What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
I can't comment about the Civil Service but in local Government I would say there are a lot of Conservatives behind the scenes among senior officers including in authorities not run by the Conservatives.
The political "awareness" of senior local Government officers will vary depending on the political composition of the authority. If you are in a Council which frequently changes hands or where it's often a coalition of parties which runs the administration, it becomes vital for any senior officer to watch the political winds and maintain lines of communication with the opposition front bench.
In 2019, we saw a number of authorities move from a long period of Conservative majority control to new administrations led by LDs, residents, independents or combinations thereof. There were some senior officers who found it very difficult to serve the new administration having got perhaps a little too "comfortable" with the previous Cabinet or senior leadership. They were, shall we say, encouraged to seek new opportunities. It's true to say however most local Government officers don't get too concerned with changes in political control and carry on with the tasks at hand. Changes in policy direction tend to be rather more muted once the reality of being in power hits.
Yes, there were plenty of, in effect, NIMBY LD and Independent and Residents coalitions which took control of councils in the Home Counties and South of England in May 2019. They were much less pro developer and new housing on the whole than the Tory administrations they replaced.
Those who say the Tories haven't built enough houses should remember it isn't the Conservatives who are the real NIMBYs, it is Independents and Residents Associations, often in alliance with local Liberal Democrats and Greens. Starmer will find they try and block his plans to greatly expand new house and flat building too if he becomes PM
Good. Protect our green spaces. Protect wildlife habitat.
We should be rewilding, not destroying.
We should absolutely not be rewilding, empty supermarket shelves speak volumes about the wasteful stupidity of such a policy.
I can't comment about the Civil Service but in local Government I would say there are a lot of Conservatives behind the scenes among senior officers including in authorities not run by the Conservatives.
The political "awareness" of senior local Government officers will vary depending on the political composition of the authority. If you are in a Council which frequently changes hands or where it's often a coalition of parties which runs the administration, it becomes vital for any senior officer to watch the political winds and maintain lines of communication with the opposition front bench.
In 2019, we saw a number of authorities move from a long period of Conservative majority control to new administrations led by LDs, residents, independents or combinations thereof. There were some senior officers who found it very difficult to serve the new administration having got perhaps a little too "comfortable" with the previous Cabinet or senior leadership. They were, shall we say, encouraged to seek new opportunities. It's true to say however most local Government officers don't get too concerned with changes in political control and carry on with the tasks at hand. Changes in policy direction tend to be rather more muted once the reality of being in power hits.
Yes, there were plenty of, in effect, NIMBY LD and Independent and Residents coalitions which took control of councils in the Home Counties and South of England in May 2019. They were much less pro developer and new housing on the whole than the Tory administrations they replaced.
Those who say the Tories haven't built enough houses should remember it isn't the Conservatives who are the real NIMBYs, it is Independents and Residents Associations, often in alliance with local Liberal Democrats and Greens. Starmer will find they try and block his plans to greatly expand new house and flat building too if he becomes PM
Good. Protect our green spaces. Protect wildlife habitat.
We should be rewilding, not destroying.
We should absolutely not be rewilding, empty supermarket shelves speak volumes about the wasteful stupidity of such a policy.
I could go for rewilding if it meant better provision of wild boar and bear steaks
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
I can't comment about the Civil Service but in local Government I would say there are a lot of Conservatives behind the scenes among senior officers including in authorities not run by the Conservatives.
The political "awareness" of senior local Government officers will vary depending on the political composition of the authority. If you are in a Council which frequently changes hands or where it's often a coalition of parties which runs the administration, it becomes vital for any senior officer to watch the political winds and maintain lines of communication with the opposition front bench.
In 2019, we saw a number of authorities move from a long period of Conservative majority control to new administrations led by LDs, residents, independents or combinations thereof. There were some senior officers who found it very difficult to serve the new administration having got perhaps a little too "comfortable" with the previous Cabinet or senior leadership. They were, shall we say, encouraged to seek new opportunities. It's true to say however most local Government officers don't get too concerned with changes in political control and carry on with the tasks at hand. Changes in policy direction tend to be rather more muted once the reality of being in power hits.
Yes, there were plenty of, in effect, NIMBY LD and Independent and Residents coalitions which took control of councils in the Home Counties and South of England in May 2019. They were much less pro developer and new housing on the whole than the Tory administrations they replaced.
Those who say the Tories haven't built enough houses should remember it isn't the Conservatives who are the real NIMBYs, it is Independents and Residents Associations, often in alliance with local Liberal Democrats and Greens. Starmer will find they try and block his plans to greatly expand new house and flat building too if he becomes PM
Good. Protect our green spaces. Protect wildlife habitat.
We should be rewilding, not destroying.
We should absolutely not be rewilding, empty supermarket shelves speak volumes about the wasteful stupidity of such a policy.
You can grow tomatoes in Sutherland? Or Cannock Chase or the Berwyns?
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
No wonder they stole and (often dodgily) bought them in the first place.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
I can't comment about the Civil Service but in local Government I would say there are a lot of Conservatives behind the scenes among senior officers including in authorities not run by the Conservatives.
The political "awareness" of senior local Government officers will vary depending on the political composition of the authority. If you are in a Council which frequently changes hands or where it's often a coalition of parties which runs the administration, it becomes vital for any senior officer to watch the political winds and maintain lines of communication with the opposition front bench.
In 2019, we saw a number of authorities move from a long period of Conservative majority control to new administrations led by LDs, residents, independents or combinations thereof. There were some senior officers who found it very difficult to serve the new administration having got perhaps a little too "comfortable" with the previous Cabinet or senior leadership. They were, shall we say, encouraged to seek new opportunities. It's true to say however most local Government officers don't get too concerned with changes in political control and carry on with the tasks at hand. Changes in policy direction tend to be rather more muted once the reality of being in power hits.
Yes, there were plenty of, in effect, NIMBY LD and Independent and Residents coalitions which took control of councils in the Home Counties and South of England in May 2019. They were much less pro developer and new housing on the whole than the Tory administrations they replaced.
Those who say the Tories haven't built enough houses should remember it isn't the Conservatives who are the real NIMBYs, it is Independents and Residents Associations, often in alliance with local Liberal Democrats and Greens. Starmer will find they try and block his plans to greatly expand new house and flat building too if he becomes PM
Good. Protect our green spaces. Protect wildlife habitat.
We should be rewilding, not destroying.
We should absolutely not be rewilding, empty supermarket shelves speak volumes about the wasteful stupidity of such a policy.
I could go for rewilding if it meant better provision of wild boar and bear steaks
Careful, you'll get vegans taking you to tusk for that.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
All the places that all the exhibits in all the museums in the world came from still exist.
Round where I live, huge cars parking on pavements is a much greater hazard than cyclists using pavements - pedestrians are forced into the road, and lines of sight when crossing roads are blocked. Personally, I'd like to see any car parked on a pavement sent to a crusher with no compensation. That'd put a stop to it. A bit extreme, I know. But effective.
Parking on the pavement is to be outlawed in Wales and it is sensible though it will cause a lot of problems
Why? I can't just go and sit down in the middle of the road (ER notwithstanding) - they are for cars. Similarly, cars can't occupy pavements, which are for pedestrians.
Pavements are for pedestrians....remember that when you get on your bike
One wonders whether the Judge is found in lycra on his evenings and weekends off.
I fully accept cyclists rightly dont feel safe on the road....the answer though is not to displace them onto pavements and make pedestrians feel unsafe. I fully admit being hit by a cyclist doing 20 miles an hour is less dangerous than being hit by a car at the same speed....however it can easily end with injuries.
Cycles need there own space not to take over ours
Apparently five pedestrians were killed by cyclists in 2019:
"according to a parliamentary report published in 2020, there were only five reported pedestrian deaths involving a bicycle in 2019 as opposed to the 48 cyclists and 305 pedestrians killed by cars in the same year"
(Note: I'm unsure if the above might include a cyclist who was pushing a bike at the time, and was therefore a pedestrian. But that's relatively unusual.)
The 5 will include people hit by bicycles on the road rather than on the pavement.
I'm unsure that makes it any better.
Stepping out into the road without looking is very common.
Maybe that will stop when you can't hear the cars coming either.
Incidentally, motorists, that's why I don't ride in the gutter.
Aren't you using the same sort of excuses that drivers sometimes make when they hit cyclists: it's *their* fault, not *mine*.
Is a cyclist who cannot stop in time for a pedestrian stepping into a road, or cannot avoid them, not paying enough attention and/or going too fast? Cyclists insist (rightly) on a car's width when a car passes them. Perhaps cyclists should give a car's width to pedestrians as well.
(Hint: they don't. All too often, as happened with me during my run on Sunday, they pay all too little attention to pedestrians.)
When walking, cycling or driving, you need to be aware of the situation around you, and also be aware that someone else might do something unexpected, or stupid, or both.
As a cyclist, when I'm passing a pedestrian, I really don't know what is best to do. Normally, most people walking do so in a straight line, so it's pretty easy to slow down and move over to go around them.
The advice is to use your bell to let the pedestrian know that you're coming, but my experience is that, when I use my bell, the vast majority of pedestrians panic, and treat it as a demand to move out of the way, and so they jump, unpredictably, to one side or the other. They often also react quite aggressively, being irate that I've used my bell to, as they see it, shoo them out of my way.
So often I am tempted not to use my bell, but simply to glide past the walker. But, of course, that has its own issues and its own complaints.
A lot of the time when I am cycling I feel like I can't win. It doesn't matter what I do, someone will take offence at it and curse my existence. Not that I have to worry much about the etiquette on shared use paths around here. The nearest one must be nearly a day's cycling away.
And, never ever forget, a lot of people are deaf. They don't wear big signs on their backs. Unless the cycling lobby perhaps want it next?
Well, I don't tend to use my bell to ask people to get out of my way. It would normally be only as a courtesy to let them know that I am coming, but there are enough people walking around listening to music - as I have been want to do for much of the last 25 years - that there are lots of reasons why people won't hear you, so of course you shouldn't assume that they have.
As a member of the cycling lobby, who would like my safety to be a slightly higher concern then shaving ten seconds off someone's commute, and is glad that there are people lobbying on behalf of my safety, I don't recognise where your snark about the cycling lobby wanting deaf people to wear signs comes from.
Because lots of cyclists don't consider the pssibility. Or runners too, just so you don;t feel too persecuted. My deaf relative has very strong words about the joys of being overtaken from behind without any warning at all on very narrow pavements and the culprits taking offence and wanting to make a fight of it him when he yelped in shock.
Enough with the confected outrage about Sue Gray. When I was a publisher I had many dealings with her. I and everyone she has ever worked with regard her as a woman of total integrity. Exactly the sort of person who'd make a fantastic chief of staff. Starmer has made a good appt. https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/1631340189812498455
I don’t doubt that Sue Gray has integrity. Pretty much everyone who was asked to opine on her back at the time of the infamous Report said a defining thing about her was her integrity. That appears beyond question.
I do actually think this is the first error Starmer has made for a while. It does smack a little of “give a job to someone who was quite useful in taking down a political opponent” though I suspect the reason for it was more along the lines of wanting to hire someone who was praised for their integrity and therefore demonstrating his above board, good governance and fair play credentials. But it is too open to interpretation of the former to really do him any benefit.
Doubt it will do him any significant harm though. It’s a bit of a Westminster storm that people might quibble about for a week or two but then will be overtaken by something else in the political news cycle.
As I said earlier, I think the appointment is with a view to governing, not campaigning. I don’t see it as an error at all.
The Mogg and Dorries comments just show, as if it were needed, why no one can take a word they say seriously.
I think that the appointment may just be on merit and with an eye on managing internal labour party issues. Sue Grey is clearly exceptionally good at managing disputes in complex, rule based organisations - of which the labour party is an example. She has the advantage of being an outsider and neutral, so not associated with any particular faction.
