While there has been some opposition to the offshore expansion of the Rampion wind farm off the Sussex coast, most of the debate has been about how the onshore bits get connected to the grid. This is the challenge with both offshore and onshore wind - ideally you want to build it as near to the people who will be using the power, and that’s where NIMBYs enter the frame. Personally I enjoy seeing the lights twinkling on the horizon - and marvel that Rampion 2 will be taller than the Eiffel Tower (though further out to sea). Try installing that on land!
One of the things I have always wondered in the case of wind farms is whether bigger is better. Does a 600ft tall turbine generate twice as much energy as 2x 300ft turbines?
I always blow the minds of people when I tell them you get more pizza with one 15 inch pizza than with 2 lots of 10 inch pizzas.
I always find it frustrating that people don't get the square and cube rules and are always amazed that some small things can jump relatively high distances, or that sparrows can have very thin legs or elephants can't jump or that cats can fall off windowsills unharmed yet we break bones, etc, etc and don't get that it is just an obvious function of mathematics/physics.
Dropping mammals down lift shafts: a mouse lives, a rat dies, a man breaks, a horse splashes.
JBS Haldane
Applies to money too, and talk of millions, billions and trillions - which get mixed up.
In a potential taxpaying population of 50 million (UK is about this):
£1m is 2p each
£1bn is £20 each
£1 tn is £20,000 each.
I think it was someone on here the other day who mentioned the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion in a way people can envisage.
1 million seconds is 11 days, 13 hours 46 minutes 1 billion seconds is 31 and a half years 1 trillion seconds is 31,688 years
Maybe I'm too much of a physicist, but what's so hard about 10^6 versus 10^9 versus 10^12? (Assuming short scale, of course)
Because people without a scientific way of thinking, are really, really bad at understanding large numbers.
Most people’s experience of money, for example, runs to no more than 10^4 or 10^5, an annual salary or the price of a house. This is important in politics, where talk of billions and trillions go straight over the heads of the majority of the population.
Even that minimises the difference because increases in volume are underestimated for similar reasons compared to length. As that guys YouTube video of his boring drive demonstrated.
All this talk of Latinos...I thought that was a bit like BAME, now deemed offensive...it had to be LatinX.
Our US division got mad push back when the local HR team tried to do that. Loads of reply all emails from Latino people telling them to get fucked in different ways. I think they just use "Latin American people" now.
Good. If nothing else it's disrespectful to the Spanish language and by extension those who speak it.
All this talk of Latinos...I thought that was a bit like BAME, now deemed offensive...it had to be LatinX.
Wasn’t that the term that rich white educated Americans decided should be used for people of South American origin, for reasons of gender ambiguity - without asking them first, and with a predictable backlash?
Yeap......I mean I think Latino doesn't always go down in itself. People from Cuba don't exactly like being lumped in with say Mexicans, in the same way as some on here wouldn't like to be lumped interchangbly with the French.
Well fair enough (though a word for 'Spanish speaking immigrant' seems pretty useful) - but how does calling them the harder-to-pronounce 'Latinx' help that?
Noticeable how Luton and Leicester stick out on that map...
When the churches are full - and quite a few Catholic churches are - they are full of people who recently came from the still very, very catholic countries. Like Peru.
9% of the English population is Catholic (IIRC) - something like 20% are CoE
But actual church attendance rates are double for Catholics, IIRC.
Which means that we are close to a point where there will be more practising Catholics than practising members of the CoE, since CoE is shrinking and Catholicism is growing.
The Monarch being Head of the CoE really is an anachronism.
Time to get rid.
Defender of the Faithless.
Charles wants to be Defender of Faith rather than just Defender of the Faith. He can comfortably still be that given well over 50% of the population of England and Wales still described themselves as belonging to the Abrahamic religions ie Christianity, Judaism and Islam. More still have faith adding in Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims
If not Charles, then almost certainly his successor will have to consider the faithless majority.
Still only 37% and depends on immigration too. The vast majority of switching to non religious are native British whites.
British Asians are overwhelmingly Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. Black British are mainly Christians, especially Pentecostal. Poles in the UK tend to be Roman Catholic.
London and Birmingham already now majority non white British born and more religious than the rest of the UK.
So the more we get continued high immigration, the more the boats from Africa continue to come etc, the more religious we will continue to be
Something like two thirds of teenagers are estimated to be irreligious, so I think your confidence misplaced.
White British native teenagers mainly, who will have fewer children than immigrants growing up.
The more immigrants we get the more religious we get
And yet birth rates in highly religious countries - like Romania or Malta - are no better than in irreligious places.
And yet birth rates in highly religious countries - like Pakistan or the UAE - are way higher than in irreligious places.
My point is that there's no simple correlation. You can't just say - religious therefore lots of babies born. Hence Malta (where only 2% of the population are irreligious) has one of the lowest birthrates in the world.
Indeed, if you want to look at causation, I think it probably goes more like this:
Poor country -> more likely to have a high birthrate Poor country -> more likely to be religious
And the more the boats come from Africa and the more the migrants come from South Asia in turn the more religious we get again
It's curious the events that pundits have proclaimed to be 'great news for Nigel Farage' over the years. Cameron sacking Owen Paterson, Grant Shapps mentioning 'Bingo' in a budget tweet are two that spring to mind. Yet still the man's career never rises above right-wing shock jock and Trump groupie. Why is this?
Looks like we'll be playing Senegal in the next round. They look pretty decent.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm on Iran to win the group at 14.5.
That's a really good price. Assuming you got on before the start? It's basically a double now. Iran to win and England not to.
