being Mayor was about his level.
Lesbians are overall more committed to long terms relationships than gays. That's a couple of percent at least.
The stat that has always intrigued me is that lesbians have less sex than heterosexuals who in turn have less sex than gay men
Men love sex, any sex; women are choosy, and generally need to be persuaded by a guy
Stephen Fry managed to get away with saying:
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f***ing rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"
And he still isn't cancelled.
It's also bollocks though.
Lots of women love sex. But, they want it with a trusted partner they can be intimate with.
Which is why it isn't bollocks. Gay men go cruising - whether in saunas or cruisy spots in parks etc - and don't care about the trusted partner bit. They are there to get some, and anyone half-way functional will do.
Gay men don't really have to worry about rape, tho. I know it happens, but it is vanishingly rare compared to the same crime against women
And it's not just rape, women are smaller and weaker and are easier prey for any criminal. So it is understandable that women don't "cruise" as solo sex seekers
The crucial stat is the way sex dies *within* lesbian relationships. It even has a name. Lesbian Bed Death. It's not very politically correct but the stats don't lie
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
Well I see no reason for objecting to that. We flood old gravel workings quite regularly for the purposes of nature reserves.
Indeed - but a religious belief that reservoirs are “development” and therefore evil has sprung up.
If water leakage was completely eliminated tomorrow, this would add a grand total of 15% to the U.K. water supply.
We need to treat reservoirs like schools, hospitals etc - x per head of population.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
The earth could easily support 50 or 100 bn people, and quite possibly a lot more, albeit there would need to be some fairly substantial lifestyle changes to achieve this.
With that said, given reproduction is now in the easy control of humans (almost anywhere), birth rates have absolutely collapsed.
So the likelihood of the world population exploding (or even growing particularly quickly), seems pretty remote.
ISTR something posted a few years back (possibly by you) showing the world has already reached peak child. There will never be more children in the world than there are now. There will be more people, as that peak moves up the age ranges, but it will stabilise at around 11bn, before gently declining. Now 11bn is not without its challenges; and nor is a population decline. But I am moderately optimistic about our ability to meet those challenges.
Median world household income is about $10,000. your optimism has to include optimism that the poor are going to be happy staying poor, because in terms of resource consumtion bringing them all up to the living standards of very very poor westerners is equivalent to doubling (at a guess) the population.
I'm also genuinely optimistic that the future will see the average individual have a better standard of living while consuming less.
Less proper meat. Through wind, solar and batteries there's no need to drop anyones standard of living long term
Everyone should have meat. And livestock are a valid part of good rotational farming and stewardship of the land.
I will do virtually everything and anything else but meat is the one thing I won't compromise on (as my profile suggests).
I think its climate "impact" is massively exaggerated, usually by those with other ideological PETA agendas, and no-one should be taken in by it. The only bit I can agree with is that clearing rainforest for beef grazing is stupid.
Fundamentally, we have a problem because we burn billions of tons of fossil fuels each year; not because a few cows are farting.
I tried to seriously look in to climate about 17 years ago. What I took away from it is that we have a very poor understanding of how the weather works because it is so chaotic and it also became very clear that we have an extremely poor understanding of human environmental impact in general. I don't think it is getting any better, because it is now highly politicised and a type of pseudo religious fervour has overtaken the debate, which I keep seeing whenever anyone tries to approach the subject in the real world.
AGW is not in any sense a religion. It's based on evidence not faith. Equating it to a religion is a technique of deniers. If you took another plunge into it now you'd see this, I'm sure.
Huge amounts of evidence for sure, but for the future projections, a bit more faith based. And the is a feel around the discussion that dissent is unwelcome, not unlike religion.
Don't be bloody stupid, this "it's like a religion" thing is really thick and tiresome. There is a huge amount of evidence that our ship the Titanic has hit an iceberg, but frankly it's a bit like a cult how the opposite view is shouted down. Also, I can sort of accept that the ship has sunk a bit already, but I have severe reservations about extrapolating that into the future, you are really just modelling one out of a number of future scenarios.
< I’ve never known you say anything which isn’t slightly peevish and dreary. Even when you try to be amusing - and I’ve seen you try - it is done with that mouth-like-a-cat’s-arse grimace of faint disapproval
Nor is this unimportant. For a start it’s why Boris kept winning. He’s cheerful. He suggests life might get better, and even if it doesn’t, here’s a decent joke
Can Starmer ‘do’ cheerful? Can he do patriotic uplift? Lol no. None of you can because you just don’t believe it. Life is always getting worse. You’ve become some weird caricature of the right from about 40 years ago. You are the new calvinists and everyone is racist
I don't recall Margaret Thatcher being fast and loose with the humour in public - her jibe about the LDs just before they won the Eastbourne by-election was an example of her comedic timing.
The problem with endless optimism and bonhomie is when things aren't going well - Johnson was the last politician you'd have had for a major pandemic. No room for levity, humour or good news - just night after night of misery and rules - you could see how much that affected him (and that was before the Covid itself).
Sometimes, humour just isn't enough - people want an honest and open assessment of the problems and the possible responses. A few knob jokes, a couple of anti-leftie jibes and people are entitled to ask if that's all there is.
I mean, 15 years after "Gaylord Ponceyboots" and you're still turning out the same old drab nonsense night after night on here - a little bit of sexual innuendo, a bit of leftie provoking and a few pages from the cookbook.
That's the problem with the Right - they're just boring.
I am so drab you remembered a gag of mine from about 12 years ago
I notice Leon is busy making the case for the popularity of over-sexed middle aged men. I wonder why? Other than during the covid wartime spirit period Johnson's personal ratings never threatened positive territory as PM. He won an election against a staggeringly unpopular Labour leader. As for London ditto Livingstone. Perhaps he was popular there but then being Mayor was about his level.
Lesbians are overall more committed to long terms relationships than gays. That's a couple of percent at least.
The stat that has always intrigued me is that lesbians have less sex than heterosexuals who in turn have less sex than gay men
Men love sex, any sex; women are choosy, and generally need to be persuaded by a guy
Stephen Fry managed to get away with saying:
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f***ing rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"
And he still isn't cancelled.
It's also bollocks though.
Lots of women love sex. But, they want it with a trusted partner they can be intimate with.
Which is why it isn't bollocks. Gay men go cruising - whether in saunas or cruisy spots in parks etc - and don't care about the trusted partner bit. They are there to get some, and anyone half-way functional will do.
Gay men don't really have to worry about rape, tho. I know it happens, but it is vanishingly rare compared to the same crime against women
And it's not just rape, women are smaller and weaker and are easier prey for any criminal. So it is understandable that women don't "cruise" as solo sex seekers
The crucial stat is the way sex dies *within* lesbian relationships. It even has a name. Lesbian Bed Death. It's not very politically correct but the stats don't lie
Women want sex less than men; nature designed it that way
Sex dies inside most relationships...
Of course. But it seems to die faster for lesbians. For the obvious reason that there isn't a sex hungry man pestering his partner for playtime
Sadly, I'm of an age when I have quite a lot of friends in sexless or near sexless marriages. In 90% of cases the woman's desire died first. Around menopause usually. The men remain up for it, but increasingly pessimistic
Seems a bit cheap to not pay for the return postage.
Incidentally, when did postage suddenly get so expensive? Or was it all gradual boiling frog?
I got that too, plus a request for a donation for the party, in a range starting at £25 moving up to £5000.
We certainly aren't getting the privilege of voting for the next PM free!