Competence isn’t usually a reason for preferment, so it would be a refreshing change.
Regarding urban transport, my own view for a long time has been that it would be best to dump cars and replace them with walking, cycling and light electrically powered forms of motorised travel. At some point in my lifetime I think we will move on to this. It will be rightly regarded as absurd and stupid that people go around in 1 ton lumps of metal powered either by fossil fuels or by enormous batteries.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
In 1934 I doubt many cyclists could get near a speed limit, these days with the advanced materials technologies where bikes aren't built out of cast iron and have gears......not so much justification
On 1934 the speed limit was increased from 20mph to 30mph because people driving motor cars in towns were routinely breaking the law. .
It's really just another of these "But cyclists" red herrings, whilst the stats are very clear that people riding bikes are a very minor risk.
If you are 70 where a broken hip or other bone is a major risk a bike hitting you at 20 miles an hour is not a minor risk
Or banging your headf on the pavement at *any* age.
Isabel Oakeshott is doing a very impressive job of trashing what is left of her reputation.
Admits to signing an NDA with Mr Hancock, then handed the whole lot over to the Telegraph when it became convenient, whilst furiously demanding that her 'duty to the public' (or something) required her action, and she occupies the moral high ground.
I never liked Cameron, but her smearing of him over the clearly completely fabricated pig thing showed she was human filth. She admitted she had one deranged source and when challenged on it said it was just a book so can't be expected to have integrity standards. Awful woman.
How do you know for sure the pig thing was fabricated? Are you trying to spin a picture of David being utterly square in his youth, has never ritually ate swan for example, he never woke up in bed to sight of Boris standing on a table hacking golf balls out a window etc?
"Someone, who I can't name, told me it happened, but can't give me a time, place etc. Or any other witnesses, despite it being in front a crowd, allegedly. Oh, and there is a video, but I haven't seen it, but a friend of a friend has."
When you do basic journalism classes, this the structure of a classic bullshit story.
Or. As part of the tradition they all had to do it, hence conspiracy of silence. For now.
You are so naive to think these public school/university clubs/gangs don’t have rituals.
I think a more interesting line of enquiry, when the British ambassador in Washington was destroyed by a leak, is it in the National interest to know if that leak came to UK media from Putin? If true that would be more in National Interest break of journalistic cover than Hancocks what’s app tittle tattle she has released in national interest. In fact it would be treason - taking from work of Putin’s spy’s to harm British diplomacy - and the journalist and intermediary would need to face prosecution.
OK, I thought you were ridiculous over the new NI deal, but now I know your basic logical reason is just inept. Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible. And because I point this out I am trying to paint a picture that Cameron is "utterly square" in his youth.
That’s right. You’ve described your error perfectly.
Back to the NI deal. Who are you calling ridiculous? I’ve gathered all my points from mainstream media.
Mainstream media have moved on from the two spin documents released on the day to not just what the actual text really means, but how the arrangement is most likely to play out over the coming years. As well as the jarring differences of the two spin documents - the partisan summaries aimed at different audiences.
Myself and mainstream media are on same page now, that this is not the slam dunk you are spinning it is, you are now the cuckoo in the nest. And how ridiculous you look, as little cuckoo in nest of storks.
There's no point in engaging with you. You combine wild summaries with massive illogical leaps. You say outright this is a "perfect description" of your logic:
"Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible."
I am not even going to engage with your efforts to rapidly change the conversation when caught making a stupid point. I am just going to repeat your own argument back so that others can see what a troll you are, Isabel
Won’t debate, or can’t debate - Willy the name caller. 🙂
I’ll make it easy for you, I’ll break it down into a yes or no.
[...] the break/veto stopping that is now revealed as such a sham.
No to this part in particular.
Oh Driver - start your engine! that’s the most easiest con trick to dismantle of all their Agreement arguments and spin. 🥹
Having not solved, merely moved the Irish Sea border to an extra focus on increased market surveillance at North-South Ireland border instead - its now VITAL for UK and EU to smooth this border as much as possible, so it can no way resemble the actual hard border HY wants England Scotland border to look like, once Scotland in EU and Euro. Agree so far?
Now the ONLY way to smooth this is to Cover off ongoing divergence by giving EU control over applying new rules and law in NI, which local politicians can do nothing about. Hence this NON Veto. The Handbreak at the end of the Rainbow.
The EU spin machine on the Commission website says: "This mechanism would be triggered under the most exceptional circumstances and as a matter of last resort", making clear there is no expectation that it should be used regularly. And the UK government agrees with them, posting in their own online spin they say, "It is important to note that the permanent disapplication of the rules would mean divergence between Northern Ireland and Ireland (and the broader EU), and thus it would be a matter for the EU how to deal with the consequent impact on their market.” So clearly not Northern Irish politicians determining what is "trivial" as UK government working to that joint understanding with EU they clearly posted.
What has become clear from the actual text, it requires 30 members of two parties in the Assembly to pull the "brake" , and the UK government must be minded to agree too, otherwise it gets unpulled and the New EU Law goes ahead, UK government, probably under Starmer most the next ten years, will be very aware of the diplomatic wrangling and blowback it will cause pulling it and often having different policy goals. Also EU trade deals cannot be subject to a veto, or measures to prevent fraud anyway.
Then it must be proved in writing the veto is being used only as a last resort, with other measures - like the whole of the UK implementing the EU rule, having to be considered first. Finally, if Northern Ireland does get a veto on one thing, it can be punished by the EU imposing other sanctions, this is clearly in the agreed text too.
The way it has been devised, in practice that a handful of new EU laws are blocked this way, or perhaps none will be. And for sure those who use the brake will never have any control over what happens next.
And another related fact, it’s built into this agreement the EU have the power to turn off the Green Lane at any point they become unhappy with how it’s going, without having to consult with or get any agreement from either UK or NI. You don’t mind conceding that though do you?
What will happen next I predict - the DUP and ERG will come up with some Red Lines, the Veto at the end of the rainbow, if they ever did veto something EU allowed to punish them accordingly, and the green lane switched off so border thrown back into the Irish Sea by EU at anytime without any say in NI or London about that, being three of the red lines.
Sunak will then bottle going through with this, and it goes back into UK-EU renegotiation. Whether EU shift at any point on such red lines, I doubt they would, and UK probably wouldn’t want them to anyway, as the focus has to be on making the NI-ROI border as soft as possible, not remotely hard in any place, so no strong and persistent veto for the DUP.
Where you have been insisting it’s a good strong veto, the truth is neither London or Brussels want DUP to have good strong veto, as that thwarts what they are agreed on, keeping the NI-ROI border soft as possible during year on year of markets divergence. Hence tactic not trying to sell it on basis of veto, but on basis of in both markets simultaneously being paradise on earth.
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Will we miss any of them is surely the big question.
We will when the Peter Andre performs at the coronation.
Didn't I read that Gary Glitter had been released recently? He'd be up for it, I reckon.
Yup, especially as King Charles III is a well known defender of nonces.
Prince Charles misused his influence to shield Peter Ball, a former Anglican bishop and old friend, from punishment after the cleric had admitted sexually abusing a young novice, an independent inquiry found this week.
In an unusually tough rebuke of the future king, the inquiry concluded that “the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided.”
“He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,” the headquarters of the Anglican Church, concluded the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which was led by a professor of social work, Alexis Jay.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
I think it will be a bit of a stretch for PC Copper to argue that Jemima Cyclist was being inconsiderate by not obeying a speed limit which is explicitly defined in law as not applying to people on bikes.
Plenty of things can be cycling without due care, including perhaps inappropriate speed, but that would bear no relation to a posted speed limit.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
In 1934 I doubt many cyclists could get near a speed limit, these days with the advanced materials technologies where bikes aren't built out of cast iron and have gears......not so much justification
On 1934 the speed limit was increased from 20mph to 30mph because people driving motor cars in towns were routinely breaking the law. .
It's really just another of these "But cyclists" red herrings, whilst the stats are very clear that people riding bikes are a very minor risk.
If you are 70 where a broken hip or other bone is a major risk a bike hitting you at 20 miles an hour is not a minor risk
Or banging your headf on the pavement at *any* age.
The minority of car drivers have an attitude to cyclists and make them unsafe, sadly as cyclists have moved onto pavement spaces whether dualled or unofficial a minority of cyclists have take that attitude to pedestrians.
I suspect their maybe an overlap between the two groups in that some car drivers also cycle and show equal contempt for other users
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Will we miss any of them is surely the big question.
We will when the Peter Andre performs at the coronation.
Didn't I read that Gary Glitter had been released recently? He'd be up for it, I reckon.
Yup, especially as King Charles III is a well known defender of nonces.
Prince Charles misused his influence to shield Peter Ball, a former Anglican bishop and old friend, from punishment after the cleric had admitted sexually abusing a young novice, an independent inquiry found this week.
In an unusually tough rebuke of the future king, the inquiry concluded that “the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided.”
“He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,” the headquarters of the Anglican Church, concluded the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which was led by a professor of social work, Alexis Jay.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
All the places that all the exhibits in all the museums in the world came from still exist.
It’s true but also false.
The Parthenon doesn’t exist anymore as it did when the marbles were there.
The people who built it don’t exist in the sense of culture anymore.
The state, the Athenian City State, doesn’t exist anymore.
So theoretically to return the marbles would not be returning them to where they were from except in a purely physical sense. And then you might have to consider if their physical origin is then the quarry where the marble came from.
Throughout the world there are works of art and objects that sit far away from their original home because someone with more means, money or power had the greed, desire, belief, or genuine love to buy them from whoever might have been their rightful owners or take them from a vanquished foe.
Whilst the above is slightly tongue in cheek it’s a thread that gets pulled for good reasons that unravels out of control.
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Will we miss any of them is surely the big question.
We will when the Peter Andre performs at the coronation.
Didn't I read that Gary Glitter had been released recently? He'd be up for it, I reckon.
Yup, especially as King Charles III is a well known defender of nonces.
Prince Charles misused his influence to shield Peter Ball, a former Anglican bishop and old friend, from punishment after the cleric had admitted sexually abusing a young novice, an independent inquiry found this week.
In an unusually tough rebuke of the future king, the inquiry concluded that “the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided.”
“He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,” the headquarters of the Anglican Church, concluded the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which was led by a professor of social work, Alexis Jay.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
All the places that all the exhibits in all the museums in the world came from still exist.
Not in the respect Sunil is talking about. The Elgin Marbles are literally fixtures ripped off the walls of an ancient building that is still there.
In most cases, the item is either by its nature moveable, or the context in which it was displayed either gone or massively changed.
It's objectively ludicrous - even if one attaches no blame to Elgin personally and thinks it all legal etc - that the Marbles are in Bloomsbury rather than an ancient building which they were literally part of and which (I'll repeat) is still effing there.
Snubbing the King: Why Don’t Big Stars Want to Perform at Charles’ Coronation?
A number of artists have turned down offers to perform at King Charles' coronation in May. Some theorize that the royal family's recent 'PR disasters' are partly to blame
IN 1997, AFTER attending a Royal Gala evening, Geri Halliwell kissed Prince Charles on the cheek. According to royal protocol and etiquette, you’re only allowed to shake a royal’s hand, so the scandalous moment landed on the front pages of newspapers and went down in pop culture history. Now, instead of daring Ginger Spice to kiss Charles for a second time, The Spice Girls are avoiding him altogether.
The group is among a number of British pop artists who have turned down the opportunity to play at his coronation in May. Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams, and Elton John were also reportedly asked to play and refused the offer. When Rolling Stone asked why, the teams for all those artists declined to comment, bar Elton John’s, who confirmed he was asked but couldn’t play due to scheduling issues.
Musicians used to practically line up outside the palace to perform at any major royal event, but that has changed. The public is left wondering: Will any major star agree to play King Charles III’s coronation?
Will we miss any of them is surely the big question.
We will when the Peter Andre performs at the coronation.