PS. Am I the only one who'll be watching Iran v USA? It's a knockout game and a political grudge match which has become very personal too. Loads of bad mouthing. Could be a bit tasty.
“During 7 hours of questioning under oath asking if he colluded with social media companies to censor COVID-related content, Fauci said he had “no clear memory of details that would shed light on his involvement in speech suppression.””
While there has been some opposition to the offshore expansion of the Rampion wind farm off the Sussex coast, most of the debate has been about how the onshore bits get connected to the grid. This is the challenge with both offshore and onshore wind - ideally you want to build it as near to the people who will be using the power, and that’s where NIMBYs enter the frame. Personally I enjoy seeing the lights twinkling on the horizon - and marvel that Rampion 2 will be taller than the Eiffel Tower (though further out to sea). Try installing that on land!
One of the things I have always wondered in the case of wind farms is whether bigger is better. Does a 600ft tall turbine generate twice as much energy as 2x 300ft turbines?
I always blow the minds of people when I tell them you get more pizza with one 15 inch pizza than with 2 lots of 10 inch pizzas.
I always find it frustrating that people don't get the square and cube rules and are always amazed that some small things can jump relatively high distances, or that sparrows can have very thin legs or elephants can't jump or that cats can fall off windowsills unharmed yet we break bones, etc, etc and don't get that it is just an obvious function of mathematics/physics.
Dropping mammals down lift shafts: a mouse lives, a rat dies, a man breaks, a horse splashes.
JBS Haldane
Applies to money too, and talk of millions, billions and trillions - which get mixed up.
In a potential taxpaying population of 50 million (UK is about this):
£1m is 2p each
£1bn is £20 each
£1 tn is £20,000 each.
I think it was someone on here the other day who mentioned the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion in a way people can envisage.
1 million seconds is 11 days, 13 hours 46 minutes 1 billion seconds is 31 and a half years 1 trillion seconds is 31,688 years
Maybe I'm too much of a physicist, but what's so hard about 10^6 versus 10^9 versus 10^12? (Assuming short scale, of course)
Because people without a scientific way of thinking, are really, really bad at understanding large numbers.
Most people’s experience of money, for example, runs to no more than 10^4 or 10^5, an annual salary or the price of a house. This is important in politics, where talk of billions and trillions go straight over the heads of the majority of the population.
Looks like we'll be playing Senegal in the next round. They look pretty decent.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm on Iran to win the group at 14.5.
That's a really good price. Assuming you got on before the start? It's basically a double now. Iran to win and England not to.
PS. Am I the only one who'll be watching Iran v USA? It's a knockout game and a political grudge match which has become very personal too. Loads of bad mouthing. Could be a bit tasty.
Noticeable how Luton and Leicester stick out on that map...
When the churches are full - and quite a few Catholic churches are - they are full of people who recently came from the still very, very catholic countries. Like Peru.
9% of the English population is Catholic (IIRC) - something like 20% are CoE
But actual church attendance rates are double for Catholics, IIRC.
Which means that we are close to a point where there will be more practising Catholics than practising members of the CoE, since CoE is shrinking and Catholicism is growing.
CoE will probably take a big hit early next year. If, as is likely, the "Living in Love and Faith*" stuff goes the way the liberals want, a lot of the evangelicals will be off out, either as individuals or entire churches. I'm on the PCC of an evangelical Anglican church that's currently within the CoE - the conversation at our meetings has moved on from "if this goes through should we leave?" to "what practical stuff do we need to do now to leave next year, and should we join AMiE or one of the other alternatives?"
We're by far the largest Anglican church for miles - our main Sunday service is probably 3 times the congregations of the other five Anglicans churches in town put together.
I'm not sure that the liberals will be as pleased with the husk of a church they will end up being left with as they currently expect.
*basically permitting gay marriage in church
Unless I'm mistaken and things have changed without me picking up on the change - while your priest can resign and (some of) the congregation will leave - you won't be able to continue using the church and you will need to find somewhere else to hold whatever services your new church wishes to hold.
It depends. We're a particularly unusual setup compared to your average parish church, which means that we can just send our old bishop an official letter to say so long and thanks for all the fish and we're out, with our buildings, money etc all coming with us. Several of the large evangelical Anglican churches are actually on this sort of basis - we're not unique on this.
There's going to be a fun legal battle for some of the regular parish churches - iirc the building is technically the property of either the minister or the wardens (I forget which), and it's unclear what would happen (other than running up a massive legal bill) if they announced they were ceding, with the blessing of their PCC... Doubtless someone will go for a test case.
It's curious the events that pundits have proclaimed to be 'great news for Nigel Farage' over the years. Cameron sacking Owen Paterson, Grant Shapps mentioning 'Bingo' in a budget tweet are two that spring to mind. Yet still the man's career never rises above right-wing shock jock and Trump groupie. Why is this?
Because Farage is an irredeemable pillock.
That didn't stop Johnson, Sturgeon or Corbyn.
Or, looking further afield, Chavez, Trump, Duterte, Modi, Netanyahu, Macron or Meloni.
I've just read it, and wish I hadn't bothered. Goodwin is just spouting the same old tosh that he's been spouting for the last 6 years: all the public care about is immigration, which is far too high; there's a danger of populist answers; and Farage is the solution.
Fortuitously, there's a fundamental error in Goodwin's analysis. He assumes that people's votes are largely predicated on their beliefs about immigration, and that other matters (the economy, living standards, the NHS, education, law and order, green issues, etc.) are second-order issues that don't weigh at least as heavily on voters' decisions. He's wrong.