I was emailed by the Tories this week (I'm on their list as a past exhibitor at the conference, which they have deemed to mean I' m a supporter) to ask if I had a question for the candidates. I asked one, and the party then said thanks very much, now can you give us some money? Not holding my breath for an answer to the question (about animal welfare, of course) - just a straight fund-raising wheeze, I reckon.
I notice Leon is busy making the case for the popularity of over-sexed middle aged men. I wonder why? Other than during the covid wartime spirit period Johnson's personal ratings never threatened positive territory as PM. He won an election against a staggeringly unpopular Labour leader. As for London ditto Livingstone. Perhaps he was popular there but then being Mayor was about his level.
Lesbians are overall more committed to long terms relationships than gays. That's a couple of percent at least.
The stat that has always intrigued me is that lesbians have less sex than heterosexuals who in turn have less sex than gay men
Men love sex, any sex; women are choosy, and generally need to be persuaded by a guy
Stephen Fry managed to get away with saying:
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f***ing rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"
And he still isn't cancelled.
It's also bollocks though.
Lots of women love sex. But, they want it with a trusted partner they can be intimate with.
Which is why it isn't bollocks. Gay men go cruising - whether in saunas or cruisy spots in parks etc - and don't care about the trusted partner bit. They are there to get some, and anyone half-way functional will do.
Gay men don't really have to worry about rape, tho. I know it happens, but it is vanishingly rare compared to the same crime against women
And it's not just rape, women are smaller and weaker and are easier prey for any criminal. So it is understandable that women don't "cruise" as solo sex seekers
The crucial stat is the way sex dies *within* lesbian relationships. It even has a name. Lesbian Bed Death. It's not very politically correct but the stats don't lie
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
Well I see no reason for objecting to that. We flood old gravel workings quite regularly for the purposes of nature reserves.
Indeed - but a religious belief that reservoirs are “development” and therefore evil has sprung up.
If water leakage was completely eliminated tomorrow, this would add a grand total of 15% to the U.K. water supply.
We need to treat reservoirs like schools, hospitals etc - x per head of population.
Again, what is "religious" doing there?
and old gravel workings is like brownfield building sites, a microscopic irrelevance. To make a worthwhile reservoir you have to flood thousands of acres of useful land, and it's not like we have so much of the stuff we can hand it out regardless for all and any purposes.
I notice Leon is busy making the case for the popularity of over-sexed middle aged men. I wonder why? Other than during the covid wartime spirit period Johnson's personal ratings never threatened positive territory as PM. He won an election against a staggeringly unpopular Labour leader. As for London ditto Livingstone. Perhaps he was popular there but then being Mayor was about his level.
Lesbians are overall more committed to long terms relationships than gays. That's a couple of percent at least.
The stat that has always intrigued me is that lesbians have less sex than heterosexuals who in turn have less sex than gay men
Men love sex, any sex; women are choosy, and generally need to be persuaded by a guy
Stephen Fry managed to get away with saying:
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f***ing rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"
And he still isn't cancelled.
It's also bollocks though.
Lots of women love sex. But, they want it with a trusted partner they can be intimate with.
Which is why it isn't bollocks. Gay men go cruising - whether in saunas or cruisy spots in parks etc - and don't care about the trusted partner bit. They are there to get some, and anyone half-way functional will do.
Gay men don't really have to worry about rape, tho. I know it happens, but it is vanishingly rare compared to the same crime against women
And it's not just rape, women are smaller and weaker and are easier prey for any criminal. So it is understandable that women don't "cruise" as solo sex seekers
The crucial stat is the way sex dies *within* lesbian relationships. It even has a name. Lesbian Bed Death. It's not very politically correct but the stats don't lie
Women want sex less than men; nature designed it that way
Sex dies inside most relationships...
Of course. But it seems to die faster for lesbians. For the obvious reason that there isn't a sex hungry man pestering his partner for playtime
Sadly, I'm of an age when I have quite a lot of friends in sexless or near sexless marriages. In 90% of cases the woman's desire died first. Around menopause usually. The men remain up for it, but increasingly pessimistic
Well the Pope's managed without it even in his younger days
I notice Leon is busy making the case for the popularity of over-sexed middle aged men. I wonder why? Other than during the covid wartime spirit period Johnson's personal ratings never threatened positive territory as PM. He won an election against a staggeringly unpopular Labour leader. As for London ditto Livingstone. Perhaps he was popular there but then being Mayor was about his level.
Lesbians are overall more committed to long terms relationships than gays. That's a couple of percent at least.
The stat that has always intrigued me is that lesbians have less sex than heterosexuals who in turn have less sex than gay men
Men love sex, any sex; women are choosy, and generally need to be persuaded by a guy
Stephen Fry managed to get away with saying:
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f***ing rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"
And he still isn't cancelled.
It's also bollocks though.
Lots of women love sex. But, they want it with a trusted partner they can be intimate with.
Which is why it isn't bollocks. Gay men go cruising - whether in saunas or cruisy spots in parks etc - and don't care about the trusted partner bit. They are there to get some, and anyone half-way functional will do.
Gay men don't really have to worry about rape, tho. I know it happens, but it is vanishingly rare compared to the same crime against women
And it's not just rape, women are smaller and weaker and are easier prey for any criminal. So it is understandable that women don't "cruise" as solo sex seekers
The crucial stat is the way sex dies *within* lesbian relationships. It even has a name. Lesbian Bed Death. It's not very politically correct but the stats don't lie
Seems a bit cheap to not pay for the return postage.
Incidentally, when did postage suddenly get so expensive? Or was it all gradual boiling frog?
I got that too, plus a request for a donation for the party, in a range starting at £25 moving up to £5000.
We certainly aren't getting the privilege of voting for the next PM free!
I was emailed by the Tories this week (I'm on their list as a past exhibitor at the conference, which they have deemed to mean I' m a supporter) to ask if I had a question for the candidates. I asked one, and the party then said thanks very much, now can you give us some money? Not holding my breath for an answer to the question (about animal welfare, of course) - just a straight fund-raising wheeze, I reckon.
You can also buy Rishi and Liz mugs and posters, a 2022 leadership election souvenir programme and a special hustings T shirt from the Conservative Party shop
I notice Leon is busy making the case for the popularity of over-sexed middle aged men. I wonder why? Other than during the covid wartime spirit period Johnson's personal ratings never threatened positive territory as PM. He won an election against a staggeringly unpopular Labour leader. As for London ditto Livingstone. Perhaps he was popular there but then being Mayor was about his level.
Lesbians are overall more committed to long terms relationships than gays. That's a couple of percent at least.
The stat that has always intrigued me is that lesbians have less sex than heterosexuals who in turn have less sex than gay men
Men love sex, any sex; women are choosy, and generally need to be persuaded by a guy
Stephen Fry managed to get away with saying:
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f***ing rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"
And he still isn't cancelled.
It's also bollocks though.
Lots of women love sex. But, they want it with a trusted partner they can be intimate with.
Which is why it isn't bollocks. Gay men go cruising - whether in saunas or cruisy spots in parks etc - and don't care about the trusted partner bit. They are there to get some, and anyone half-way functional will do.
Gay men don't really have to worry about rape, tho. I know it happens, but it is vanishingly rare compared to the same crime against women
And it's not just rape, women are smaller and weaker and are easier prey for any criminal. So it is understandable that women don't "cruise" as solo sex seekers
The crucial stat is the way sex dies *within* lesbian relationships. It even has a name. Lesbian Bed Death. It's not very politically correct but the stats don't lie
I notice Leon is busy making the case for the popularity of over-sexed middle aged men. I wonder why? Other than during the covid wartime spirit period Johnson's personal ratings never threatened positive territory as PM. He won an election against a staggeringly unpopular Labour leader. As for London ditto Livingstone. Perhaps he was popular there but then being Mayor was about his level.