Didn't I read that Gary Glitter had been released recently? He'd be up for it, I reckon.
Yup, especially as King Charles III is a well known defender of nonces.
Prince Charles misused his influence to shield Peter Ball, a former Anglican bishop and old friend, from punishment after the cleric had admitted sexually abusing a young novice, an independent inquiry found this week.
In an unusually tough rebuke of the future king, the inquiry concluded that “the actions of the Prince of Wales were misguided.”
“He should have recognized the potential effect that his apparent support for Peter Ball could have had upon decision-making within Lambeth Palace,” the headquarters of the Anglican Church, concluded the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which was led by a professor of social work, Alexis Jay.
Does the grr have anything to say what happens if KC111 self id's as a woman?
Dunno, cos it hasn't passed yet. Mind, there was that photo of the embryo king in a skirt, but that is the kind of skirt that is selfidentified as a kilt.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
Our having the Parthenon Marbles was once compared to Hitler's plan of having Nelson's Column shipped to Germany and re-erected in Berlin. There's much force behind that, though arguably the marbles have vastly more cultural significance to Greece (and indeed western civilization).
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
I think it will be a bit of a stretch for PC Copper to argue that Jemima Cyclist was being inconsiderate by not obeying a speed limit which is explicitly defined in law as not applying to people on bikes.
Plenty of things can be cycling without due care, including perhaps inappropriate speed, but that would bear no relation to a posted speed limit.
It is considerably more reckless to speed on a bike than in a car. Why? Because its brakes are not as good. And because it has less adhesion it's much easier to lose control of it.
Of course, it's likely to do less actual damage if it does go wahoonie shaped, because it's lighter.
So yes, they can absolutely take that view, and it is hardly a stretch.
But as I say, they don't bother. Mostly in my experience of Staffordshire and Gloucestershire because they're not interested in enforcing laws unless they can see a fat profit for minimal work.
I can't comment about the Civil Service but in local Government I would say there are a lot of Conservatives behind the scenes among senior officers including in authorities not run by the Conservatives.
The political "awareness" of senior local Government officers will vary depending on the political composition of the authority. If you are in a Council which frequently changes hands or where it's often a coalition of parties which runs the administration, it becomes vital for any senior officer to watch the political winds and maintain lines of communication with the opposition front bench.
In 2019, we saw a number of authorities move from a long period of Conservative majority control to new administrations led by LDs, residents, independents or combinations thereof. There were some senior officers who found it very difficult to serve the new administration having got perhaps a little too "comfortable" with the previous Cabinet or senior leadership. They were, shall we say, encouraged to seek new opportunities. It's true to say however most local Government officers don't get too concerned with changes in political control and carry on with the tasks at hand. Changes in policy direction tend to be rather more muted once the reality of being in power hits.
Yes, there were plenty of, in effect, NIMBY LD and Independent and Residents coalitions which took control of councils in the Home Counties and South of England in May 2019. They were much less pro developer and new housing on the whole than the Tory administrations they replaced.
Those who say the Tories haven't built enough houses should remember it isn't the Conservatives who are the real NIMBYs, it is Independents and Residents Associations, often in alliance with local Liberal Democrats and Greens. Starmer will find they try and block his plans to greatly expand new house and flat building too if he becomes PM
Good. Protect our green spaces. Protect wildlife habitat.
We should be rewilding, not destroying.
We should absolutely not be rewilding, empty supermarket shelves speak volumes about the wasteful stupidity of such a policy.
Wasteful stupidity is expecting the same range of fresh produce to be on the shelves 12 months of the year.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
All the places that all the exhibits in all the museums in the world came from still exist.
Not in the respect Sunil is talking about. The Elgin Marbles are literally fixtures ripped off the walls of an ancient building that is still there.
In most cases, the item is either by its nature moveable, or the context in which it was displayed either gone or massively changed.
It's objectively ludicrous - even if one attaches no blame to Elgin personally and thinks it all legal etc - that the Marbles are in Bloomsbury rather than an ancient building which they were literally part of and which (I'll repeat) is still effing there.
And apparently Lord Elgin originally intended them as ornaments for his country pad, though thankfully they never suffered that grotesque indignity.
I can't comment about the Civil Service but in local Government I would say there are a lot of Conservatives behind the scenes among senior officers including in authorities not run by the Conservatives.
The political "awareness" of senior local Government officers will vary depending on the political composition of the authority. If you are in a Council which frequently changes hands or where it's often a coalition of parties which runs the administration, it becomes vital for any senior officer to watch the political winds and maintain lines of communication with the opposition front bench.
In 2019, we saw a number of authorities move from a long period of Conservative majority control to new administrations led by LDs, residents, independents or combinations thereof. There were some senior officers who found it very difficult to serve the new administration having got perhaps a little too "comfortable" with the previous Cabinet or senior leadership. They were, shall we say, encouraged to seek new opportunities. It's true to say however most local Government officers don't get too concerned with changes in political control and carry on with the tasks at hand. Changes in policy direction tend to be rather more muted once the reality of being in power hits.
Yes, there were plenty of, in effect, NIMBY LD and Independent and Residents coalitions which took control of councils in the Home Counties and South of England in May 2019. They were much less pro developer and new housing on the whole than the Tory administrations they replaced.
Those who say the Tories haven't built enough houses should remember it isn't the Conservatives who are the real NIMBYs, it is Independents and Residents Associations, often in alliance with local Liberal Democrats and Greens. Starmer will find they try and block his plans to greatly expand new house and flat building too if he becomes PM
Good. Protect our green spaces. Protect wildlife habitat.
We should be rewilding, not destroying.
We should absolutely not be rewilding, empty supermarket shelves speak volumes about the wasteful stupidity of such a policy.
Wasteful stupidity is expecting the same range of fresh produce to be on the shelves 12 months of the year.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Most unlike Mr Johnson. You'd think he'd be going on about Great British Heritage and not wanting to hide it behind Greek marbles and Assyrian bulls.
Hardly. Whatever you can accuse Bojo of (and there's a lot) a lack of appreciation for classical Greece isn't it.
Suddenly remembered. He used to be pro return of the Marbles, e.g. in an Oxford Union debate, and it would be unkind to suggest it was just because (IIRC) Ms Mercouri was having dinner with him.
But that wouldn't get past the Wokefinders these days.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
I think it will be a bit of a stretch for PC Copper to argue that Jemima Cyclist was being inconsiderate by not obeying a speed limit which is explicitly defined in law as not applying to people on bikes.
Plenty of things can be cycling without due care, including perhaps inappropriate speed, but that would bear no relation to a posted speed limit.
When I put my query, I was thinking of the times I had been doing 20mph in London and had been overtaken by a cyclist. It is an incredibly dangerous thing for them to do, so I should think the 'reasonable consideration' criterion is met.
The same would apply to the dangerous practice of cycling on and off the pavement intermittently. It is incredibly difficult for motorists to cope with bikes coming onto the road unexpectedly on their inside. It is commonplace in London, but I have never even heard of anyone being done for it.
The problems with the Conservative party are rooted in the fact that its membership elected Liz Truss as leader and people hold her responsible for mortgage interest rates going up to 7%, and for the current economic problems in general. I think this narrative has a lot of power.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
I think it will be a bit of a stretch for PC Copper to argue that Jemima Cyclist was being inconsiderate by not obeying a speed limit which is explicitly defined in law as not applying to people on bikes.
Plenty of things can be cycling without due care, including perhaps inappropriate speed, but that would bear no relation to a posted speed limit.
When I put my query, I was thinking of the times I had been doing 20mph in London and had been overtaken by a cyclist. It is an incredibly dangerous thing for them to do, so I should think the 'reasonable consideration' criterion is met.
The same would apply to the dangerous practice of cycling on and off the pavement intermittently. It is incredibly difficult for motorists to cope with bikes coming onto the road unexpectedly on their inside. It is commonplace in London, but I have never even heard of anyone being done for it.
I was done for it, as a student. So now, you have.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Most unlike Mr Johnson. You'd think he'd be going on about Great British Heritage and not wanting to hide it behind Greek marbles and Assyrian bulls.
Hardly. Whatever you can accuse Bojo of (and there's a lot) a lack of appreciation for classical Greece isn't it.
Er, it's not called the Bloomsbury Museum of Hellenic Stuff.
Probably not going to be popular here, however I think a lot of items from antiquity should not belong to any particular current country even if they were discovered there as most modern day countries bear little resemblance to the nations of antiquity. I would prefer those artifacts declared world heritage and someone like the UN was charged with making sure they circulated for display. I would for example here say the Tut treasure, elgin marbles, roman artefacts, excalibur and the round table (if either should be discovered).
To me they are all part of our world cultural heritage and best they circulate for appreciation rather than you can view them if you travel to one particular country
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
All the places that all the exhibits in all the museums in the world came from still exist.
Not in the respect Sunil is talking about. The Elgin Marbles are literally fixtures ripped off the walls of an ancient building that is still there.
In most cases, the item is either by its nature moveable, or the context in which it was displayed either gone or massively changed.
It's objectively ludicrous - even if one attaches no blame to Elgin personally and thinks it all legal etc - that the Marbles are in Bloomsbury rather than an ancient building which they were literally part of and which (I'll repeat) is still effing there.
Were they sent to Greece, my understanding was that they would be exhibited indoors rather than returned to the building. But I could be wrong.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
I think it will be a bit of a stretch for PC Copper to argue that Jemima Cyclist was being inconsiderate by not obeying a speed limit which is explicitly defined in law as not applying to people on bikes.
Plenty of things can be cycling without due care, including perhaps inappropriate speed, but that would bear no relation to a posted speed limit.
It is considerably more reckless to speed on a bike than in a car. Why? Because its brakes are not as good. And because it has less adhesion it's much easier to lose control of it.
Of course, it's likely to do less actual damage if it does go wahoonie shaped, because it's lighter.
So yes, they can absolutely take that view, and it is hardly a stretch.
But as I say, they don't bother. Mostly in my experience of Staffordshire and Gloucestershire because they're not interested in enforcing laws unless they can see a fat profit for minimal work.
You are in Glocestershire, Doc?
Did you know the local Police Force has been in special measures for some time now? If you have ever had any dealings with them it is easy to see why.
I believe the same applies to the Met, but that would surprise nobody.
Not in the respect Sunil is talking about. The Elgin Marbles are literally fixtures ripped off the walls of an ancient building that is still there.
In most cases, the item is either by its nature moveable, or the context in which it was displayed either gone or massively changed.
It's objectively ludicrous - even if one attaches no blame to Elgin personally and thinks it all legal etc - that the Marbles are in Bloomsbury rather than an ancient building which they were literally part of and which (I'll repeat) is still effing there.
I'm mildly in favour of returning the Elgin Marbles, but if we do return them they won't end up back on the Parthenon -- they'd go into the Acropolis Museum to go along with the parts of the frieze that Greece already has. Leaving the marbles exposed to a modern polluted urban atmosphere would be pretty damaging to them.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
I think it will be a bit of a stretch for PC Copper to argue that Jemima Cyclist was being inconsiderate by not obeying a speed limit which is explicitly defined in law as not applying to people on bikes.
Plenty of things can be cycling without due care, including perhaps inappropriate speed, but that would bear no relation to a posted speed limit.
It is considerably more reckless to speed on a bike than in a car. Why? Because its brakes are not as good. And because it has less adhesion it's much easier to lose control of it.
Of course, it's likely to do less actual damage if it does go wahoonie shaped, because it's lighter.
So yes, they can absolutely take that view, and it is hardly a stretch.
But as I say, they don't bother. Mostly in my experience of Staffordshire and Gloucestershire because they're not interested in enforcing laws unless they can see a fat profit for minimal work.
I'd actually question your statements about braking etc,, but that would be a rabbithole.
I think the impact on others is perhaps the primary consideration. I think there are very good pareto reasons - dealing with the KSIs - why the FATAL4 safety priorities all relate to motor vehicles.