Noticeable how Luton and Leicester stick out on that map...
When the churches are full - and quite a few Catholic churches are - they are full of people who recently came from the still very, very catholic countries. Like Peru.
9% of the English population is Catholic (IIRC) - something like 20% are CoE
But actual church attendance rates are double for Catholics, IIRC.
Which means that we are close to a point where there will be more practising Catholics than practising members of the CoE, since CoE is shrinking and Catholicism is growing.
CoE will probably take a big hit early next year. If, as is likely, the "Living in Love and Faith*" stuff goes the way the liberals want, a lot of the evangelicals will be off out, either as individuals or entire churches. I'm on the PCC of an evangelical Anglican church that's currently within the CoE - the conversation at our meetings has moved on from "if this goes through should we leave?" to "what practical stuff do we need to do now to leave next year, and should we join AMiE or one of the other alternatives?"
We're by far the largest Anglican church for miles - our main Sunday service is probably 3 times the congregations of the other five Anglicans churches in town put together.
I'm not sure that the liberals will be as pleased with the husk of a church they will end up being left with as they currently expect.
*basically permitting gay marriage in church
Unless I'm mistaken and things have changed without me picking up on the change - while your priest can resign and (some of) the congregation will leave - you won't be able to continue using the church and you will need to find somewhere else to hold whatever services your new church wishes to hold.
It depends. We're a particularly unusual setup compared to your average parish church, which means that we can just send our old bishop an official letter to say so long and thanks for all the fish and we're out, with our buildings, money etc all coming with us. Several of the large evangelical Anglican churches are actually on this sort of basis - we're not unique on this.
There's going to be a fun legal battle for some of the regular parish churches - iirc the building is technically the property of either the minister or the wardens (I forget which), and it's unclear what would happen (other than running up a massive legal bill) if they announced they were ceding, with the blessing of their PCC... Doubtless someone will go for a test case.
Again very reminiscent of the Free Church of Scotland - both on its formation and its later splits (the latter particularly, for the legal test cases as well).
While there has been some opposition to the offshore expansion of the Rampion wind farm off the Sussex coast, most of the debate has been about how the onshore bits get connected to the grid. This is the challenge with both offshore and onshore wind - ideally you want to build it as near to the people who will be using the power, and that’s where NIMBYs enter the frame. Personally I enjoy seeing the lights twinkling on the horizon - and marvel that Rampion 2 will be taller than the Eiffel Tower (though further out to sea). Try installing that on land!
One of the things I have always wondered in the case of wind farms is whether bigger is better. Does a 600ft tall turbine generate twice as much energy as 2x 300ft turbines?
I always blow the minds of people when I tell them you get more pizza with one 15 inch pizza than with 2 lots of 10 inch pizzas.
I always find it frustrating that people don't get the square and cube rules and are always amazed that some small things can jump relatively high distances, or that sparrows can have very thin legs or elephants can't jump or that cats can fall off windowsills unharmed yet we break bones, etc, etc and don't get that it is just an obvious function of mathematics/physics.
Dropping mammals down lift shafts: a mouse lives, a rat dies, a man breaks, a horse splashes.
JBS Haldane
Applies to money too, and talk of millions, billions and trillions - which get mixed up.
In a potential taxpaying population of 50 million (UK is about this):
£1m is 2p each
£1bn is £20 each
£1 tn is £20,000 each.
I think it was someone on here the other day who mentioned the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion in a way people can envisage.
1 million seconds is 11 days, 13 hours 46 minutes 1 billion seconds is 31 and a half years 1 trillion seconds is 31,688 years
Maybe I'm too much of a physicist, but what's so hard about 10^6 versus 10^9 versus 10^12? (Assuming short scale, of course)
Because people without a scientific way of thinking, are really, really bad at understanding large numbers.
Most people’s experience of money, for example, runs to no more than 10^4 or 10^5, an annual salary or the price of a house. This is important in politics, where talk of billions and trillions go straight over the heads of the majority of the population.
I've done some very rough numbers on onshore wind to power all domestic energy use
I chose Scout Moor wind farm pretty much at random. It's quite old; was started fifteen years ago. So some prices will have gone up a lot, but I'd guess some prices would come down if we did a huge program of making and building this stuff ourselves
Scout Moor cost £50m for 26 turbines, about £2m per turbine
It produces the current total energy use of 40,000 homes, or about 1,500 per turbine
When running at maximum capacity, a single turbine will provide peak electricity demand for about 1,000 homes
When we triple total electricity usage per household by turning to electric heating and cars, then one turbine will provide the annual energy for about 500 homes
This works out quite well with peak electricity demand probably doubling to take account of heating and lights in winter
But this assumes perfect energy storage
We're nowhere near that, so I think we need to nearly double the number of turbines to get to 300 homes per turbine
And everyone would need a battery room at home
How much would a 100kWh battery cost? That would power the average household for almost a fortnight on current demand
So, say price per turbine is now £3m, but with no increase in efficiency from 2007, it would cost about £10,000 per household to get their turbine built, and about the same for the battery room (I'm completely guessing there)
So about £20,000 per household for pretty much free energy (obviously will have to pay toward maintenance and replacements eventually)
Not much over half a trillion to make us totally onshore wind powered
Done over ten years that wouldn't be totally insane
And we obviously don't need to do it all with onshore wind. Or have every house with a battery room
IIRC a little while back, Tesla were charging $900,000 for a container full of battery storage - 3MWh.
Noticeable how Luton and Leicester stick out on that map...
When the churches are full - and quite a few Catholic churches are - they are full of people who recently came from the still very, very catholic countries. Like Peru.