Lesbians are overall more committed to long terms relationships than gays. That's a couple of percent at least.
The stat that has always intrigued me is that lesbians have less sex than heterosexuals who in turn have less sex than gay men
Men love sex, any sex; women are choosy, and generally need to be persuaded by a guy
Stephen Fry managed to get away with saying:
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f***ing rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"
And he still isn't cancelled.
It's also bollocks though.
Lots of women love sex. But, they want it with a trusted partner they can be intimate with.
Which is why it isn't bollocks. Gay men go cruising - whether in saunas or cruisy spots in parks etc - and don't care about the trusted partner bit. They are there to get some, and anyone half-way functional will do.
Gay men don't really have to worry about rape, tho. I know it happens, but it is vanishingly rare compared to the same crime against women
And it's not just rape, women are smaller and weaker and are easier prey for any criminal. So it is understandable that women don't "cruise" as solo sex seekers
The crucial stat is the way sex dies *within* lesbian relationships. It even has a name. Lesbian Bed Death. It's not very politically correct but the stats don't lie
Women want sex less than men; nature designed it that way
Sex dies inside most relationships...
Of course. But it seems to die faster for lesbians. For the obvious reason that there isn't a sex hungry man pestering his partner for playtime
Sadly, I'm of an age when I have quite a lot of friends in sexless or near sexless marriages. In 90% of cases the woman's desire died first. Around menopause usually. The men remain up for it, but increasingly pessimistic
Well the Pope's managed without it even in his younger days
How would you know that? This is like your delusion that the voraciously homosexual Joshua son of Joseph died a virgin, despite the utterances of the Head of your church.
ETA Francis only signed up as a jesuit novice at 22, so he may have quite legitimately got his knob out any number of times. Most hot blooded Argentinians have, by that age.
Seems a bit cheap to not pay for the return postage.
Incidentally, when did postage suddenly get so expensive? Or was it all gradual boiling frog?
I got that too, plus a request for a donation for the party, in a range starting at £25 moving up to £5000.
We certainly aren't getting the privilege of voting for the next PM free!
I was emailed by the Tories this week (I'm on their list as a past exhibitor at the conference, which they have deemed to mean I' m a supporter) to ask if I had a question for the candidates. I asked one, and the party then said thanks very much, now can you give us some money? Not holding my breath for an answer to the question (about animal welfare, of course) - just a straight fund-raising wheeze, I reckon.
You can also buy Rishi and Liz mugs and posters, a 2022 leadership election souvenir programme and a special hustings T shirt from the Conservative Party shop
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
Well I see no reason for objecting to that. We flood old gravel workings quite regularly for the purposes of nature reserves.
Indeed - but a religious belief that reservoirs are “development” and therefore evil has sprung up.
If water leakage was completely eliminated tomorrow, this would add a grand total of 15% to the U.K. water supply.
We need to treat reservoirs like schools, hospitals etc - x per head of population.
Again, what is "religious" doing there?
and old gravel workings is like brownfield building sites, a microscopic irrelevance. To make a worthwhile reservoir you have to flood thousands of acres of useful land, and it's not like we have so much of the stuff we can hand it out regardless for all and any purposes.
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
Well I see no reason for objecting to that. We flood old gravel workings quite regularly for the purposes of nature reserves.
Indeed - but a religious belief that reservoirs are “development” and therefore evil has sprung up.
If water leakage was completely eliminated tomorrow, this would add a grand total of 15% to the U.K. water supply.
We need to treat reservoirs like schools, hospitals etc - x per head of population.
Again, what is "religious" doing there?
and old gravel workings is like brownfield building sites, a microscopic irrelevance. To make a worthwhile reservoir you have to flood thousands of acres of useful land, and it's not like we have so much of the stuff we can hand it out regardless for all and any purposes.
There are plenty of sites which aren’t useful land and the total area we are talking about is tiny.
There’s no land shortage in this country - land is cheap.
I notice Leon is busy making the case for the popularity of over-sexed middle aged men. I wonder why? Other than during the covid wartime spirit period Johnson's personal ratings never threatened positive territory as PM. He won an election against a staggeringly unpopular Labour leader. As for London ditto Livingstone. Perhaps he was popular there but then being Mayor was about his level.
Lesbians are overall more committed to long terms relationships than gays. That's a couple of percent at least.
The stat that has always intrigued me is that lesbians have less sex than heterosexuals who in turn have less sex than gay men
Men love sex, any sex; women are choosy, and generally need to be persuaded by a guy
Stephen Fry managed to get away with saying:
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f***ing rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"
And he still isn't cancelled.
It's also bollocks though.
Lots of women love sex. But, they want it with a trusted partner they can be intimate with.
Which is why it isn't bollocks. Gay men go cruising - whether in saunas or cruisy spots in parks etc - and don't care about the trusted partner bit. They are there to get some, and anyone half-way functional will do.
Gay men don't really have to worry about rape, tho. I know it happens, but it is vanishingly rare compared to the same crime against women
And it's not just rape, women are smaller and weaker and are easier prey for any criminal. So it is understandable that women don't "cruise" as solo sex seekers
The crucial stat is the way sex dies *within* lesbian relationships. It even has a name. Lesbian Bed Death. It's not very politically correct but the stats don't lie
Women want sex less than men; nature designed it that way
Sex dies inside most relationships...
Of course. But it seems to die faster for lesbians. For the obvious reason that there isn't a sex hungry man pestering his partner for playtime
Sadly, I'm of an age when I have quite a lot of friends in sexless or near sexless marriages. In 90% of cases the woman's desire died first. Around menopause usually. The men remain up for it, but increasingly pessimistic
Well the Pope's managed without it even in his younger days
How would you know that? This is like your delusion that the voraciously homosexual Joshua son of Joseph died a virgin, despite the utterances of the Head of your church.
ETA Francis only signed up as a jesuit novice at 22, so he may have quite legitimately got his knob out any number of times. Most hot blooded Argentinians have, by that age.
If he was still a strict Roman Catholic at that age he would have waited until marriage even if not yet committed to life long celibacy
I notice Leon is busy making the case for the popularity of over-sexed middle aged men. I wonder why? Other than during the covid wartime spirit period Johnson's personal ratings never threatened positive territory as PM. He won an election against a staggeringly unpopular Labour leader. As for London ditto Livingstone. Perhaps he was popular there but then being Mayor was about his level.
Lesbians are overall more committed to long terms relationships than gays. That's a couple of percent at least.
The stat that has always intrigued me is that lesbians have less sex than heterosexuals who in turn have less sex than gay men
Men love sex, any sex; women are choosy, and generally need to be persuaded by a guy
Stephen Fry managed to get away with saying:
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f***ing rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"
And he still isn't cancelled.
It's also bollocks though.
Lots of women love sex. But, they want it with a trusted partner they can be intimate with.
Which is why it isn't bollocks. Gay men go cruising - whether in saunas or cruisy spots in parks etc - and don't care about the trusted partner bit. They are there to get some, and anyone half-way functional will do.
Gay men don't really have to worry about rape, tho. I know it happens, but it is vanishingly rare compared to the same crime against women
And it's not just rape, women are smaller and weaker and are easier prey for any criminal. So it is understandable that women don't "cruise" as solo sex seekers
The crucial stat is the way sex dies *within* lesbian relationships. It even has a name. Lesbian Bed Death. It's not very politically correct but the stats don't lie
Women want sex less than men; nature designed it that way
Sex dies inside most relationships...