I think the difference between 'speeding' on a bike and a car is perhaps well-illustrated by *this* story:
Ambulance workers considering calling off strike after government offered talks
Seems as if the government is addressing the NHS strikes at last
On the other hand, the unions now know exactly what it was that made the Government jump when they hit the right nerve ending - the government bottled it when it came to A&E and intensive care striking for the first time, halting operations.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if the talks broke down, and more strikes including A&E and intensive care was called straight away. Call me cynical. Call me Union hating if you want. But let’s see if this does happen.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
I think it will be a bit of a stretch for PC Copper to argue that Jemima Cyclist was being inconsiderate by not obeying a speed limit which is explicitly defined in law as not applying to people on bikes.
Plenty of things can be cycling without due care, including perhaps inappropriate speed, but that would bear no relation to a posted speed limit.
When I put my query, I was thinking of the times I had been doing 20mph in London and had been overtaken by a cyclist. It is an incredibly dangerous thing for them to do, so I should think the 'reasonable consideration' criterion is met.
The same would apply to the dangerous practice of cycling on and off the pavement intermittently. It is incredibly difficult for motorists to cope with bikes coming onto the road unexpectedly on their inside. It is commonplace in London, but I have never even heard of anyone being done for it.
I was done for it, as a student. So now, you have.
I suspect you were done more for being a student than anything else, but thanks anyway, Ian.
Not in the respect Sunil is talking about. The Elgin Marbles are literally fixtures ripped off the walls of an ancient building that is still there.
In most cases, the item is either by its nature moveable, or the context in which it was displayed either gone or massively changed.
It's objectively ludicrous - even if one attaches no blame to Elgin personally and thinks it all legal etc - that the Marbles are in Bloomsbury rather than an ancient building which they were literally part of and which (I'll repeat) is still effing there.
I'm mildly in favour of returning the Elgin Marbles, but if we do return them they won't end up back on the Parthenon -- they'd go into the Acropolis Museum to go along with the parts of the frieze that Greece already has. Leaving the marbles exposed to a modern polluted urban atmosphere would be pretty damaging to them.
Was also true in London, certainly before the Clean Air Acts. Urban pollution in Athens is much more recent.
I'm not sure what the situation is re indoor stone in London nowadays with Nox and Sox.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
I think it will be a bit of a stretch for PC Copper to argue that Jemima Cyclist was being inconsiderate by not obeying a speed limit which is explicitly defined in law as not applying to people on bikes.
Plenty of things can be cycling without due care, including perhaps inappropriate speed, but that would bear no relation to a posted speed limit.
When I put my query, I was thinking of the times I had been doing 20mph in London and had been overtaken by a cyclist. It is an incredibly dangerous thing for them to do, so I should think the 'reasonable consideration' criterion is met.
The same would apply to the dangerous practice of cycling on and off the pavement intermittently. It is incredibly difficult for motorists to cope with bikes coming onto the road unexpectedly on their inside. It is commonplace in London, but I have never even heard of anyone being done for it.
I was done for it, as a student. So now, you have.
I suspect you were done more for being a student than anything else, but thanks anyway, Ian.
I suspected the same. But still had to pay the £20 fixed penalty, or whatever it was back then.
I can't comment about the Civil Service but in local Government I would say there are a lot of Conservatives behind the scenes among senior officers including in authorities not run by the Conservatives.
The political "awareness" of senior local Government officers will vary depending on the political composition of the authority. If you are in a Council which frequently changes hands or where it's often a coalition of parties which runs the administration, it becomes vital for any senior officer to watch the political winds and maintain lines of communication with the opposition front bench.
In 2019, we saw a number of authorities move from a long period of Conservative majority control to new administrations led by LDs, residents, independents or combinations thereof. There were some senior officers who found it very difficult to serve the new administration having got perhaps a little too "comfortable" with the previous Cabinet or senior leadership. They were, shall we say, encouraged to seek new opportunities. It's true to say however most local Government officers don't get too concerned with changes in political control and carry on with the tasks at hand. Changes in policy direction tend to be rather more muted once the reality of being in power hits.
Yes, there were plenty of, in effect, NIMBY LD and Independent and Residents coalitions which took control of councils in the Home Counties and South of England in May 2019. They were much less pro developer and new housing on the whole than the Tory administrations they replaced.
Those who say the Tories haven't built enough houses should remember it isn't the Conservatives who are the real NIMBYs, it is Independents and Residents Associations, often in alliance with local Liberal Democrats and Greens. Starmer will find they try and block his plans to greatly expand new house and flat building too if he becomes PM
Good. Protect our green spaces. Protect wildlife habitat.
We should be rewilding, not destroying.
We should absolutely not be rewilding, empty supermarket shelves speak volumes about the wasteful stupidity of such a policy.
Wasteful stupidity is expecting the same range of fresh produce to be on the shelves 12 months of the year.
I can't comment about the Civil Service but in local Government I would say there are a lot of Conservatives behind the scenes among senior officers including in authorities not run by the Conservatives.
The political "awareness" of senior local Government officers will vary depending on the political composition of the authority. If you are in a Council which frequently changes hands or where it's often a coalition of parties which runs the administration, it becomes vital for any senior officer to watch the political winds and maintain lines of communication with the opposition front bench.
In 2019, we saw a number of authorities move from a long period of Conservative majority control to new administrations led by LDs, residents, independents or combinations thereof. There were some senior officers who found it very difficult to serve the new administration having got perhaps a little too "comfortable" with the previous Cabinet or senior leadership. They were, shall we say, encouraged to seek new opportunities. It's true to say however most local Government officers don't get too concerned with changes in political control and carry on with the tasks at hand. Changes in policy direction tend to be rather more muted once the reality of being in power hits.
Yes, there were plenty of, in effect, NIMBY LD and Independent and Residents coalitions which took control of councils in the Home Counties and South of England in May 2019. They were much less pro developer and new housing on the whole than the Tory administrations they replaced.
Those who say the Tories haven't built enough houses should remember it isn't the Conservatives who are the real NIMBYs, it is Independents and Residents Associations, often in alliance with local Liberal Democrats and Greens. Starmer will find they try and block his plans to greatly expand new house and flat building too if he becomes PM
Good. Protect our green spaces. Protect wildlife habitat.
We should be rewilding, not destroying.
We should absolutely not be rewilding, empty supermarket shelves speak volumes about the wasteful stupidity of such a policy.
Wasteful stupidity is expecting the same range of fresh produce to be on the shelves 12 months of the year.
Isabel Oakeshott is doing a very impressive job of trashing what is left of her reputation.
Admits to signing an NDA with Mr Hancock, then handed the whole lot over to the Telegraph when it became convenient, whilst furiously demanding that her 'duty to the public' (or something) required her action, and she occupies the moral high ground.
I never liked Cameron, but her smearing of him over the clearly completely fabricated pig thing showed she was human filth. She admitted she had one deranged source and when challenged on it said it was just a book so can't be expected to have integrity standards. Awful woman.
How do you know for sure the pig thing was fabricated? Are you trying to spin a picture of David being utterly square in his youth, has never ritually ate swan for example, he never woke up in bed to sight of Boris standing on a table hacking golf balls out a window etc?
"Someone, who I can't name, told me it happened, but can't give me a time, place etc. Or any other witnesses, despite it being in front a crowd, allegedly. Oh, and there is a video, but I haven't seen it, but a friend of a friend has."
When you do basic journalism classes, this the structure of a classic bullshit story.
Or. As part of the tradition they all had to do it, hence conspiracy of silence. For now.
You are so naive to think these public school/university clubs/gangs don’t have rituals.
I think a more interesting line of enquiry, when the British ambassador in Washington was destroyed by a leak, is it in the National interest to know if that leak came to UK media from Putin? If true that would be more in National Interest break of journalistic cover than Hancocks what’s app tittle tattle she has released in national interest. In fact it would be treason - taking from work of Putin’s spy’s to harm British diplomacy - and the journalist and intermediary would need to face prosecution.
OK, I thought you were ridiculous over the new NI deal, but now I know your basic logical reason is just inept. Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible. And because I point this out I am trying to paint a picture that Cameron is "utterly square" in his youth.
That’s right. You’ve described your error perfectly.
Back to the NI deal. Who are you calling ridiculous? I’ve gathered all my points from mainstream media.
Mainstream media have moved on from the two spin documents released on the day to not just what the actual text really means, but how the arrangement is most likely to play out over the coming years. As well as the jarring differences of the two spin documents - the partisan summaries aimed at different audiences.
Myself and mainstream media are on same page now, that this is not the slam dunk you are spinning it is, you are now the cuckoo in the nest. And how ridiculous you look, as little cuckoo in nest of storks.
There's no point in engaging with you. You combine wild summaries with massive illogical leaps. You say outright this is a "perfect description" of your logic:
"Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible."
I am not even going to engage with your efforts to rapidly change the conversation when caught making a stupid point. I am just going to repeat your own argument back so that others can see what a troll you are, Isabel
Won’t debate, or can’t debate - Willy the name caller. 🙂
I’ll make it easy for you, I’ll break it down into a yes or no.
[...] the break/veto stopping that is now revealed as such a sham.
No to this part in particular.
Oh Driver - start your engine! that’s the most easiest con trick to dismantle of all their Agreement arguments and spin. 🥹
Having not solved, merely moved the Irish Sea border to an extra focus on increased market surveillance at North-South Ireland border instead - its now VITAL for UK and EU to smooth this border as much as possible, so it can no way resemble the actual hard border HY wants England Scotland border to look like, once Scotland in EU and Euro. Agree so far?
Now the ONLY way to smooth this is to Cover off ongoing divergence by giving EU control over applying new rules and law in NI, which local politicians can do nothing about. Hence this NON Veto. The Handbreak at the end of the Rainbow.
The EU spin machine on the Commission website says: "This mechanism would be triggered under the most exceptional circumstances and as a matter of last resort", making clear there is no expectation that it should be used regularly. And the UK government agrees with them, posting in their own online spin they say, "It is important to note that the permanent disapplication of the rules would mean divergence between Northern Ireland and Ireland (and the broader EU), and thus it would be a matter for the EU how to deal with the consequent impact on their market.” So clearly not Northern Irish politicians determining what is "trivial" as UK government working to that joint understanding with EU they clearly posted.
What has become clear from the actual text, it requires 30 members of two parties in the Assembly to pull the "brake" , and the UK government must be minded to agree too, otherwise it gets unpulled and the New EU Law goes ahead, UK government, probably under Starmer most the next ten years, will be very aware of the diplomatic wrangling and blowback it will cause pulling it and often having different policy goals. Also EU trade deals cannot be subject to a veto, or measures to prevent fraud anyway.
Then it must be proved in writing the veto is being used only as a last resort, with other measures - like the whole of the UK implementing the EU rule, having to be considered first. Finally, if Northern Ireland does get a veto on one thing, it can be punished by the EU imposing other sanctions, this is clearly in the agreed text too.
The way it has been devised, in practice that a handful of new EU laws are blocked this way, or perhaps none will be. And for sure those who use the brake will never have any control over what happens next.
And another related fact, it’s built into this agreement the EU have the power to turn off the Green Lane at any point they become unhappy with how it’s going, without having to consult with or get any agreement from either UK or NI. You don’t mind conceding that though do you?
What will happen next I predict - the DUP and ERG will come up with some Red Lines, the Veto at the end of the rainbow, if they ever did veto something EU allowed to punish them accordingly, and the green lane switched off so border thrown back into the Irish Sea by EU at anytime without any say in NI or London about that, being three of the red lines.
Sunak will then bottle going through with this, and it goes back into UK-EU renegotiation. Whether EU shift at any point on such red lines, I doubt they would, and UK probably wouldn’t want them to anyway, as the focus has to be on making the NI-ROI border as soft as possible, not remotely hard in any place, so no strong and persistent veto for the DUP.