9% of the English population is Catholic (IIRC) - something like 20% are CoE
But actual church attendance rates are double for Catholics, IIRC.
Which means that we are close to a point where there will be more practising Catholics than practising members of the CoE, since CoE is shrinking and Catholicism is growing.
CoE will probably take a big hit early next year. If, as is likely, the "Living in Love and Faith*" stuff goes the way the liberals want, a lot of the evangelicals will be off out, either as individuals or entire churches. I'm on the PCC of an evangelical Anglican church that's currently within the CoE - the conversation at our meetings has moved on from "if this goes through should we leave?" to "what practical stuff do we need to do now to leave next year, and should we join AMiE or one of the other alternatives?"
We're by far the largest Anglican church for miles - our main Sunday service is probably 3 times the congregations of the other five Anglicans churches in town put together.
I'm not sure that the liberals will be as pleased with the husk of a church they will end up being left with as they currently expect.
*basically permitting gay marriage in church
Unless I'm mistaken and things have changed without me picking up on the change - while your priest can resign and (some of) the congregation will leave - you won't be able to continue using the church and you will need to find somewhere else to hold whatever services your new church wishes to hold.
It depends. We're a particularly unusual setup compared to your average parish church, which means that we can just send our old bishop an official letter to say so long and thanks for all the fish and we're out, with our buildings, money etc all coming with us. Several of the large evangelical Anglican churches are actually on this sort of basis - we're not unique on this.
There's going to be a fun legal battle for some of the regular parish churches - iirc the building is technically the property of either the minister or the wardens (I forget which), and it's unclear what would happen (other than running up a massive legal bill) if they announced they were ceding, with the blessing of their PCC... Doubtless someone will go for a test case.
A parish church is held by the wardens and the incumbent but not in fee simple. In the event of closure or the departure of the congregation it reverts to the Church Commissioners.
I'm assuming yours is a planted church or a mission church?
Edit - by the way, there have already been many such test cases of parishes attempting to secede, over the Ordinariate. They lost, could not take the buildings or contents with them.
I've just read it, and wish I hadn't bothered. Goodwin is just spouting the same old tosh that he's been spouting for the last 6 years: all the public care about is immigration, which is far too high; there's a danger of populist answers; and Farage is the solution.
Fortuitously, there's a fundamental error in Goodwin's analysis. He assumes that people's votes are largely predicated on their beliefs about immigration, and that other matters (the economy, living standards, the NHS, education, law and order, green issues, etc.) are second-order issues that don't weigh at least as heavily on voters' decisions. He's wrong.
I've just read it, and wish I hadn't bothered. Goodwin is just spouting the same old tosh that he's been spouting for the last 6 years: all the public care about is immigration, which is far too high; there's a danger of populist answers; and Farage is the solution.
Fortuitously, there's a fundamental error in Goodwin's analysis. He assumes that people's votes are largely predicated on their beliefs about immigration, and that other matters (the economy, living standards, the NHS, education, law and order, green issues, etc.) are second-order issues that don't weigh at least as heavily on voters' decisions. He's wrong.
"That Britain’s liberal minority would respond badly to the Brexit vote and refuse to compromise on immigration was always my fear." He's still confusing "a Tory government" with "the liberal minority", I see.
Looks like we'll be playing Senegal in the next round. They look pretty decent.
Don't like Southgate hear that, he will try and play 27 at the back....Kane up front on his own.
Kane seemed to spend most of his time in defence in the USA game anyway (and performed very well doing it as well). Not sure he would know what to do if they stuck him up front.
I've just read it, and wish I hadn't bothered. Goodwin is just spouting the same old tosh that he's been spouting for the last 6 years: all the public care about is immigration, which is far too high; there's a danger of populist answers; and Farage is the solution.
Fortuitously, there's a fundamental error in Goodwin's analysis. He assumes that people's votes are largely predicated on their beliefs about immigration, and that other matters (the economy, living standards, the NHS, education, law and order, green issues, etc.) are second-order issues that don't weigh at least as heavily on voters' decisions. He's wrong.
When Goodwin first arrived he was a breath of fresh air. But he keeps writing the same article, again and again and again.
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
I've done some very rough numbers on onshore wind to power all domestic energy use
I chose Scout Moor wind farm pretty much at random. It's quite old; was started fifteen years ago. So some prices will have gone up a lot, but I'd guess some prices would come down if we did a huge program of making and building this stuff ourselves
Scout Moor cost £50m for 26 turbines, about £2m per turbine
It produces the current total energy use of 40,000 homes, or about 1,500 per turbine
When running at maximum capacity, a single turbine will provide peak electricity demand for about 1,000 homes
When we triple total electricity usage per household by turning to electric heating and cars, then one turbine will provide the annual energy for about 500 homes
This works out quite well with peak electricity demand probably doubling to take account of heating and lights in winter
But this assumes perfect energy storage
We're nowhere near that, so I think we need to nearly double the number of turbines to get to 300 homes per turbine
And everyone would need a battery room at home
How much would a 100kWh battery cost? That would power the average household for almost a fortnight on current demand
So, say price per turbine is now £3m, but with no increase in efficiency from 2007, it would cost about £10,000 per household to get their turbine built, and about the same for the battery room (I'm completely guessing there)
So about £20,000 per household for pretty much free energy (obviously will have to pay toward maintenance and replacements eventually)
Not much over half a trillion to make us totally onshore wind powered
Done over ten years that wouldn't be totally insane
And we obviously don't need to do it all with onshore wind. Or have every house with a battery room
IIRC a little while back, Tesla were charging $900,000 for a container full of battery storage - 3MWh.