Of course. But it seems to die faster for lesbians. For the obvious reason that there isn't a sex hungry man pestering his partner for playtime
Sadly, I'm of an age when I have quite a lot of friends in sexless or near sexless marriages. In 90% of cases the woman's desire died first. Around menopause usually. The men remain up for it, but increasingly pessimistic
Well the Pope's managed without it even in his younger days
How would you know that? This is like your delusion that the voraciously homosexual Joshua son of Joseph died a virgin, despite the utterances of the Head of your church.
ETA Francis only signed up as a jesuit novice at 22, so he may have quite legitimately got his knob out any number of times. Most hot blooded Argentinians have, by that age.
If he was still a strict Roman Catholic at that age he would have waited until marriage even if not yet committed to life long celibacy
Bit of a pain for those that don’t want them. For my particular physics degree, Oxford was not a good choice.
All jokes aside, the phenomenon of children from “bog standard” comprehensives not applying to universities commensurate with their predicted grades, is a thing.
The current nonsense of people applying to uni based on a guess of their results, then going back later with the actual results is stupid.
Bit of a pain for those that don’t want them. For my particular physics degree, Oxford was not a good choice.
All jokes aside, the phenomenon of children from “bog standard” comprehensives not applying to universities commensurate with their predicted grades, is a thing.
The current nonsense of people applying to uni based on a guess of their results, then going back later with the actual results is stupid.
I hadn’t really thought about it. I did a Cambridge Natural Sciences interview because it felt silly to say “no” and it all seemed to go pretty smoothly. And then the offer/results/clearing cycle seemed pretty smooth for me and all my friends.
Bit of a pain for those that don’t want them. For my particular physics degree, Oxford was not a good choice.
All jokes aside, the phenomenon of children from “bog standard” comprehensives not applying to universities commensurate with their predicted grades, is a thing.
The current nonsense of people applying to uni based on a guess of their results, then going back later with the actual results is stupid.
Get rid of interviews and students could apply after A-level results are known and still be ready to start in September.
"One Syrian asylum seeker told the Guardian that the smugglers had dropped their prices dramatically. “Before it was £3,000 or £4,000 to cross. Now the top price is £1,200 and some asylum seekers are negotiating a price of as little as £500 to cross. Everyone can afford to cross these days. Some asylum seekers are saying to smugglers, ‘Why should I pay you £4,000 to go to the UK when I might end up in Rwanda? I will pay you £500’. Then a deal is struck.”"
Good, then the system is working.
By massively increasing the number of crossings?
Are you sure that was the plan?
Devaluing the crossings is a good thing.
And that's without the transfers to Rwanda actually happening yet. Once they do it'd devalue them down to zero.
"Devaluing"?
Mostly when prices go down people buy more of stuff. Are you saying that a £500 illegal immigrant is only 1/8 as much of a problem for the country as a £4,000 one?
Well, you have to consider the supply side as well. Is £500 per person worth the risk of organising a crossing?
Yes, it's a fucking doddle. If you could buy a 30 seater minibus for £2,000 and charge 30 pax £500 each to drive them 30 miles, how long would you spend thinking about it?
I agree. I just meant there will be a price at which it's not worth doing it. I think it will take a lot more than the Rwandan policy though.
I notice Leon is busy making the case for the popularity of over-sexed middle aged men. I wonder why? Other than during the covid wartime spirit period Johnson's personal ratings never threatened positive territory as PM. He won an election against a staggeringly unpopular Labour leader. As for London ditto Livingstone. Perhaps he was popular there but then being Mayor was about his level.
Lesbians are overall more committed to long terms relationships than gays. That's a couple of percent at least.
The stat that has always intrigued me is that lesbians have less sex than heterosexuals who in turn have less sex than gay men
Men love sex, any sex; women are choosy, and generally need to be persuaded by a guy
Stephen Fry managed to get away with saying:
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f***ing rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"
And he still isn't cancelled.
It's also bollocks though.
Lots of women love sex. But, they want it with a trusted partner they can be intimate with.
Which is why it isn't bollocks. Gay men go cruising - whether in saunas or cruisy spots in parks etc - and don't care about the trusted partner bit. They are there to get some, and anyone half-way functional will do.
Gay men don't really have to worry about rape, tho. I know it happens, but it is vanishingly rare compared to the same crime against women
And it's not just rape, women are smaller and weaker and are easier prey for any criminal. So it is understandable that women don't "cruise" as solo sex seekers
The crucial stat is the way sex dies *within* lesbian relationships. It even has a name. Lesbian Bed Death. It's not very politically correct but the stats don't lie
Women want sex less than men; nature designed it that way
Sex dies inside most relationships...
Of course. But it seems to die faster for lesbians. For the obvious reason that there isn't a sex hungry man pestering his partner for playtime
Sadly, I'm of an age when I have quite a lot of friends in sexless or near sexless marriages. In 90% of cases the woman's desire died first. Around menopause usually. The men remain up for it, but increasingly pessimistic
Well the Pope's managed without it even in his younger days
How would you know that? This is like your delusion that the voraciously homosexual Joshua son of Joseph died a virgin, despite the utterances of the Head of your church.
ETA Francis only signed up as a jesuit novice at 22, so he may have quite legitimately got his knob out any number of times. Most hot blooded Argentinians have, by that age.
If he was still a strict Roman Catholic at that age he would have waited until marriage even if not yet committed to life long celibacy
Yes but who says he was? St Paul was a practising Jew until he wasn't, which is not usually thought to have made him any less saintly.
Though it was probably the hangover from that former belief system which blinded him to Our Lord's practise and celebration of male homosexual love.
I notice Leon is busy making the case for the popularity of over-sexed middle aged men. I wonder why? Other than during the covid wartime spirit period Johnson's personal ratings never threatened positive territory as PM. He won an election against a staggeringly unpopular Labour leader. As for London ditto Livingstone. Perhaps he was popular there but then being Mayor was about his level.
Lesbians are overall more committed to long terms relationships than gays. That's a couple of percent at least.
The stat that has always intrigued me is that lesbians have less sex than heterosexuals who in turn have less sex than gay men
Men love sex, any sex; women are choosy, and generally need to be persuaded by a guy
Stephen Fry managed to get away with saying:
"If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f***ing rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it."
"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want," he said. "Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"
And he still isn't cancelled.
It's also bollocks though.
Lots of women love sex. But, they want it with a trusted partner they can be intimate with.
Which is why it isn't bollocks. Gay men go cruising - whether in saunas or cruisy spots in parks etc - and don't care about the trusted partner bit. They are there to get some, and anyone half-way functional will do.
Gay men don't really have to worry about rape, tho. I know it happens, but it is vanishingly rare compared to the same crime against women
And it's not just rape, women are smaller and weaker and are easier prey for any criminal. So it is understandable that women don't "cruise" as solo sex seekers
The crucial stat is the way sex dies *within* lesbian relationships. It even has a name. Lesbian Bed Death. It's not very politically correct but the stats don't lie
Women want sex less than men; nature designed it that way
Sex dies inside most relationships...
Last time I tried to make love to my wife nothing happened, so I said to her, 'What's the matter, you can't think of anybody either?' -- Rodney Dangerfield
Bit of a pain for those that don’t want them. For my particular physics degree, Oxford was not a good choice.