Where you have been insisting it’s a good strong veto, the truth is neither London or Brussels want DUP to have good strong veto, as that thwarts what they are agreed on, keeping the NI-ROI border soft as possible during year on year of markets divergence. Hence tactic not trying to sell it on basis of veto, but on basis of in both markets simultaneously being paradise on earth.
We all know that the circle cannot be squared. And an odd numbered pile of objects can't be paired without remainder. Whatever is agreed by whoever over NI/GB/ROI/EU some relevant group can object on rational grounds.
It is time to move to the next stage of a phased process whereby an independent (and UN mandated) NI has to do grown up politics like the rest of the western world and sort a constitutional settlement deal for itself.
The rational choices are: Independent NI making its own way; a United Ireland; a United Britain and Ireland. For myself I would be happy with any of them.
In 1934 I doubt many cyclists could get near a speed limit, these days with the advanced materials technologies where bikes aren't built out of cast iron and have gears......not so much justification
The justification is the usual one why new laws aren't worthwhile -- the benefit is tiny and the overhead of the new law overly burdensome. If you want to apply speed limits to bikes, then bikes need speedometers, which is a lot of extra expense whuch reduces the number of cyclists (both a health and a traffic negative). And very few cyclists will get over the limit anyway, most of those who do won't do so by much or dangerously, and the tiny fraction who do do so dangerously can be tackled via an existing law. It would be a law of the "make a law to get newspaper headlines" variety, and those are almost always awful.
How fast do bikes have to be before we have to bring them into speed limits. Given records are exceptional I suspect if you half the records a fair few can achieve them
current records are Flat surface, unassisted – Male record for regular cycling without pace car is held by Sebastiaan Bowier with the speed of 133.75 km/h in 2013. Female record is held by Barbara Buatois with 121.81 km/h in 2010
So if a lot of people could achieve 60kmh....is that a reason to think about bikes being subject to speed limits?
Few people are travelling at 40mph on a bike on the flat, that pace is close to an elite level professionals top sprinting speed. So by all means cap cyclists to 40mph if you think its gonna save the little old ladies in the road wars.
But they're all gonna die eventually. At least being flattened by a wastrel and then splashed across the Daily Mail is an interesting way out.
Not in the respect Sunil is talking about. The Elgin Marbles are literally fixtures ripped off the walls of an ancient building that is still there.
In most cases, the item is either by its nature moveable, or the context in which it was displayed either gone or massively changed.
It's objectively ludicrous - even if one attaches no blame to Elgin personally and thinks it all legal etc - that the Marbles are in Bloomsbury rather than an ancient building which they were literally part of and which (I'll repeat) is still effing there.
I'm mildly in favour of returning the Elgin Marbles, but if we do return them they won't end up back on the Parthenon -- they'd go into the Acropolis Museum to go along with the parts of the frieze that Greece already has. Leaving the marbles exposed to a modern polluted urban atmosphere would be pretty damaging to them.
I do accept the point that, for practical reasons, they'd be displayed a few yards away from rather than on the walls from which they were ripped. So that is a counterargument albeit not, I'd suggest, a particularly strong one (and I think you broadly agree).
Isabel Oakeshott is doing a very impressive job of trashing what is left of her reputation.
Admits to signing an NDA with Mr Hancock, then handed the whole lot over to the Telegraph when it became convenient, whilst furiously demanding that her 'duty to the public' (or something) required her action, and she occupies the moral high ground.
I never liked Cameron, but her smearing of him over the clearly completely fabricated pig thing showed she was human filth. She admitted she had one deranged source and when challenged on it said it was just a book so can't be expected to have integrity standards. Awful woman.
How do you know for sure the pig thing was fabricated? Are you trying to spin a picture of David being utterly square in his youth, has never ritually ate swan for example, he never woke up in bed to sight of Boris standing on a table hacking golf balls out a window etc?
"Someone, who I can't name, told me it happened, but can't give me a time, place etc. Or any other witnesses, despite it being in front a crowd, allegedly. Oh, and there is a video, but I haven't seen it, but a friend of a friend has."
When you do basic journalism classes, this the structure of a classic bullshit story.
Or. As part of the tradition they all had to do it, hence conspiracy of silence. For now.
You are so naive to think these public school/university clubs/gangs don’t have rituals.
I think a more interesting line of enquiry, when the British ambassador in Washington was destroyed by a leak, is it in the National interest to know if that leak came to UK media from Putin? If true that would be more in National Interest break of journalistic cover than Hancocks what’s app tittle tattle she has released in national interest. In fact it would be treason - taking from work of Putin’s spy’s to harm British diplomacy - and the journalist and intermediary would need to face prosecution.
OK, I thought you were ridiculous over the new NI deal, but now I know your basic logical reason is just inept. Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible. And because I point this out I am trying to paint a picture that Cameron is "utterly square" in his youth.
That’s right. You’ve described your error perfectly.
Back to the NI deal. Who are you calling ridiculous? I’ve gathered all my points from mainstream media.
Mainstream media have moved on from the two spin documents released on the day to not just what the actual text really means, but how the arrangement is most likely to play out over the coming years. As well as the jarring differences of the two spin documents - the partisan summaries aimed at different audiences.
Myself and mainstream media are on same page now, that this is not the slam dunk you are spinning it is, you are now the cuckoo in the nest. And how ridiculous you look, as little cuckoo in nest of storks.
There's no point in engaging with you. You combine wild summaries with massive illogical leaps. You say outright this is a "perfect description" of your logic:
"Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible."
I am not even going to engage with your efforts to rapidly change the conversation when caught making a stupid point. I am just going to repeat your own argument back so that others can see what a troll you are, Isabel
Won’t debate, or can’t debate - Willy the name caller. 🙂
I’ll make it easy for you, I’ll break it down into a yes or no.
[...] the break/veto stopping that is now revealed as such a sham.
No to this part in particular.
Oh Driver - start your engine! that’s the most easiest con trick to dismantle of all their Agreement arguments and spin. 🥹
Having not solved, merely moved the Irish Sea border to an extra focus on increased market surveillance at North-South Ireland border instead - its now VITAL for UK and EU to smooth this border as much as possible, so it can no way resemble the actual hard border HY wants England Scotland border to look like, once Scotland in EU and Euro. Agree so far?
Now the ONLY way to smooth this is to Cover off ongoing divergence by giving EU control over applying new rules and law in NI, which local politicians can do nothing about. Hence this NON Veto. The Handbreak at the end of the Rainbow.
The EU spin machine on the Commission website says: "This mechanism would be triggered under the most exceptional circumstances and as a matter of last resort", making clear there is no expectation that it should be used regularly. And the UK government agrees with them, posting in their own online spin they say, "It is important to note that the permanent disapplication of the rules would mean divergence between Northern Ireland and Ireland (and the broader EU), and thus it would be a matter for the EU how to deal with the consequent impact on their market.” So clearly not Northern Irish politicians determining what is "trivial" as UK government working to that joint understanding with EU they clearly posted.
What has become clear from the actual text, it requires 30 members of two parties in the Assembly to pull the "brake" , and the UK government must be minded to agree too, otherwise it gets unpulled and the New EU Law goes ahead, UK government, probably under Starmer most the next ten years, will be very aware of the diplomatic wrangling and blowback it will cause pulling it and often having different policy goals. Also EU trade deals cannot be subject to a veto, or measures to prevent fraud anyway.
Then it must be proved in writing the veto is being used only as a last resort, with other measures - like the whole of the UK implementing the EU rule, having to be considered first. Finally, if Northern Ireland does get a veto on one thing, it can be punished by the EU imposing other sanctions, this is clearly in the agreed text too.
The way it has been devised, in practice that a handful of new EU laws are blocked this way, or perhaps none will be. And for sure those who use the brake will never have any control over what happens next.
And another related fact, it’s built into this agreement the EU have the power to turn off the Green Lane at any point they become unhappy with how it’s going, without having to consult with or get any agreement from either UK or NI. You don’t mind conceding that though do you?
What will happen next I predict - the DUP and ERG will come up with some Red Lines, the Veto at the end of the rainbow, if they ever did veto something EU allowed to punish them accordingly, and the green lane switched off so border thrown back into the Irish Sea by EU at anytime without any say in NI or London about that, being three of the red lines.
Sunak will then bottle going through with this, and it goes back into UK-EU renegotiation. Whether EU shift at any point on such red lines, I doubt they would, and UK probably wouldn’t want them to anyway, as the focus has to be on making the NI-ROI border as soft as possible, not remotely hard in any place, so no strong and persistent veto for the DUP.
Where you have been insisting it’s a good strong veto, the truth is neither London or Brussels want DUP to have good strong veto, as that thwarts what they are agreed on, keeping the NI-ROI border soft as possible during year on year of markets divergence. Hence tactic not trying to sell it on basis of veto, but on basis of in both markets simultaneously being paradise on earth.
We all know that the circle cannot be squared. And an odd numbered pile of objects can't be paired without remainder. Whatever is agreed by whoever over NI/GB/ROI/EU some relevant group can object on rational grounds.
It is time to move to the next stage of a phased process whereby an independent (and UN mandated) NI has to do grown up politics like the rest of the western world and sort a constitutional settlement deal for itself.
The rational choices are: Independent NI making its own way; a United Ireland; a United Britain and Ireland. For myself I would be happy with any of them.
A 'United Britain and Ireland' doesn't sound overwhelmingly rational to me...
In 1934 I doubt many cyclists could get near a speed limit, these days with the advanced materials technologies where bikes aren't built out of cast iron and have gears......not so much justification
The justification is the usual one why new laws aren't worthwhile -- the benefit is tiny and the overhead of the new law overly burdensome. If you want to apply speed limits to bikes, then bikes need speedometers, which is a lot of extra expense whuch reduces the number of cyclists (both a health and a traffic negative). And very few cyclists will get over the limit anyway, most of those who do won't do so by much or dangerously, and the tiny fraction who do do so dangerously can be tackled via an existing law. It would be a law of the "make a law to get newspaper headlines" variety, and those are almost always awful.
How fast do bikes have to be before we have to bring them into speed limits. Given records are exceptional I suspect if you half the records a fair few can achieve them
current records are Flat surface, unassisted – Male record for regular cycling without pace car is held by Sebastiaan Bowier with the speed of 133.75 km/h in 2013. Female record is held by Barbara Buatois with 121.81 km/h in 2010
So if a lot of people could achieve 60kmh....is that a reason to think about bikes being subject to speed limits?
Few people are travelling at 40mph on a bike on the flat, that pace is close to an elite level professionals top sprinting speed. So by all means cap cyclists to 40mph if you think its gonna save the little old ladies in the road wars.
But they're all gonna die eventually. At least being flattened by a wastrel and then splashed across the Daily Mail is an interesting way out.
Oh well thats ok as long as they make the front page of a sordid rag doesn't matter if they were killed
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
All the places that all the exhibits in all the museums in the world came from still exist.
Not in the respect Sunil is talking about. The Elgin Marbles are literally fixtures ripped off the walls of an ancient building that is still there.
In most cases, the item is either by its nature moveable, or the context in which it was displayed either gone or massively changed.
It's objectively ludicrous - even if one attaches no blame to Elgin personally and thinks it all legal etc - that the Marbles are in Bloomsbury rather than an ancient building which they were literally part of and which (I'll repeat) is still effing there.
Were they sent to Greece, my understanding was that they would be exhibited indoors rather than returned to the building. But I could be wrong.
Yes, as pm215 says they will go into the new Acropolis Museum.
Which is in part purpose designed to house them. [edit] Individually, the lot, everything ready.
"But we can't give them back because you lot can't be relied on to look after them!" is a standard trope of the non-returner tendency.
Reply: "Please feel free to come and inspect it, look at the air treatment, UV levels, etc. etc. and tell us what is wrong with them."
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
All the places that all the exhibits in all the museums in the world came from still exist.