A 100KWh is 1/30 of that.....
So £10k would get you four or five days of storage at current average electricity use. Not much at all in winter when it's all electric
I guess we're going to have to turn Chile inside out for its lithium and copper
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
Noticeable how Luton and Leicester stick out on that map...
When the churches are full - and quite a few Catholic churches are - they are full of people who recently came from the still very, very catholic countries. Like Peru.
9% of the English population is Catholic (IIRC) - something like 20% are CoE
But actual church attendance rates are double for Catholics, IIRC.
Which means that we are close to a point where there will be more practising Catholics than practising members of the CoE, since CoE is shrinking and Catholicism is growing.
CoE will probably take a big hit early next year. If, as is likely, the "Living in Love and Faith*" stuff goes the way the liberals want, a lot of the evangelicals will be off out, either as individuals or entire churches. I'm on the PCC of an evangelical Anglican church that's currently within the CoE - the conversation at our meetings has moved on from "if this goes through should we leave?" to "what practical stuff do we need to do now to leave next year, and should we join AMiE or one of the other alternatives?"
We're by far the largest Anglican church for miles - our main Sunday service is probably 3 times the congregations of the other five Anglicans churches in town put together.
I'm not sure that the liberals will be as pleased with the husk of a church they will end up being left with as they currently expect.
*basically permitting gay marriage in church
Unless I'm mistaken and things have changed without me picking up on the change - while your priest can resign and (some of) the congregation will leave - you won't be able to continue using the church and you will need to find somewhere else to hold whatever services your new church wishes to hold.
It depends. We're a particularly unusual setup compared to your average parish church, which means that we can just send our old bishop an official letter to say so long and thanks for all the fish and we're out, with our buildings, money etc all coming with us. Several of the large evangelical Anglican churches are actually on this sort of basis - we're not unique on this.
There's going to be a fun legal battle for some of the regular parish churches - iirc the building is technically the property of either the minister or the wardens (I forget which), and it's unclear what would happen (other than running up a massive legal bill) if they announced they were ceding, with the blessing of their PCC... Doubtless someone will go for a test case.
Again very reminiscent of the Free Church of Scotland - both on its formation and its later splits (the latter particularly, for the legal test cases as well).
A certain analogy concerning bald men and combs immediately springs to mind. The established church is on the verge of tearing itself to pieces over a question - are we nice to the gays, or do we want them to burn in Hell - that wider society made up its mind about (in favour of being nice, broadly speaking,) years ago, and moved on. The God Squad, depending on which faction you're talking about, now seems at best to be playing catch-up, and at worst to be a bunch of cruel sods who would probably get on quite well with the ayatollahs.
Still, this is what the slide into impotence and irrelevance looks like, I suppose. People used to worship Zeus once, until they stopped.
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
Thurrock's total annual budget is about £150m a year.
Absolute filth.
'The Bureau has seen a document that says the £655m the council is owed by the company will be written down by £188m. In a statement issued through his legal firm Carter Ruck, Kavanagh said he had no role in the management of TEH1.'
£655million to one firm. ⸘That has never filed accounts‽ They've been completely played, right?
'some Thurrock councillors encouraged Clark to borrow and spend even more, with one declaring during a public meeting in June 2020: “The beautiful thing about this plan is that it’s someone else’s money."'
Noticeable how Luton and Leicester stick out on that map...
When the churches are full - and quite a few Catholic churches are - they are full of people who recently came from the still very, very catholic countries. Like Peru.
9% of the English population is Catholic (IIRC) - something like 20% are CoE
But actual church attendance rates are double for Catholics, IIRC.
Which means that we are close to a point where there will be more practising Catholics than practising members of the CoE, since CoE is shrinking and Catholicism is growing.
CoE will probably take a big hit early next year. If, as is likely, the "Living in Love and Faith*" stuff goes the way the liberals want, a lot of the evangelicals will be off out, either as individuals or entire churches. I'm on the PCC of an evangelical Anglican church that's currently within the CoE - the conversation at our meetings has moved on from "if this goes through should we leave?" to "what practical stuff do we need to do now to leave next year, and should we join AMiE or one of the other alternatives?"
We're by far the largest Anglican church for miles - our main Sunday service is probably 3 times the congregations of the other five Anglicans churches in town put together.
I'm not sure that the liberals will be as pleased with the husk of a church they will end up being left with as they currently expect.
*basically permitting gay marriage in church
Unless I'm mistaken and things have changed without me picking up on the change - while your priest can resign and (some of) the congregation will leave - you won't be able to continue using the church and you will need to find somewhere else to hold whatever services your new church wishes to hold.
It depends. We're a particularly unusual setup compared to your average parish church, which means that we can just send our old bishop an official letter to say so long and thanks for all the fish and we're out, with our buildings, money etc all coming with us. Several of the large evangelical Anglican churches are actually on this sort of basis - we're not unique on this.
There's going to be a fun legal battle for some of the regular parish churches - iirc the building is technically the property of either the minister or the wardens (I forget which), and it's unclear what would happen (other than running up a massive legal bill) if they announced they were ceding, with the blessing of their PCC... Doubtless someone will go for a test case.
Again very reminiscent of the Free Church of Scotland - both on its formation and its later splits (the latter particularly, for the legal test cases as well).
A certain analogy concerning bald men and combs immediately springs to mind. The established church is on the verge of tearing itself to pieces over a question - are we nice to the gays, or do we want them to burn in Hell - that wider society made up its mind about (in favour of being nice, broadly speaking,) years ago, and moved on. The God Squad, depending on which faction you're talking about, now seems at best to be playing catch-up, and at worst to be a bunch of cruel sods who would probably get on quite well with the ayatollahs.