All jokes aside, the phenomenon of children from “bog standard” comprehensives not applying to universities commensurate with their predicted grades, is a thing.
The current nonsense of people applying to uni based on a guess of their results, then going back later with the actual results is stupid.
Get rid of interviews and students could apply after A-level results are known and still be ready to start in September.
How would that work when even the number of A level students with straight A*s Truss wants to guarantee an Oxbridge interview are more than the number of Oxbridge places available?
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
Well I see no reason for objecting to that. We flood old gravel workings quite regularly for the purposes of nature reserves.
Indeed - but a religious belief that reservoirs are “development” and therefore evil has sprung up.
If water leakage was completely eliminated tomorrow, this would add a grand total of 15% to the U.K. water supply.
We need to treat reservoirs like schools, hospitals etc - x per head of population.
Again, what is "religious" doing there?
and old gravel workings is like brownfield building sites, a microscopic irrelevance. To make a worthwhile reservoir you have to flood thousands of acres of useful land, and it's not like we have so much of the stuff we can hand it out regardless for all and any purposes.
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
Well I see no reason for objecting to that. We flood old gravel workings quite regularly for the purposes of nature reserves.
Indeed - but a religious belief that reservoirs are “development” and therefore evil has sprung up.
If water leakage was completely eliminated tomorrow, this would add a grand total of 15% to the U.K. water supply.
We need to treat reservoirs like schools, hospitals etc - x per head of population.
Again, what is "religious" doing there?
and old gravel workings is like brownfield building sites, a microscopic irrelevance. To make a worthwhile reservoir you have to flood thousands of acres of useful land, and it's not like we have so much of the stuff we can hand it out regardless for all and any purposes.
There are plenty of sites which aren’t useful land and the total area we are talking about is tiny.
There’s no land shortage in this country - land is cheap.
I have just bought some, and I can promise you it isn't.
Bit of a pain for those that don’t want them. For my particular physics degree, Oxford was not a good choice.
All jokes aside, the phenomenon of children from “bog standard” comprehensives not applying to universities commensurate with their predicted grades, is a thing.
The current nonsense of people applying to uni based on a guess of their results, then going back later with the actual results is stupid.
It will reduce the number of pointless interviews I have to do, too. Currently a pharmacy student applies to 5 unis, must be interviewed by all 5, but will perforce only attend one. Applying after grades to the one you want to go makes much more sense,
Bit of a pain for those that don’t want them. For my particular physics degree, Oxford was not a good choice.
All jokes aside, the phenomenon of children from “bog standard” comprehensives not applying to universities commensurate with their predicted grades, is a thing.
The current nonsense of people applying to uni based on a guess of their results, then going back later with the actual results is stupid.
Get rid of interviews and students could apply after A-level results are known and still be ready to start in September.
How would that work when even the number of A level students with straight A*s Truss wants to guarantee an Oxbridge interview are more than the number of Oxbridge places available?
You could make the highest grade go up to 11. It's one louder.
"Why Labour should fear Liz Truss Her popularity among the grassroots is no accident BY JOHN MCTERNAN John McTernan is a British political strategist and former advisor to Tony Blair"
One of the main reasons Labour should fear Liz Truss - or Rishi Sunak - or my Aunt Gladys - is that SKS is not very good at retail politics.
The piece contains this warning:
"But [Sunak's] floundering campaign should be a lesson for Labour if they want to confront Liz Truss."
I confess that I thought Truss would be an utter disaster and they may even ditch her after just one year. I am beginning to wonder whether, like it seems most people, I have seriously underestimated her.
She really is the moron you thought she was. That is not to say the voting public won't be satisfied buyers.
I was highly skeptical of Truss in the beginning. Especially after her floundering appearance in that first debate
But I’ve not seen any evidence she is stupid, let alone “a moron”
Where is it? What makes her “a moron”? Apart from the fact you disagree with her?
It's moronic to think borrowing for tax cuts is a deflationary measure - but it doesn't follow from her saying this that she's a moron since it's possible she knows she's talking rot and is just doing it to secure votes in the leadership election.
Has she explicitly said those words? If so that is certainly quite controversial, and against economic orthodoxy - tho again I hesitate to say "moronic"
Remember the 798,999 economists who wrote to the Guardian calling Thatcher a moron, just as her reforms started to take effect, and the UK went into a boom
Having a shed load of oil and a load of public assets to flog didn't hurt, either, nor did access to the emerging European single market. Thatcher's macro policies were generally poor, hence her period in office being bookmarked by deep recessions and the economy undergoing an unprecedented rise in income inequality, although product market liberalisation was good. She certainly wasn't a moron, not that I think anyone called her that.
The economic miracle of the 80s is a bit of a myth as far as I can see. It doesn't exactly leap out of the figures.
It's not a myth: Thatcher successfully turned a failing manufacturing economy into a booming services one, aided and abetted by a boon from North Sea oil.
Of course, there were winners and losers from that but there's no doubt the country got much wealthier: just compare the standard of living of anyone in 1978 with 1991.
The failure of the left to admit -even now - that Thatcher was the pivotal figure in transforming the post-war UK economy for the better is an enduring indication of their persistent stupidity. They are too childish to confess the truth. The day they do, will be a day to celebrate. I have not got champagne on ice
No one outside the UK disputes what Thatcher did, and how she improved the UK. She is a revered figure for many. Even the Argentinians afford her a grudging, sullen respect - I know this, because I have asked them
She is a pivotal figure, nobody would dispute that, and she transformed the UK economy. As I have previously noted, I think she deserves credit for making markets more competitive and for helping to create the EU single market. On the other hand, monetarism was a disastrous macro policy - it led to too high interest rates and an overvalued exchange rate, and we lost a whole swathe of viable, high productivity engineering firms as a result. The regional aspect of this policy failure is particularly pronounced and has left the economy unbalanced and unequal across different parts of the country. Selling council homes without allowing councils to build new ones has contributed to our current housing crisis. And we saw an increase in inequality almost unmatched among rich countries. At the end of her time in power we underwent a second deep recession because her government over stimulated the economy, creating a burst of inflation and a housing boom and bust. She sold off public assets too cheaply, and she failed to use North Sea oil revenue productively, so that while Norway has a vast sovereign wealth fund, we have nothing to show for it. It is a mixed legacy. "Better than Argentina" is a low bar.
Moan moan moan moan moan. This is all you do, and this is why everyone hates the Left, now. And this is why you could, still, easily lose to Liz Truss despite the Tories being a soiled clown troupe and inflation going up to 60,000%
A lefty friend of mine put it succinctly the other day. "Every single story in the Guardian is depressing". If it's not about climate change and the end of everything it is "chemistry is racist" or "the police kill badgers" or "God is an illusion but we're still dying of monkeypox". Nothing ever gets better, nothing is ever good, nothing is ever funny, art must only be scrutinised for Woke correctness, not celebrated. Nothing EVER is nice. Only bad things EVER happen. Think about death more often, you stupid racist meat robot
It is unutterably dreary. It is the mindset of an alcoholic depressive bent on self harm. It is shit turned into an ideology. It is joylessness incarnate. It is the Left. It is all you do. Everything is terrible and harmful; and the stars are made of Nazi plastic that burn your pets, hahahaha
You're a bunch of stupid c*nts and I'm so so glad we keep defeating you
That's 100% softhead speccieland cliche. I'm typical left and one of my favourite songs is Life is a Rollercoaster (you just got to ride it) by Ronan Keating. Played it again just a few minutes ago.
Good grief. I'm still reeling from Leon's Busted and Hanson love in the previous thread.