Not in the respect Sunil is talking about. The Elgin Marbles are literally fixtures ripped off the walls of an ancient building that is still there.
In most cases, the item is either by its nature moveable, or the context in which it was displayed either gone or massively changed.
It's objectively ludicrous - even if one attaches no blame to Elgin personally and thinks it all legal etc - that the Marbles are in Bloomsbury rather than an ancient building which they were literally part of and which (I'll repeat) is still effing there.
Were they sent to Greece, my understanding was that they would be exhibited indoors rather than returned to the building. But I could be wrong.
Yes, as pm215 says they will go into the new Acropolis Museum.
Which is in part purpose designed to house them.
"But we can't give them back because you lot can't be relied on to look after them!" is a standard trope of the non-returner tendency.
Reply: "Please feel free to come and inspect it, look at the air treatment, UV levels, etc. etc. and tell us what is wrong with them."
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
I think it will be a bit of a stretch for PC Copper to argue that Jemima Cyclist was being inconsiderate by not obeying a speed limit which is explicitly defined in law as not applying to people on bikes.
Plenty of things can be cycling without due care, including perhaps inappropriate speed, but that would bear no relation to a posted speed limit.
It is considerably more reckless to speed on a bike than in a car. Why? Because its brakes are not as good. And because it has less adhesion it's much easier to lose control of it.
Of course, it's likely to do less actual damage if it does go wahoonie shaped, because it's lighter.
So yes, they can absolutely take that view, and it is hardly a stretch.
But as I say, they don't bother. Mostly in my experience of Staffordshire and Gloucestershire because they're not interested in enforcing laws unless they can see a fat profit for minimal work.
You are in Glocestershire, Doc?
Did you know the local Police Force has been in special measures for some time now? If you have ever had any dealings with them it is easy to see why.
I believe the same applies to the Met, but that would surprise nobody.
On the only three occasions I ever had dealings with Glospol before moving north, I came to the conclusion that the best way for them to cut crime in the county would be to commit less of it.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
I think it will be a bit of a stretch for PC Copper to argue that Jemima Cyclist was being inconsiderate by not obeying a speed limit which is explicitly defined in law as not applying to people on bikes.
Plenty of things can be cycling without due care, including perhaps inappropriate speed, but that would bear no relation to a posted speed limit.
It is considerably more reckless to speed on a bike than in a car. Why? Because its brakes are not as good. And because it has less adhesion it's much easier to lose control of it.
Of course, it's likely to do less actual damage if it does go wahoonie shaped, because it's lighter.
So yes, they can absolutely take that view, and it is hardly a stretch.
But as I say, they don't bother. Mostly in my experience of Staffordshire and Gloucestershire because they're not interested in enforcing laws unless they can see a fat profit for minimal work.
You are in Glocestershire, Doc?
Did you know the local Police Force has been in special measures for some time now? If you have ever had any dealings with them it is easy to see why.
I believe the same applies to the Met, but that would surprise nobody.
On the only three occasions I ever had dealings with Glospol before moving north, I came to the conclusion that the best way for them to cut crime in the county would be to commit less of it.
Wasn't it Pratchett that observed if you have more policeman you get more crime though I suspect he wasn't observing that from the point of policeman committing crime
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
All the places that all the exhibits in all the museums in the world came from still exist.
Not in the respect Sunil is talking about. The Elgin Marbles are literally fixtures ripped off the walls of an ancient building that is still there.
In most cases, the item is either by its nature moveable, or the context in which it was displayed either gone or massively changed.
It's objectively ludicrous - even if one attaches no blame to Elgin personally and thinks it all legal etc - that the Marbles are in Bloomsbury rather than an ancient building which they were literally part of and which (I'll repeat) is still effing there.
Were they sent to Greece, my understanding was that they would be exhibited indoors rather than returned to the building. But I could be wrong.
Yes, as pm215 says they will go into the new Acropolis Museum.
Which is in part purpose designed to house them.
"But we can't give them back because you lot can't be relied on to look after them!" is a standard trope of the non-returner tendency.
Reply: "Please feel free to come and inspect it, look at the air treatment, UV levels, etc. etc. and tell us what is wrong with them."
Nobody here has made that argument.
No, not here, today, but it is a very common one. Particularly for any return to a state or polity or association considered less civilised or more corrupt or poorer than the UK.
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
All the places that all the exhibits in all the museums in the world came from still exist.
Not in the respect Sunil is talking about. The Elgin Marbles are literally fixtures ripped off the walls of an ancient building that is still there.
In most cases, the item is either by its nature moveable, or the context in which it was displayed either gone or massively changed.
It's objectively ludicrous - even if one attaches no blame to Elgin personally and thinks it all legal etc - that the Marbles are in Bloomsbury rather than an ancient building which they were literally part of and which (I'll repeat) is still effing there.
Were they sent to Greece, my understanding was that they would be exhibited indoors rather than returned to the building. But I could be wrong.
Yes, as pm215 says they will go into the new Acropolis Museum.
Which is in part purpose designed to house them. [edit] Individually, the lot, everything ready.
"But we can't give them back because you lot can't be relied on to look after them!" is a standard trope of the non-returner tendency.
Reply: "Please feel free to come and inspect it, look at the air treatment, UV levels, etc. etc. and tell us what is wrong with them."
It's the Benin bronzes that are a little more concerning on that front. Quite who will end up owning them is very muddy (there being a strange royal connection) and things have a habit of disappearing in Nigeria especially from state institutions.
Isabel Oakeshott is doing a very impressive job of trashing what is left of her reputation.
Admits to signing an NDA with Mr Hancock, then handed the whole lot over to the Telegraph when it became convenient, whilst furiously demanding that her 'duty to the public' (or something) required her action, and she occupies the moral high ground.
I never liked Cameron, but her smearing of him over the clearly completely fabricated pig thing showed she was human filth. She admitted she had one deranged source and when challenged on it said it was just a book so can't be expected to have integrity standards. Awful woman.
How do you know for sure the pig thing was fabricated? Are you trying to spin a picture of David being utterly square in his youth, has never ritually ate swan for example, he never woke up in bed to sight of Boris standing on a table hacking golf balls out a window etc?
"Someone, who I can't name, told me it happened, but can't give me a time, place etc. Or any other witnesses, despite it being in front a crowd, allegedly. Oh, and there is a video, but I haven't seen it, but a friend of a friend has."
When you do basic journalism classes, this the structure of a classic bullshit story.
Or. As part of the tradition they all had to do it, hence conspiracy of silence. For now.
You are so naive to think these public school/university clubs/gangs don’t have rituals.
I think a more interesting line of enquiry, when the British ambassador in Washington was destroyed by a leak, is it in the National interest to know if that leak came to UK media from Putin? If true that would be more in National Interest break of journalistic cover than Hancocks what’s app tittle tattle she has released in national interest. In fact it would be treason - taking from work of Putin’s spy’s to harm British diplomacy - and the journalist and intermediary would need to face prosecution.
OK, I thought you were ridiculous over the new NI deal, but now I know your basic logical reason is just inept. Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible. And because I point this out I am trying to paint a picture that Cameron is "utterly square" in his youth.
That’s right. You’ve described your error perfectly.
Back to the NI deal. Who are you calling ridiculous? I’ve gathered all my points from mainstream media.
Mainstream media have moved on from the two spin documents released on the day to not just what the actual text really means, but how the arrangement is most likely to play out over the coming years. As well as the jarring differences of the two spin documents - the partisan summaries aimed at different audiences.
Myself and mainstream media are on same page now, that this is not the slam dunk you are spinning it is, you are now the cuckoo in the nest. And how ridiculous you look, as little cuckoo in nest of storks.
There's no point in engaging with you. You combine wild summaries with massive illogical leaps. You say outright this is a "perfect description" of your logic:
"Because some organizations have joining rituals, an outlandish claim that doesn't have evidence or witnesses, and is seen as "possibly deranged" by the person reporting it is credible."
I am not even going to engage with your efforts to rapidly change the conversation when caught making a stupid point. I am just going to repeat your own argument back so that others can see what a troll you are, Isabel
Won’t debate, or can’t debate - Willy the name caller. 🙂
I’ll make it easy for you, I’ll break it down into a yes or no.
[...] the break/veto stopping that is now revealed as such a sham.
No to this part in particular.
Oh Driver - start your engine! that’s the most easiest con trick to dismantle of all their Agreement arguments and spin. 🥹
Having not solved, merely moved the Irish Sea border to an extra focus on increased market surveillance at North-South Ireland border instead - its now VITAL for UK and EU to smooth this border as much as possible, so it can no way resemble the actual hard border HY wants England Scotland border to look like, once Scotland in EU and Euro. Agree so far?
Now the ONLY way to smooth this is to Cover off ongoing divergence by giving EU control over applying new rules and law in NI, which local politicians can do nothing about. Hence this NON Veto. The Handbreak at the end of the Rainbow.
The EU spin machine on the Commission website says: "This mechanism would be triggered under the most exceptional circumstances and as a matter of last resort", making clear there is no expectation that it should be used regularly. And the UK government agrees with them, posting in their own online spin they say, "It is important to note that the permanent disapplication of the rules would mean divergence between Northern Ireland and Ireland (and the broader EU), and thus it would be a matter for the EU how to deal with the consequent impact on their market.” So clearly not Northern Irish politicians determining what is "trivial" as UK government working to that joint understanding with EU they clearly posted.
What has become clear from the actual text, it requires 30 members of two parties in the Assembly to pull the "brake" , and the UK government must be minded to agree too, otherwise it gets unpulled and the New EU Law goes ahead, UK government, probably under Starmer most the next ten years, will be very aware of the diplomatic wrangling and blowback it will cause pulling it and often having different policy goals. Also EU trade deals cannot be subject to a veto, or measures to prevent fraud anyway.
Then it must be proved in writing the veto is being used only as a last resort, with other measures - like the whole of the UK implementing the EU rule, having to be considered first. Finally, if Northern Ireland does get a veto on one thing, it can be punished by the EU imposing other sanctions, this is clearly in the agreed text too.
The way it has been devised, in practice that a handful of new EU laws are blocked this way, or perhaps none will be. And for sure those who use the brake will never have any control over what happens next.
And another related fact, it’s built into this agreement the EU have the power to turn off the Green Lane at any point they become unhappy with how it’s going, without having to consult with or get any agreement from either UK or NI. You don’t mind conceding that though do you?
What will happen next I predict - the DUP and ERG will come up with some Red Lines, the Veto at the end of the rainbow, if they ever did veto something EU allowed to punish them accordingly, and the green lane switched off so border thrown back into the Irish Sea by EU at anytime without any say in NI or London about that, being three of the red lines.
Sunak will then bottle going through with this, and it goes back into UK-EU renegotiation. Whether EU shift at any point on such red lines, I doubt they would, and UK probably wouldn’t want them to anyway, as the focus has to be on making the NI-ROI border as soft as possible, not remotely hard in any place, so no strong and persistent veto for the DUP.
Where you have been insisting it’s a good strong veto, the truth is neither London or Brussels want DUP to have good strong veto, as that thwarts what they are agreed on, keeping the NI-ROI border soft as possible during year on year of markets divergence. Hence tactic not trying to sell it on basis of veto, but on basis of in both markets simultaneously being paradise on earth.
We all know that the circle cannot be squared. And an odd numbered pile of objects can't be paired without remainder. Whatever is agreed by whoever over NI/GB/ROI/EU some relevant group can object on rational grounds.
It is time to move to the next stage of a phased process whereby an independent (and UN mandated) NI has to do grown up politics like the rest of the western world and sort a constitutional settlement deal for itself.
The rational choices are: Independent NI making its own way; a United Ireland; a United Britain and Ireland. For myself I would be happy with any of them.
It has made a rational choice for itself, to stay in the UK but under the terms of the GFA
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
All the places that all the exhibits in all the museums in the world came from still exist.
It’s true but also false.
The Parthenon doesn’t exist anymore as it did when the marbles were there.