Still, this is what the slide into impotence and irrelevance looks like, I suppose. People used to worship Zeus once, until they stopped.
I'm also reminded that the split of the assets within the FC of S did not necessarily go the majority way. Different legal system of course, though. Not to mention basis of the church in the first place.
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
What I don't understand at all is why local councils are investing money directly?! Surely they should just stick it all into fairly safe accumulator ETFs so they can call the money in easily when they need to spend it on services.
Re; the reporting below from the Telegraph, AFAIK the survey actually says that London is minority "White British", a dangerous conflation which should be "White English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish", and thus also actually discourages other white Britons from putting this into the survey form. From recalling the previous survey and the similar incorrect coverage, the number of white citizens in London is still clearly the majority.
This raises questions both about the deliberately provocative way the Mail, Telegraph and other right-wing newspapers report this, and also the divisive and misleading effects of the White British census category.
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
Re; the reporting below from the Telegraph, AFAIK the survey actually says that London is minority "White British", a dangerous conflation which should be "White English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish", and discourages other white Britons from actually putting this into the survey form. From recalling the previous survey, the number of white British citizens in London is still clearly the majority.
This raises questions about both the way the Mail, Telegraph and other right-wing newspapers report this, and also the divisive effects of the White British census category.
"white UK" is perfectly accurate here - and avouds the British/English/GB/UK confusions.
I've done some very rough numbers on onshore wind to power all domestic energy use
I chose Scout Moor wind farm pretty much at random. It's quite old; was started fifteen years ago. So some prices will have gone up a lot, but I'd guess some prices would come down if we did a huge program of making and building this stuff ourselves
Scout Moor cost £50m for 26 turbines, about £2m per turbine
It produces the current total energy use of 40,000 homes, or about 1,500 per turbine
When running at maximum capacity, a single turbine will provide peak electricity demand for about 1,000 homes
When we triple total electricity usage per household by turning to electric heating and cars, then one turbine will provide the annual energy for about 500 homes
This works out quite well with peak electricity demand probably doubling to take account of heating and lights in winter
But this assumes perfect energy storage
We're nowhere near that, so I think we need to nearly double the number of turbines to get to 300 homes per turbine
And everyone would need a battery room at home
How much would a 100kWh battery cost? That would power the average household for almost a fortnight on current demand
So, say price per turbine is now £3m, but with no increase in efficiency from 2007, it would cost about £10,000 per household to get their turbine built, and about the same for the battery room (I'm completely guessing there)
So about £20,000 per household for pretty much free energy (obviously will have to pay toward maintenance and replacements eventually)
Not much over half a trillion to make us totally onshore wind powered
Done over ten years that wouldn't be totally insane
And we obviously don't need to do it all with onshore wind. Or have every house with a battery room
IIRC a little while back, Tesla were charging $900,000 for a container full of battery storage - 3MWh.
A 100KWh is 1/30 of that.....
So £10k would get you four or five days of storage at current average electricity use. Not much at all in winter when it's all electric
I guess we're going to have to turn Chile inside out for its lithium and copper
Why not local plants electrolysing water into hydrogen and oxygen, storing the hydrogen short term, then using it via fuel cells to generate electricity when demand exceeds wind power?
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
What I don't understand at all is why local councils are investing money directly?! Surely they should just stick it all into fairly safe accumulator ETFs so they can call the money in easily when they need to spend it on services.
The Eternal Question - WHAT to Call People of Spanish Heritage (Sorta) in the United States?
Anyone who tries telling you there is a simple or straightforward answer, is blowing humo up your culo.
In USA, the regions South of the Border are commonly referred to as Latin America. Including South America PLUS Mexico, Central America and the West Indies except for English, French & Dutch former & current colonies. And the people therein & therefrom called Latin Americans as general moniker.
Interestingly, Western Hemisphere Spanish speakers generally say "norteamericano" when speaking of United States. Even (or especially) Mexicans, even though they are also (geographically) North Americans.
Tremendous geographic & cultural diversity of Latin America naturally leads to folks on all sides getting specific re: Mexicans, Cubans, Guatemalans, etc., etc. At same time, major increase in immigration to US from the region created need in America for general term beyond Latin American, for example when speaking about 2nd-generation & plus "Americans" of that heritage; "Latin American Americans" being a tad cumbersome.
Note that much of the distinctiveness of this community - or conglomeration of communities - stems from its use (prevalent but hardly universal) of Spanish. However, major differences between these folks and people from Spain largely (but not totally) precludes using "Spanish American" though that was indeed pretty common at beginning of 20th century.
Further note that role of immigrants from Brazil was NOT a big deal back then, or for many decades later, except in a few limited parts of US such as eastern Massachusetts.
Thus the rise of "Hispanic" especially after the US Census Bureau adopted it for (IIRC) 1970 Census, defined as persons of Spanish-speaking heritage regardless of "race" as defined (then and for most part today) in USA in White-Black-Asian-Native American context.
However, many Hispanics had & have issues with the term, often with generational preferences & divisions, similar to debates over Negro versus Colored versus African America (or Afro) versus Black versus etc., etc.
Thus the rise of "Latino" which BTW (also FYI) in USA almost never included people of French, Italian, Portuguese or Romanian heritage. Often preferred, esp. people with pre-Columbian Native American (North, Meso, South) roots, because it is NOT Spanish specific.
Fact that Spanish has gender distinction between "latina" and "latina" creates it own issues.