"Why Labour should fear Liz Truss Her popularity among the grassroots is no accident BY JOHN MCTERNAN John McTernan is a British political strategist and former advisor to Tony Blair"
One of the main reasons Labour should fear Liz Truss - or Rishi Sunak - or my Aunt Gladys - is that SKS is not very good at retail politics.
The piece contains this warning:
"But [Sunak's] floundering campaign should be a lesson for Labour if they want to confront Liz Truss."
I confess that I thought Truss would be an utter disaster and they may even ditch her after just one year. I am beginning to wonder whether, like it seems most people, I have seriously underestimated her.
She really is the moron you thought she was. That is not to say the voting public won't be satisfied buyers.
I was highly skeptical of Truss in the beginning. Especially after her floundering appearance in that first debate
But I’ve not seen any evidence she is stupid, let alone “a moron”
Where is it? What makes her “a moron”? Apart from the fact you disagree with her?
It's moronic to think borrowing for tax cuts is a deflationary measure - but it doesn't follow from her saying this that she's a moron since it's possible she knows she's talking rot and is just doing it to secure votes in the leadership election.
Has she explicitly said those words? If so that is certainly quite controversial, and against economic orthodoxy - tho again I hesitate to say "moronic"
Remember the 798,999 economists who wrote to the Guardian calling Thatcher a moron, just as her reforms started to take effect, and the UK went into a boom
Having a shed load of oil and a load of public assets to flog didn't hurt, either, nor did access to the emerging European single market. Thatcher's macro policies were generally poor, hence her period in office being bookmarked by deep recessions and the economy undergoing an unprecedented rise in income inequality, although product market liberalisation was good. She certainly wasn't a moron, not that I think anyone called her that.
The economic miracle of the 80s is a bit of a myth as far as I can see. It doesn't exactly leap out of the figures.
It's not a myth: Thatcher successfully turned a failing manufacturing economy into a booming services one, aided and abetted by a boon from North Sea oil.
Of course, there were winners and losers from that but there's no doubt the country got much wealthier: just compare the standard of living of anyone in 1978 with 1991.
The failure of the left to admit -even now - that Thatcher was the pivotal figure in transforming the post-war UK economy for the better is an enduring indication of their persistent stupidity. They are too childish to confess the truth. The day they do, will be a day to celebrate. I have not got champagne on ice
No one outside the UK disputes what Thatcher did, and how she improved the UK. She is a revered figure for many. Even the Argentinians afford her a grudging, sullen respect - I know this, because I have asked them
She is a pivotal figure, nobody would dispute that, and she transformed the UK economy. As I have previously noted, I think she deserves credit for making markets more competitive and for helping to create the EU single market. On the other hand, monetarism was a disastrous macro policy - it led to too high interest rates and an overvalued exchange rate, and we lost a whole swathe of viable, high productivity engineering firms as a result. The regional aspect of this policy failure is particularly pronounced and has left the economy unbalanced and unequal across different parts of the country. Selling council homes without allowing councils to build new ones has contributed to our current housing crisis. And we saw an increase in inequality almost unmatched among rich countries. At the end of her time in power we underwent a second deep recession because her government over stimulated the economy, creating a burst of inflation and a housing boom and bust. She sold off public assets too cheaply, and she failed to use North Sea oil revenue productively, so that while Norway has a vast sovereign wealth fund, we have nothing to show for it. It is a mixed legacy. "Better than Argentina" is a low bar.
Moan moan moan moan moan. This is all you do, and this is why everyone hates the Left, now. And this is why you could, still, easily lose to Liz Truss despite the Tories being a soiled clown troupe and inflation going up to 60,000%
A lefty friend of mine put it succinctly the other day. "Every single story in the Guardian is depressing". If it's not about climate change and the end of everything it is "chemistry is racist" or "the police kill badgers" or "God is an illusion but we're still dying of monkeypox". Nothing ever gets better, nothing is ever good, nothing is ever funny, art must only be scrutinised for Woke correctness, not celebrated. Nothing EVER is nice. Only bad things EVER happen. Think about death more often, you stupid racist meat robot
It is unutterably dreary. It is the mindset of an alcoholic depressive bent on self harm. It is shit turned into an ideology. It is joylessness incarnate. It is the Left. It is all you do. Everything is terrible and harmful; and the stars are made of Nazi plastic that burn your pets, hahahaha
You're a bunch of stupid c*nts and I'm so so glad we keep defeating you
That's 100% softhead speccieland cliche. I'm typical left and one of my favourite songs is Life is a Rollercoaster (you just got to ride it) by Ronan Keating. Played it again just a few minutes ago.
Good grief. I'm still reeling from Leon's Busted and Hanson love in the previous thread.
And when you get old and start losing your hair Can you tell me who will still care Can you tell me who will still care?
Jesus. 11.6 million people to be spending a quarter or more of net income on fuel come January.
Net of what?
Good point. I tried to find out but couldn't. It's in the Observer, and that's how they report it. It's rather more a pressing issue though than Oxbridge interviews imho.
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
The water companies who got rid of their old reservoirs? Fixing leaking pipes was supposed to make up for the loss of reservoirs.
It wasn't lead by water companies. It has been EU policy to exacerbate water scarcity by clamping down on reservoir building. Christopher Booker wrote extensively on this. Sadly Brexit has not got us free from it (though if it did it would be a gleaming BREXIT BENEFIT), evidently because our policy is still being implemented and decided by people who are fully on board with this crazed ideology.
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
Well I see no reason for objecting to that. We flood old gravel workings quite regularly for the purposes of nature reserves.
Indeed - but a religious belief that reservoirs are “development” and therefore evil has sprung up.
If water leakage was completely eliminated tomorrow, this would add a grand total of 15% to the U.K. water supply.
We need to treat reservoirs like schools, hospitals etc - x per head of population.
Again, what is "religious" doing there?
and old gravel workings is like brownfield building sites, a microscopic irrelevance. To make a worthwhile reservoir you have to flood thousands of acres of useful land, and it's not like we have so much of the stuff we can hand it out regardless for all and any purposes.
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
Well I see no reason for objecting to that. We flood old gravel workings quite regularly for the purposes of nature reserves.
Indeed - but a religious belief that reservoirs are “development” and therefore evil has sprung up.
If water leakage was completely eliminated tomorrow, this would add a grand total of 15% to the U.K. water supply.
We need to treat reservoirs like schools, hospitals etc - x per head of population.
Again, what is "religious" doing there?
and old gravel workings is like brownfield building sites, a microscopic irrelevance. To make a worthwhile reservoir you have to flood thousands of acres of useful land, and it's not like we have so much of the stuff we can hand it out regardless for all and any purposes.
There are plenty of sites which aren’t useful land and the total area we are talking about is tiny.
There’s no land shortage in this country - land is cheap.
I have just bought some, and I can promise you it isn't.
Not saying it's necessarily daft. But what happens during the transition? Do second and third years have to kick their heels for six months?
Third years presumably can still start jobs in September, second years just get an extra term
Slight bit of information for you: the school year ends in the summer.
You love it because it provides an instant bias in favour of posh rich parents' children, who can afford a whole half year off school and before uni.
And how does that tie in with the academic year in the rest of the known galaxy?
Your lot has already screwed up Brexit and wrecked academic collaboration - now having a different academic cycle will mean zero collaboration with non-English* universities
*'English' because Ms T will have no remit in Wales, Scotland or NI, and still less the rest of the world. That's foreign language courses completely screwed. in terms of the 3rd year in the relevant foreign country. So much for world-wide commercial exploitation.