The people who built it don’t exist in the sense of culture anymore.
The state, the Athenian City State, doesn’t exist anymore.
So theoretically to return the marbles would not be returning them to where they were from except in a purely physical sense. And then you might have to consider if their physical origin is then the quarry where the marble came from.
Throughout the world there are works of art and objects that sit far away from their original home because someone with more means, money or power had the greed, desire, belief, or genuine love to buy them from whoever might have been their rightful owners or take them from a vanquished foe.
Whilst the above is slightly tongue in cheek it’s a thread that gets pulled for good reasons that unravels out of control.
A few years ago, The Hermitage had a huge exhibition of art the Red Army “liberated” from Berlin, in 1945.
A spectacular burst of doors being slammed downstairs in our former bank soon to be shop. Part of the house part of the building sits above this, and distinctive BANG from downstairs. No movement of course on the Ring cam.
So I go down with wifey staying in her office directly above the front door. I bang a few doors so we can work out which it is. And it's the inner hallway door. Which Ring cam shows was already properly shut on its latch. So we're hearing a door only installed 18 months back which the camera shows was and is properly closed being banged...
In 1934 I doubt many cyclists could get near a speed limit, these days with the advanced materials technologies where bikes aren't built out of cast iron and have gears......not so much justification
The justification is the usual one why new laws aren't worthwhile -- the benefit is tiny and the overhead of the new law overly burdensome. If you want to apply speed limits to bikes, then bikes need speedometers, which is a lot of extra expense whuch reduces the number of cyclists (both a health and a traffic negative). And very few cyclists will get over the limit anyway, most of those who do won't do so by much or dangerously, and the tiny fraction who do do so dangerously can be tackled via an existing law. It would be a law of the "make a law to get newspaper headlines" variety, and those are almost always awful.
How fast do bikes have to be before we have to bring them into speed limits. Given records are exceptional I suspect if you half the records a fair few can achieve them
current records are Flat surface, unassisted – Male record for regular cycling without pace car is held by Sebastiaan Bowier with the speed of 133.75 km/h in 2013. Female record is held by Barbara Buatois with 121.81 km/h in 2010
So if a lot of people could achieve 60kmh....is that a reason to think about bikes being subject to speed limits?
Few people are travelling at 40mph on a bike on the flat, that pace is close to an elite level professionals top sprinting speed. So by all means cap cyclists to 40mph if you think its gonna save the little old ladies in the road wars.
But they're all gonna die eventually. At least being flattened by a wastrel and then splashed across the Daily Mail is an interesting way out.
Oh well thats ok as long as they make the front page of a sordid rag doesn't matter if they were killed
The normal cycling speed in London is an average of 10-12mph. Obvs there is a distribution around that. The speed limits thing is another rhetorical diversion imo.
The fastest ever Tour de France was an average 26mph.
The efficiency of travelling on a cycle gains when you have the system set up properly so that people cycling do not need to stop, for example only once every N miles. That's a major way NL gets its edge.
I think we will begin to get into that when some infra starts going into Generation 3, and we get more sophisticated management - Chiswick High Road or Victoria Embankment are what I would call Generation 2, and the painted Cycle Superhighways are Generation 1.
On the lifetime thing, afaik normally riding a bike adds 4-5 years - according to studies.
"The police pursued me, my lonely mother rotted in a care home: this Covid hell must never be repeated From the moment the first ‘stay home’ order was issued, I had profound misgivings about lockdown – everything about it"
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
Our having the Parthenon Marbles was once compared to Hitler's plan of having Nelson's Column shipped to Germany and re-erected in Berlin. There's much force behind that, though arguably the marbles have vastly more cultural significance to Greece (and indeed western civilization).
My history book doesn’t contain the bit where the U.K. invaded, murdered folk, and extracted them. You can argue they were nicked by the ambassador, who was investigated for that by the Commons, depending on which accounts you read, but the Nazi analogy is utter bollocks.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Most unlike Mr Johnson. You'd think he'd be going on about Great British Heritage and not wanting to hide it behind Greek marbles and Assyrian bulls.
Hardly. Whatever you can accuse Bojo of (and there's a lot) a lack of appreciation for classical Greece isn't it.
Er, it's not called the Bloomsbury Museum of Hellenic Stuff.
Probably not going to be popular here, however I think a lot of items from antiquity should not belong to any particular current country even if they were discovered there as most modern day countries bear little resemblance to the nations of antiquity. I would prefer those artifacts declared world heritage and someone like the UN was charged with making sure they circulated for display. I would for example here say the Tut treasure, elgin marbles, roman artefacts, excalibur and the round table (if either should be discovered).
To me they are all part of our world cultural heritage and best they circulate for appreciation rather than you can view them if you travel to one particular country
Probably not all that practical. The greatest danger to most ancient artefacts is when they are moved - particularly if they are normally being kept in modern climate controlled museums. It is one reason why, for all I wold love to see them, I am not in favour of the Tut artefacts being on tour all the time.
Given the Greeks have a very modern facility for the marbles to go into and we have no reason to doubt they would be less well cared for and protected there than they are in Bloomsbury I can't really see any arguments (apart from my own personal one that it would be harder for me to see them) why the marbles should not go back.
But once they are back, don't keep moving them around.
A spectacular burst of doors being slammed downstairs in our former bank soon to be shop. Part of the house part of the building sits above this, and distinctive BANG from downstairs. No movement of course on the Ring cam.
So I go down with wifey staying in her office directly above the front door. I bang a few doors so we can work out which it is. And it's the inner hallway door. Which Ring cam shows was already properly shut on its latch. So we're hearing a door only installed 18 months back which the camera shows was and is properly closed being banged...
I hope we're going to hear the solution to this mystery in due course.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Most unlike Mr Johnson. You'd think he'd be going on about Great British Heritage and not wanting to hide it behind Greek marbles and Assyrian bulls.
Hardly. Whatever you can accuse Bojo of (and there's a lot) a lack of appreciation for classical Greece isn't it.
Er, it's not called the Bloomsbury Museum of Hellenic Stuff.
Probably not going to be popular here, however I think a lot of items from antiquity should not belong to any particular current country even if they were discovered there as most modern day countries bear little resemblance to the nations of antiquity. I would prefer those artifacts declared world heritage and someone like the UN was charged with making sure they circulated for display. I would for example here say the Tut treasure, elgin marbles, roman artefacts, excalibur and the round table (if either should be discovered).
To me they are all part of our world cultural heritage and best they circulate for appreciation rather than you can view them if you travel to one particular country
Probably not all that practical. The greatest danger to most ancient artefacts is when they are moved - particularly if they are normally being kept in modern climate controlled museums. It is one reason why, for all I wold love to see them, I am not in favour of the Tut artefacts being on tour all the time.
Given the Greeks have a very modern facility for the marbles to go into and we have no reason to doubt they would be less well cared for and protected there than they are in Bloomsbury I can't really see any arguments (apart from my own personal one that it would be harder for me to see them) why the marbles should not go back.
But once they are back, don't keep moving them around.
I can see the concern moving them, I still think they are world heritage not a country heritage. For example Sutton hoo....is that really british heritage, you could also argue its saxon heritage and saxons weren't from the uk originally.
I don't know what to suggest. I think everyone deserves to get a chance to view them not just those that can afford to travel and yes I accept your views on preservation so how do we fix that?
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Most unlike Mr Johnson. You'd think he'd be going on about Great British Heritage and not wanting to hide it behind Greek marbles and Assyrian bulls.
Hardly. Whatever you can accuse Bojo of (and there's a lot) a lack of appreciation for classical Greece isn't it.
Er, it's not called the Bloomsbury Museum of Hellenic Stuff.
Probably not going to be popular here, however I think a lot of items from antiquity should not belong to any particular current country even if they were discovered there as most modern day countries bear little resemblance to the nations of antiquity. I would prefer those artifacts declared world heritage and someone like the UN was charged with making sure they circulated for display. I would for example here say the Tut treasure, elgin marbles, roman artefacts, excalibur and the round table (if either should be discovered).
To me they are all part of our world cultural heritage and best they circulate for appreciation rather than you can view them if you travel to one particular country
Probably not all that practical. The greatest danger to most ancient artefacts is when they are moved - particularly if they are normally being kept in modern climate controlled museums. It is one reason why, for all I wold love to see them, I am not in favour of the Tut artefacts being on tour all the time.
Given the Greeks have a very modern facility for the marbles to go into and we have no reason to doubt they would be less well cared for and protected there than they are in Bloomsbury I can't really see any arguments (apart from my own personal one that it would be harder for me to see them) why the marbles should not go back.
But once they are back, don't keep moving them around.
Agreed.
The BM should of course be able to keep and display replicas that neither you or I would could distinguish from the real thing.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Most unlike Mr Johnson. You'd think he'd be going on about Great British Heritage and not wanting to hide it behind Greek marbles and Assyrian bulls.
Hardly. Whatever you can accuse Bojo of (and there's a lot) a lack of appreciation for classical Greece isn't it.
Er, it's not called the Bloomsbury Museum of Hellenic Stuff.
Probably not going to be popular here, however I think a lot of items from antiquity should not belong to any particular current country even if they were discovered there as most modern day countries bear little resemblance to the nations of antiquity. I would prefer those artifacts declared world heritage and someone like the UN was charged with making sure they circulated for display. I would for example here say the Tut treasure, elgin marbles, roman artefacts, excalibur and the round table (if either should be discovered).
To me they are all part of our world cultural heritage and best they circulate for appreciation rather than you can view them if you travel to one particular country
Probably not all that practical. The greatest danger to most ancient artefacts is when they are moved - particularly if they are normally being kept in modern climate controlled museums. It is one reason why, for all I wold love to see them, I am not in favour of the Tut artefacts being on tour all the time.
Given the Greeks have a very modern facility for the marbles to go into and we have no reason to doubt they would be less well cared for and protected there than they are in Bloomsbury I can't really see any arguments (apart from my own personal one that it would be harder for me to see them) why the marbles should not go back.
But once they are back, don't keep moving them around.
I can see the concern moving them, I still think they are world heritage not a country heritage. For example Sutton hoo....is that really british heritage, you could also argue its saxon heritage and saxons weren't from the uk originally.
I don't know what to suggest. I think everyone deserves to get a chance to view them not just those that can afford to travel and yes I accept your views on preservation so how do we fix that?
Hmm here is an idea....find a deserted island, build a museum to hold it all. Every person born gets a ticket to go view it. It can be financed by return visits being charged. But every single person can view it once
A spectacular burst of doors being slammed downstairs in our former bank soon to be shop. Part of the house part of the building sits above this, and distinctive BANG from downstairs. No movement of course on the Ring cam.
So I go down with wifey staying in her office directly above the front door. I bang a few doors so we can work out which it is. And it's the inner hallway door. Which Ring cam shows was already properly shut on its latch. So we're hearing a door only installed 18 months back which the camera shows was and is properly closed being banged...
I hope we're going to hear the solution to this mystery in due course.
I think @RochdalePioneers has been clear on this one. He says it's a ghost(s). Certainly, if the above comments are correct, it's the classic Sherlock Holmes line. "once you've e eliminated the impossible..."
Ambulance workers considering calling off strike after government offered talks
Seems as if the government is addressing the NHS strikes at last
On the other hand, the unions now know exactly what it was that made the Government jump when they hit the right nerve ending - the government bottled it when it came to A&E and intensive care striking for the first time, halting operations.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if the talks broke down, and more strikes including A&E and intensive care was called straight away. Call me cynical. Call me Union hating if you want. But let’s see if this does happen.
Postgraduate doctors are on strike from 13-15 March. No sign of that being called off and no sign of the government being willing to talk.
What do you know. I was reading the pb thread on cycling on my way home and then what should happen but a young man shoots past me on a bike. I have to admit my main issue with cyclists on pavements has been with teenage boys.