Thus the rise (if that's the right word) of "LatinX" which is methinks going the way of "Afro" which today in USA is just a retro hair style.
Naturally you get Cubans, Mexican, Hondurans, Paraguayans, etc. etc. who object to being lumped together. However, it's pretty tough for most of their English-speaking neighbors, customers, managers, fellow workers & students, etc., etc. to avoid such lumping. Same with Asians, Slavs and Africans recently from Africa.
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
What I don't understand at all is why local councils are investing money directly?! Surely they should just stick it all into fairly safe accumulator ETFs so they can call the money in easily when they need to spend it on services.
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
Thurrock's total annual budget is about £150m a year.
Absolute filth.
'The Bureau has seen a document that says the £655m the council is owed by the company will be written down by £188m. In a statement issued through his legal firm Carter Ruck, Kavanagh said he had no role in the management of TEH1.'
£655million to one firm. ⸘That has never filed accounts‽ They've been completely played, right?
'some Thurrock councillors encouraged Clark to borrow and spend even more, with one declaring during a public meeting in June 2020: “The beautiful thing about this plan is that it’s someone else’s money."'
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
What I don't understand at all is why local councils are investing money directly?! Surely they should just stick it all into fairly safe accumulator ETFs so they can call the money in easily when they need to spend it on services.
The council's accounts to March 2020 were audited, but the accounts to March 2021 have yet to be finalised as the audit is not complete! This suggests that problems should have been known at least a year ago when the 2020/21 accounts were delayed.
Re; the reporting below from the Telegraph, AFAIK the survey actually says that London is minority "White British", a dangerous conflation which should be "White English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish", and discourages other white Britons from actually putting this into the survey form. From recalling the previous survey, the number of white British citizens in London is still clearly the majority.
This raises questions about both the way the Mail, Telegraph and other right-wing newspapers report this, and also the divisive effects of the White British census category.
"white UK" is perfectly accurate here - and avouds the British/English/GB/UK confusions.
Re; the reporting below from the Telegraph, AFAIK the survey actually says that London is minority "White British", a dangerous conflation which should be "White English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish", and discourages other white Britons from actually putting this into the survey form. From recalling the previous survey, the number of white British citizens in London is still clearly the majority.
This raises questions about both the way the Mail, Telegraph and other right-wing newspapers report this, and also the divisive effects of the White British census category.
"white UK" is perfectly accurate here - and avouds the British/English/GB/UK confusions.
That could be better, and avoid the widespread incorrect view that "White British" on the census applies only to the oldest white population - and why Italians and Portugese in London, for instance, in many cases 2nd or even 3rd generation British, for instance, don't tend to put it in.
It also completely incorrectly conflates white with being British, as the sole criterion.
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
Thurrock's total annual budget is about £150m a year.
Surely the answer is simply to yank up council tax tenfold.
More likely a forced merger with Basildon I would have thought.
Can't see Basildon accepting them and their debts.
It's the same as the continual attempts to solve the disaster that is Cleveland Police Force by getting 1 of Northumbria, County Durham or North Yorkshire police to "merge" with that. Anyone even vaguely sane in the other 3 police forces finds a way of escaping any merger.
Re; the reporting below from the Telegraph, AFAIK the survey actually says that London is minority "White British", a dangerous conflation which should be "White English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish", and discourages other white Britons from actually putting this into the survey form. From recalling the previous survey, the number of white British citizens in London is still clearly the majority.
This raises questions about both the way the Mail, Telegraph and other right-wing newspapers report this, and also the divisive effects of the White British census category.
"white UK" is perfectly accurate here - and avouds the British/English/GB/UK confusions.
Re; the reporting below from the Telegraph, AFAIK the survey actually says that London is minority "White British", a dangerous conflation which should be "White English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish", and discourages other white Britons from actually putting this into the survey form. From recalling the previous survey, the number of white British citizens in London is still clearly the majority.
This raises questions about both the way the Mail, Telegraph and other right-wing newspapers report this, and also the divisive effects of the White British census category.
"white UK" is perfectly accurate here - and avouds the British/English/GB/UK confusions.
That could be better, and avoid the widespread incorrect view that "White British" on the census applies only to the oldest white population - and why Italians and Portugese in London, for instance, in many cases 2nd or even 3rd generation British, for instance, don't tend to put it in.
It also completely incorrectly conflates white with being British, as the sole criterion.
Also the Irish part (or lack of a clear indication thereof) is a receipe for still more confusion.
@Gareth_Davies09 BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
What I don't understand at all is why local councils are investing money directly?! Surely they should just stick it all into fairly safe accumulator ETFs so they can call the money in easily when they need to spend it on services.
Not suggesting that it's right at all, but I suspect that some councils are doing so in order to try and increase the returns and bridge the gap between income and expenditure as an alternative to slashing service provision, or raising council tax. Now clearly it might go horribly wrong (likely to do so in fact), but if you're an elected council member that's probably an issue for the other side of the local election that you're about to fight... which makes the risk-reward much more tempting.
Comments
It's basically a double now. Iran to win and England not to.
PS. Am I the only one who'll be watching Iran v USA?
It's a knockout game and a political grudge match which has become very personal too.
Loads of bad mouthing. Could be a bit tasty.
“During 7 hours of questioning under oath asking if he colluded with social media companies to censor COVID-related content, Fauci said he had “no clear memory of details that would shed light on his involvement in speech suppression.””
https://dailycaller.com/2022/11/28/fauci-memory-covid19-deposition-biden/
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.197057668
Cheers. I'm outta here for a while.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSMOQKNXbV8
There's going to be a fun legal battle for some of the regular parish churches - iirc the building is technically the property of either the minister or the wardens (I forget which), and it's unclear what would happen (other than running up a massive legal bill) if they announced they were ceding, with the blessing of their PCC... Doubtless someone will go for a test case.