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
A 4 sq km reservoir would be the 3rd largest reservoir in the country by surface area mind.
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Usually people whose house will experience significant levels of rising damp....
A popular slogan in Wales remains 'Cofiwch Dryweryn' (remember Tryweryn) a reference to the creation of Llyn Celyn in the Tryweryn Valley. When it was formed in 1965, the village of Capel Celyn was drowned and 48 people were bought out, on less than generous terms.
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
Well I see no reason for objecting to that. We flood old gravel workings quite regularly for the purposes of nature reserves.
Indeed - but a religious belief that reservoirs are “development” and therefore evil has sprung up.
If water leakage was completely eliminated tomorrow, this would add a grand total of 15% to the U.K. water supply.
We need to treat reservoirs like schools, hospitals etc - x per head of population.
Again, what is "religious" doing there?
and old gravel workings is like brownfield building sites, a microscopic irrelevance. To make a worthwhile reservoir you have to flood thousands of acres of useful land, and it's not like we have so much of the stuff we can hand it out regardless for all and any purposes.
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
Well I see no reason for objecting to that. We flood old gravel workings quite regularly for the purposes of nature reserves.
Indeed - but a religious belief that reservoirs are “development” and therefore evil has sprung up.
If water leakage was completely eliminated tomorrow, this would add a grand total of 15% to the U.K. water supply.
We need to treat reservoirs like schools, hospitals etc - x per head of population.
Again, what is "religious" doing there?
and old gravel workings is like brownfield building sites, a microscopic irrelevance. To make a worthwhile reservoir you have to flood thousands of acres of useful land, and it's not like we have so much of the stuff we can hand it out regardless for all and any purposes.
There are plenty of sites which aren’t useful land and the total area we are talking about is tiny.
There’s no land shortage in this country - land is cheap.
I have just bought some, and I can promise you it isn't.
Land you are allowed to live on?
No. Agricultural.
I could prolly put up a yurt 5 weeks a year, mind. But the point is, this is a very small and crowded country.
Not saying it's necessarily daft. But what happens during the transition? Do second and third years have to kick their heels for six months?
Third years presumably can still start jobs in September, second years just get an extra term
Slight bit of information for you: the school year ends in the summer.
You love it because it provides an instant bias in favour of posh rich parents' children, who can afford a whole half year off school and before uni.
And how does that tie in with the academic year in the rest of the known galaxy?
Your lot has already screwed up Brexit and wrecked academic collaboration - now having a different academic cycle will mean zero collaboration with non-English* universities
*'English' because Ms T will have no remit in Wales, Scotland or NI, and still less the rest of the world. That's foreign language courses completely screwed. in terms of the 3rd year in the relevant foreign country. So much for world-wide commercial exploitation.
You can still study abroad, just go from third term in first year to third term in second year
Bit of a pain for those that don’t want them. For my particular physics degree, Oxford was not a good choice.
All jokes aside, the phenomenon of children from “bog standard” comprehensives not applying to universities commensurate with their predicted grades, is a thing.
The current nonsense of people applying to uni based on a guess of their results, then going back later with the actual results is stupid.
Get rid of interviews and students could apply after A-level results are known and still be ready to start in September.
How would that work when even the number of A level students with straight A*s Truss wants to guarantee an Oxbridge interview are more than the number of Oxbridge places available?
The same way it does now, by rejecting the excess applicants (and even now, probably most applicants are rejected without interview). Fairer if done by computer than by a notoriously unreliable interview, or phone call from the pupil's headteacher under the old pals act.
Not saying it's necessarily daft. But what happens during the transition? Do second and third years have to kick their heels for six months?
Third years presumably can still start jobs in September, second years just get an extra term
Slight bit of information for you: the school year ends in the summer.
You love it because it provides an instant bias in favour of posh rich parents' children, who can afford a whole half year off school and before uni.
And how does that tie in with the academic year in the rest of the known galaxy?
Your lot has already screwed up Brexit and wrecked academic collaboration - now having a different academic cycle will mean zero collaboration with non-English* universities
*'English' because Ms T will have no remit in Wales, Scotland or NI, and still less the rest of the world. That's foreign language courses completely screwed. in terms of the 3rd year in the relevant foreign country. So much for world-wide commercial exploitation.
You can still study abroad, just go from third term in first year to third term in second year
Jesus. 11.6 million people to be spending a quarter or more of net income on fuel come January.
Net of what?
Yeah, source please. That's a great stat - but surely it should be "households", and it will be interesting to see who is most trouble. Probably single parents, like usual.
Not saying it's necessarily daft. But what happens during the transition? Do second and third years have to kick their heels for six months?
Third years presumably can still start jobs in September, second years just get an extra term
Slight bit of information for you: the school year ends in the summer.
You love it because it provides an instant bias in favour of posh rich parents' children, who can afford a whole half year off school and before uni.
And how does that tie in with the academic year in the rest of the known galaxy?
Your lot has already screwed up Brexit and wrecked academic collaboration - now having a different academic cycle will mean zero collaboration with non-English* universities
*'English' because Ms T will have no remit in Wales, Scotland or NI, and still less the rest of the world. That's foreign language courses completely screwed. in terms of the 3rd year in the relevant foreign country. So much for world-wide commercial exploitation.
You can still study abroad, just go from third term in first year to third term in second year
But that wrecks the syllabus. And after the intermediate year? It's completely idiotic.
Not saying it's necessarily daft. But what happens during the transition? Do second and third years have to kick their heels for six months?
Third years presumably can still start jobs in September, second years just get an extra term
Slight bit of information for you: the school year ends in the summer.
You love it because it provides an instant bias in favour of posh rich parents' children, who can afford a whole half year off school and before uni.
And how does that tie in with the academic year in the rest of the known galaxy?
Your lot has already screwed up Brexit and wrecked academic collaboration - now having a different academic cycle will mean zero collaboration with non-English* universities
*'English' because Ms T will have no remit in Wales, Scotland or NI, and still less the rest of the world. That's foreign language courses completely screwed. in terms of the 3rd year in the relevant foreign country. So much for world-wide commercial exploitation.
You can still study abroad, just go from third term in first year to third term in second year
Won’t work with progression ( I.e. making it to the next year).
Of course, you are stuck in the idea that only classics or history of art or PPE degrees from Cowley Poly count.
They do STEM degrees too but Oxford and Cambridge are the best universities in the country and thos will ensure all those with straight A*s at A level get a chance to go to them even if they don't get through the interview and go elsewhere
I may have just come up with the greatest ever intro for a PB thread header.
Possibly the greatest every opening in the history of literature.
It'll be published overnight.
"When Thom York of Radiohead discovered that pineapple on pizza made him briefly love the AV voting system he was plunged into a nightmarish world of total addiction."
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
A 4 sq km reservoir would be the 3rd largest reservoir in the country by surface area mind.
I may have just come up with the greatest ever intro for a PB thread header.
Possibly the greatest every opening in the history of literature.
It'll be published overnight.
It will inevitably overtaken by revelations about one of the leadership candidates in the Sunday papers. At least, I am hoping that something will come along to enliven this dull, repetitive process. Has anyone heard from the Helsinki branch of pop bitch?
Of course, you are stuck in the idea that only classics or history of art or PPE degrees from Cowley Poly count.
They do STEM degrees too but Oxford and Cambridge are the best universities in the country and thos will ensure all those with straight A*s at A level get a chance to go to them even if they don't get through the interview and go elsewhere
"best" - chimpanzee bollocks. That is meaningless, because it is correlated with size. But a student only does one degree at a time in one department. And the rankings are much less stable when that is taken into account.