Or, looking further afield, Chavez, Trump, Duterte, Modi, Netanyahu, Macron or Meloni.
A
S
Y
Fortuitously, there's a fundamental error in Goodwin's analysis. He assumes that people's votes are largely predicated on their beliefs about immigration, and that other matters (the economy, living standards, the NHS, education, law and order, green issues, etc.) are second-order issues that don't weigh at least as heavily on voters' decisions. He's wrong.
A 100KWh is 1/30 of that.....
I'm assuming yours is a planted church or a mission church?
Edit - by the way, there have already been many such test cases of parishes attempting to secede, over the Ordinariate. They lost, could not take the buildings or contents with them.
He's still confusing "a Tory government" with "the liberal minority", I see.
Gareth Davies
Actually Verified
@Gareth_Davies09
BREAKING: Thurrock Council reveals £500m black hole caused by failed investments - the biggest funding gap ever reported by a UK local authority
https://twitter.com/Gareth_Davies09/status/1597640990411853824
Thurrock's total annual budget is about £150m a year.
Tory waste and incompetence.
I guess we're going to have to turn Chile inside out for its lithium and copper
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-63780100.amp
Whatever it was it wasn't smart.
How are they allowed to effectively gamble a billion anyways?
I suspect there will be more.
https://twitter.com/Gareth_Davies09/status/1597640990411853824
Still, this is what the slide into impotence and irrelevance looks like, I suppose. People used to worship Zeus once, until they stopped.
'The Bureau has seen a document that says the £655m the council is owed by the company will be written down by £188m. In a statement issued through his legal firm Carter Ruck, Kavanagh said he had no role in the management of TEH1.'
£655million to one firm. ⸘That has never filed accounts‽ They've been completely played, right?
'some Thurrock councillors encouraged Clark to borrow and spend even more, with one declaring during a public meeting in June 2020: “The beautiful thing about this plan is that it’s someone else’s money."'
@HYUFD a little close to home?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bannatyne_v._Overtoun
http://www.inksters.com/courtsettleslongrunningchurchdispute.aspx
This raises questions both about the deliberately provocative way the Mail, Telegraph and other right-wing newspapers report this, and also the divisive and misleading effects of the White British census category.
Where were the auditors of Thurrock?
Anyone who tries telling you there is a simple or straightforward answer, is blowing humo up your culo.
In USA, the regions South of the Border are commonly referred to as Latin America. Including South America PLUS Mexico, Central America and the West Indies except for English, French & Dutch former & current colonies. And the people therein & therefrom called Latin Americans as general moniker.
Interestingly, Western Hemisphere Spanish speakers generally say "norteamericano" when speaking of United States. Even (or especially) Mexicans, even though they are also (geographically) North Americans.
Tremendous geographic & cultural diversity of Latin America naturally leads to folks on all sides getting specific re: Mexicans, Cubans, Guatemalans, etc., etc. At same time, major increase in immigration to US from the region created need in America for general term beyond Latin American, for example when speaking about 2nd-generation & plus "Americans" of that heritage; "Latin American Americans" being a tad cumbersome.
Note that much of the distinctiveness of this community - or conglomeration of communities - stems from its use (prevalent but hardly universal) of Spanish. However, major differences between these folks and people from Spain largely (but not totally) precludes using "Spanish American" though that was indeed pretty common at beginning of 20th century.
Further note that role of immigrants from Brazil was NOT a big deal back then, or for many decades later, except in a few limited parts of US such as eastern Massachusetts.
Thus the rise of "Hispanic" especially after the US Census Bureau adopted it for (IIRC) 1970 Census, defined as persons of Spanish-speaking heritage regardless of "race" as defined (then and for most part today) in USA in White-Black-Asian-Native American context.
However, many Hispanics had & have issues with the term, often with generational preferences & divisions, similar to debates over Negro versus Colored versus African America (or Afro) versus Black versus etc., etc.
Thus the rise of "Latino" which BTW (also FYI) in USA almost never included people of French, Italian, Portuguese or Romanian heritage. Often preferred, esp. people with pre-Columbian Native American (North, Meso, South) roots, because it is NOT Spanish specific.
Fact that Spanish has gender distinction between "latina" and "latina" creates it own issues.
Thus the rise (if that's the right word) of "LatinX" which is methinks going the way of "Afro" which today in USA is just a retro hair style.
Naturally you get Cubans, Mexican, Hondurans, Paraguayans, etc. etc. who object to being lumped together. However, it's pretty tough for most of their English-speaking neighbors, customers, managers, fellow workers & students, etc., etc. to avoid such lumping. Same with Asians, Slavs and Africans recently from Africa.
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/06/heres-how-orange-county-went-broke/
It also completely incorrectly conflates white with being British, as the sole criterion.
(Actually, it's a bit messy; Thurrock is unitary, whereas the neighbours are Basildon and Epping Forest which are two-tier.
Maybe we should really make Thurrock suffer. Merge them with Havering and drag all those ex-Londoners back into the metropolis...)
It's the same as the continual attempts to solve the disaster that is Cleveland Police Force by getting 1 of Northumbria, County Durham or North Yorkshire police to "merge" with that. Anyone even vaguely sane in the other 3 police forces finds a way of escaping any merger.
Gone the way of Thurrock Council
Put a lien on every house in the borough.