Of course, you are stuck in the idea that only classics or history of art or PPE degrees from Cowley Poly count.
They do STEM degrees too but Oxford and Cambridge are the best universities in the country and thos will ensure all those with straight A*s at A level get a chance to go to them even if they don't get through the interview and go elsewhere
"best" - chimpanzee bollocks. That is meaningless, because it is correlated with size. But a student only does one degree at a time in one department. And the rankings are much less stable when that is taken into account.
Oxford 2nd and Cambridge 3rd in the QS world university rankings.
Next best UK universities are Imperial at 7th and UCL at 8th
I find these stories utterly ridiculous. Where do people think the water can go? If it goes up, it must come down.
Mad greens (in line with EU policy) have been trying to stop new reservoirs being built for years precisely to stoke such ludicrous alarmism. If it's not drought, it's floods, with rivers that haven't been dredged for years (again, green blob) mysteriously bursting their banks.
It could end up in the sea, salty and useless. The amount of fresh water in the world is collapsing with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica but much of the world that could rely on a steady flow from mountain tops is going to become more arid too. And of course there are far too many people.
I don't agree that there are too many people - that is a deeply spurious shibboleth in my opinion. No other living thing shares that view of its own species. When we approach capacity in this planet (if that is possible) we will colonise space.
The water in the sea still evaporates and falls again as rain. As for the ice sheets melting, that would add more water to the cycle, not take it away. We will perhaps revisit this conversation when facing the usual winter flooding alarm.
Quality gibberish. No other living thing has a concept of its own species, let alone the ability to make value judgments about it. and aren't you usually on about how inorganic and empty modern food is? Because you would halve numbers automatically if you abolished non-rockdust fertilisers.
The ridiculous stories aren't about what might in theory happen, they are about what is actually happening. Do you have any idea how dry the SW USA has been for how long?
Any yet its population has continued to expand, dramatically.
Fresh water availability - ultimately - is just an engineering challenge. If we, like the ancient Romans, want lots of people in places without lots of water, then we need to bring it in.
And if that requires desalination, that requires desalination.
Riyadh, a city of 8 million people in the middle of the desert, is supplied almost entirely from desalination plants on the coast.
In the U.K. there is many times the rainfall required to supply water for the population, even if they are extravagant with it. The issue is storing it in the plentiful times. We need more reservoirs.
I have never understood the issue with building reservoirs. Who objects to a nice lake?
Typically the people whose homes will be flooded by it.
All the proposed reservoir projects I’ve seen, for a long time, are things like flooding old gravel workings. The amounts of water required aren’t actually vast. The average person uses something like 50 tons of water a year. So a reservoir 2km x 2km and 12m deep would provide water for a million people for a year….
A 4 sq km reservoir would be the 3rd largest reservoir in the country by surface area mind.
Ach, actually just the 8th
I make it the sixth largest in England. Vyrnwy and Trawsfynnydd (which I don't think is used for drinking water) are both in Wales.
I may have just come up with the greatest ever intro for a PB thread header.
Possibly the greatest every opening in the history of literature.
It'll be published overnight.
It will inevitably overtaken by revelations about one of the leadership candidates in the Sunday papers. At least, I am hoping that something will come along to enliven this dull, repetitive process. Has anyone heard from the Helsinki branch of pop bitch?
Trust me, you do not want to hear THE FINLAND RUMOUR
Comments
We certainly aren't getting the privilege of voting for the next PM free!
I dunno. Maybe if people won't believe the truth you have to lie to them. But I think the religious approach is counterproductive.
We had to go on a carbon literacy course at work. The fella leading it was a berk of the first order. The science he did present was overshadowed by his mockery of the straw man who disbelieved it - an approach which made me more sceptical, not less.
And I'm not a denier. I do believe AGW is real - and if it isn't, most of the remedies to it are things it would be good to do anyway, leading to cheaper energy and less reliance on questionable regimes. But the climate lobby do themsleves no favours.
Have just walked up and down the promenade here in El Campello. Its Saturday night at the end of the first week of Spanish summer holidays and I have never seen the place this busy. A load still on the beach half an hour back, the restaurants and cafes rammed, and everyone else also promenading up and down.
I know that its a steady sunny 22c back home, but I doubt there are mad crowds promenading down Fraserburgh's vast sandy beach, even though its longer than here...
And it's not just rape, women are smaller and weaker and are easier prey for any criminal. So it is understandable that women don't "cruise" as solo sex seekers
The crucial stat is the way sex dies *within* lesbian relationships. It even has a name. Lesbian Bed Death. It's not very politically correct but the stats don't lie
https://lgbt.foundation/who-we-help/women/sexual-health/lesbian-bed-death
Women want sex less than men; nature designed it that way
If water leakage was completely eliminated tomorrow, this would add a grand total of 15% to the U.K. water supply.
We need to treat reservoirs like schools, hospitals etc - x per head of population.
Oh, it's Leon.
Sadly, I'm of an age when I have quite a lot of friends in sexless or near sexless marriages. In 90% of cases the woman's desire died first. Around menopause usually. The men remain up for it, but increasingly pessimistic
https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1555970663319568388?s=20&t=GoHgb_k4e4jGQrTqE14EuQ
and old gravel workings is like brownfield building sites, a microscopic irrelevance. To make a worthwhile reservoir you have to flood thousands of acres of useful land, and it's not like we have so much of the stuff we can hand it out regardless for all and any purposes.
https://lesbianbeddeathband.bandcamp.com/
https://shop.conservatives.com/leadership-election.html
Did the same with Megadeath, mind.
ETA Francis only signed up as a jesuit novice at 22, so he may have quite legitimately got his knob out any number of times. Most hot blooded Argentinians have, by that age.
https://twitter.com/whazell/status/1556002448178831360?s=20&t=GoHgb_k4e4jGQrTqE14EuQ
There’s no land shortage in this country - land is cheap.
The current nonsense of people applying to uni based on a guess of their results, then going back later with the actual results is stupid.
All years ago, mind.
Is there a problem?
Though it was probably the hangover from that former belief system which blinded him to Our Lord's practise and celebration of male homosexual love.
11.6 million people to be spending a quarter or more of net income on fuel come January.
It's one louder.
“That’s why I used a donkey”.
Can you tell me who will still care
Can you tell me who will still care?
It's rather more a pressing issue though than Oxbridge interviews imho.
You love it because it provides an instant bias in favour of posh rich parents' children, who can afford a whole half year off school and before uni.
And how does that tie in with the academic year in the rest of the known galaxy?
Your lot has already screwed up Brexit and wrecked academic collaboration - now having a different academic cycle will mean zero collaboration with non-English* universities
*'English' because Ms T will have no remit in Wales, Scotland or NI, and still less the rest of the world. That's foreign language courses completely screwed. in terms of the 3rd year in the relevant foreign country. So much for world-wide commercial exploitation.
I could prolly put up a yurt 5 weeks a year, mind. But the point is, this is a very small and crowded country.
Of course, you are stuck in the idea that only classics or history of art or PPE degrees from Cowley Poly count.
Possibly the greatest every opening in the history of literature.
It'll be published overnight.
Christmas would also be ruined for most students, as you stress about moving from home to digs.
However we have had some sop to the masses, Starmer did his undergraduate degree at Leeds before his postgraduate degree at Oxford
Next best UK universities are Imperial at 7th and UCL at 8th
https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2022