Went in to the shop and find my wallet burning from buying a few groceries. Given that wheat, oil and gas prices have come right down again, can anyone give an explanation for why this is? I know it takes time for these things to work their way through......
One thing that really annoys me is cyclists without lights, at night. There're a fair few around here that do it, mostly (but not solely) kids.
Also those people staring into their phones as they amble along the pavement..
Even worse while listening to music with iPods and unable to hear the bell.
If your cycle isn't meant to be there why the fuck should we listen for your bell?
Where I cycle it is meant to be there. Many of the pavements by me are dual use. 🙄
In my experience everywhere dual use the pavements have a line down the centre one marked cyclists and on marked pedestrians. I in this case stick to the pedestrian side....cyclists not so much
Shared use paths tend to be marked with a sign like this: (Snip) And paths where there is a dividing line with a different sign like this: (Snip) Though I have the same problems with whether to notify pedestrians of my presence on both types of paths, and pedestrians often forget which side of the path is which.
So do cyclists.
And to be fair, sometimes you do need to walk in the cycle part, for instance if the pedestrian side is blocked by a sign (that does happen annoyingly often), or passing other pedestrians. But as always, you should check and ensure that you're not inconveniencing other road users.
Here's an idea: a speed limit on shared paths of (say) 10 MPH.
Is anybody on this Site aware of anybody being fined for breaking the speed limit?
I ask because most London Boroughs have 20mph limits now and they apply 24/7 every day of the year. If you stick rigourously to the limit you are likely to be overtaken occasionally by a cyclist, yet I do not recall ever seeing one stopped.
You can get a ticket I suspect as I once got arrested for "drunk in charge of a shopping trolley"....stag night in my early twenties and was carrying a passenger which may have contributed
Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles.
There may be some local byelaws that apply speed limits to bikes, however.
Speed limits can apply to bikes, but it's bloody difficult to enforce them unless they're actually caught in the act and have ID on them that they show to the police.
As I say - possible but extremely rare under local byelaws.
It can be deemed a breach of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
By definition, riding in excess of the speed limit is showing a lack of consideration.
But it is a bugger to enforce due to the lack of licensing so most police forces don't bother.
I think it will be a bit of a stretch for PC Copper to argue that Jemima Cyclist was being inconsiderate by not obeying a speed limit which is explicitly defined in law as not applying to people on bikes.
Plenty of things can be cycling without due care, including perhaps inappropriate speed, but that would bear no relation to a posted speed limit.
It is considerably more reckless to speed on a bike than in a car. Why? Because its brakes are not as good. And because it has less adhesion it's much easier to lose control of it.
Of course, it's likely to do less actual damage if it does go wahoonie shaped, because it's lighter.
So yes, they can absolutely take that view, and it is hardly a stretch.
But as I say, they don't bother. Mostly in my experience of Staffordshire and Gloucestershire because they're not interested in enforcing laws unless they can see a fat profit for minimal work.
I'd actually question your statements about braking etc,, but that would be a rabbithole.
But hey, this is PB.
The hydraulic disc brakes on my cargo e-bike (Tern GSD) are seriously good. I have no idea what model they are but they stop on a sixpence even with two kids on the back. I'm more confident doing an emergency stop in it than I would be with Mrs Capitano's car.
I think hydraulic discs are pretty common on cargo e-bikes like that, with the exception of the Radpower range which have mechanical discs... but then Radpowers are problematic for several reasons. Fortunately they're not really seen much in the UK.
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
Also Melisandre was sort of cute
Melisandre is smoking hot.
Izzy is rather foxy until she opens her mouth to reveal her forked tongue.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
All the places that all the exhibits in all the museums in the world came from still exist.
It’s true but also false.
The Parthenon doesn’t exist anymore as it did when the marbles were there.
The people who built it don’t exist in the sense of culture anymore.
The state, the Athenian City State, doesn’t exist anymore.
So theoretically to return the marbles would not be returning them to where they were from except in a purely physical sense. And then you might have to consider if their physical origin is then the quarry where the marble came from.
Throughout the world there are works of art and objects that sit far away from their original home because someone with more means, money or power had the greed, desire, belief, or genuine love to buy them from whoever might have been their rightful owners or take them from a vanquished foe.
Whilst the above is slightly tongue in cheek it’s a thread that gets pulled for good reasons that unravels out of control.
A few years ago, The Hermitage had a huge exhibition of art the Red Army “liberated” from Berlin, in 1945.
Looting is the victorious soldiers’ prerogative.
There was a bit of a to do when the glorious SAS heroes of the Princes Gate siege at the Iranian Embassy in 1980 nicked the Rolexes of the terroritsts they shot...
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
Also Melisandre was sort of cute
Melisandre is smoking hot.
Izzy is rather foxy until she opens her mouth to reveal her forked tongue.
Tongue splitting is becoming common have you really never dated a girl that has done that?
A spectacular burst of doors being slammed downstairs in our former bank soon to be shop. Part of the house part of the building sits above this, and distinctive BANG from downstairs. No movement of course on the Ring cam.
So I go down with wifey staying in her office directly above the front door. I bang a few doors so we can work out which it is. And it's the inner hallway door. Which Ring cam shows was already properly shut on its latch. So we're hearing a door only installed 18 months back which the camera shows was and is properly closed being banged...
I hope we're going to hear the solution to this mystery in due course.
I think @RochdalePioneers has been clear on this one. He says it's a ghost(s). Certainly, if the above comments are correct, it's the classic Sherlock Holmes line. "once you've e eliminated the impossible..."
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
Also Melisandre was sort of cute
Melisandre is smoking hot.
Izzy is rather foxy until she opens her mouth to reveal her forked tongue.
Tongue splitting is becoming common have you really never dated a girl that has done that?
Why on earth would someone mutilate themself like that?
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
Also Melisandre was sort of cute
Melisandre is smoking hot.
Izzy is rather foxy until she opens her mouth to reveal her forked tongue.
Tongue splitting is becoming common have you really never dated a girl that has done that?
Why on earth would someone mutilate themself like that?
Wouldnt be my choice I admit but do know around 5 people that have
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
Also Melisandre was sort of cute
Melisandre is smoking hot.
Izzy is rather foxy until she opens her mouth to reveal her forked tongue.
Tongue splitting is becoming common have you really never dated a girl that has done that?
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
Also Melisandre was sort of cute
Melisandre is smoking hot.
Izzy is rather foxy until she opens her mouth to reveal her forked tongue.
Tongue splitting is becoming common have you really never dated a girl that has done that?
Why on earth would someone mutilate themself like that?
Wouldnt be my choice I admit but do know around 5 people that have
You mix with a different crowd than I do, is all I can say.
I had to have a small benign lump removed from the top of my tongue 18 months ago, half a dozen stitches. God was that painful once the local anaesthetic wore off.
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
Also Melisandre was sort of cute
Melisandre is smoking hot.
Izzy is rather foxy until she opens her mouth to reveal her forked tongue.
Tongue splitting is becoming common have you really never dated a girl that has done that?
Why on earth would someone mutilate themself like that?
Wouldnt be my choice I admit but do know around 5 people that have
You mix with a different crowd than I do, is all I can say.
Stating that the Elgin Marbles belong in London is a bit like saying the Crown Jewels belong in Athens!
The British Museum = Biggest Stolen Goods Warehouse in the World!
I think that's Boris's point. If the BM (or any museum for that matter) obliges itself to 'give everything back', it's not a museum, it's a room.
Indeed, loan exhibits abroad but if every major museum only displayed objects from the country it was located in there wouldn't be a lot of exhibits left in them
The Parthenon still exists, so the Marbles belong there.
All the places that all the exhibits in all the museums in the world came from still exist.
Not in the respect Sunil is talking about. The Elgin Marbles are literally fixtures ripped off the walls of an ancient building that is still there.
In most cases, the item is either by its nature moveable, or the context in which it was displayed either gone or massively changed.
It's objectively ludicrous - even if one attaches no blame to Elgin personally and thinks it all legal etc - that the Marbles are in Bloomsbury rather than an ancient building which they were literally part of and which (I'll repeat) is still effing there.
Were they sent to Greece, my understanding was that they would be exhibited indoors rather than returned to the building. But I could be wrong.
The Marbles are a snoozefest anyway. Get some of the Vindolanda stuff there instead.
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
Also Melisandre was sort of cute
Melisandre is smoking hot.
Izzy is rather foxy until she opens her mouth to reveal her forked tongue.
Tongue splitting is becoming common have you really never dated a girl that has done that?
Why on earth would someone mutilate themself like that?
I think these things, related piercings and tattooing are symptomatic of people's estrangement from their own body, and also a feeling of lost control over their lives. It is an attempt to establish some control and self authority, related in some ways to the body dysmorphia of anorexia nervosa and gender dysphoria.
A spectacular burst of doors being slammed downstairs in our former bank soon to be shop. Part of the house part of the building sits above this, and distinctive BANG from downstairs. No movement of course on the Ring cam.
So I go down with wifey staying in her office directly above the front door. I bang a few doors so we can work out which it is. And it's the inner hallway door. Which Ring cam shows was already properly shut on its latch. So we're hearing a door only installed 18 months back which the camera shows was and is properly closed being banged...
I hope we're going to hear the solution to this mystery in due course.
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
Also Melisandre was sort of cute
Melisandre is smoking hot.
Izzy is rather foxy until she opens her mouth to reveal her forked tongue.
Tongue splitting is becoming common have you really never dated a girl that has done that?
Why on earth would someone mutilate themself like that?
I think these things, related piercings and tattooing are symptomatic of people's estrangement from their own body, and also a feeling of lost control over their lives. It is an attempt to establish some control and self authority, related in some ways to the body dysmorphia of anorexia nervous and gender dysphoria.
No doubt, but I find it all very hard to comprehend.
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
Also Melisandre was sort of cute
Melisandre is smoking hot.
Izzy is rather foxy until she opens her mouth to reveal her forked tongue.
Tongue splitting is becoming common have you really never dated a girl that has done that?
Why on earth would someone mutilate themself like that?
Wouldnt be my choice I admit but do know around 5 people that have
You mix with a different crowd than I do, is all I can say.
Isabel Oakeshott is Melisandre from Game of Thrones.
You are wrong, one is a temptress attached to a man who wanted power and sacrificed an innocent naive victim who didn’t have the intellectual capacity to see what was coming and the other is Melisandre.
Also Melisandre was sort of cute
Melisandre is smoking hot.
Izzy is rather foxy until she opens her mouth to reveal her forked tongue.
Tongue splitting is becoming common have you really never dated a girl that has done that?
Why on earth would someone mutilate themself like that?
I think these things, related piercings and tattooing are symptomatic of people's estrangement from their own body, and also a feeling of lost control over their lives. It is an attempt to establish some control and self authority, related in some ways to the body dysmorphia of anorexia nervous and gender dysphoria.
Probably most of the people I know feel they have no control over there lives other than their body. They make barely more than minimum wage, live paycheck to paycheck and a bill away from disaster. Is it a surprise the feel they have no control?
Comments
TikTok's where the action is these days.
So any lingering doubts?
What will happen next I predict - the DUP and ERG will come up with some Red Lines, the Veto at the end of the rainbow, if they ever did veto something EU allowed to punish them accordingly, and the green lane switched off so border thrown back into the Irish Sea by EU at anytime without any say in NI or London about that, being three of the red lines.
Sunak will then bottle going through with this, and it goes back into UK-EU renegotiation. Whether EU shift at any point on such red lines, I doubt they would, and UK probably wouldn’t want them to anyway, as the focus has to be on making the NI-ROI border as soft as possible, not remotely hard in any place, so no strong and persistent veto for the DUP.
Where you have been insisting it’s a good strong veto, the truth is neither London or Brussels want DUP to have good strong veto, as that thwarts what they are agreed on, keeping the NI-ROI border soft as possible during year on year of markets divergence. Hence tactic not trying to sell it on basis of veto, but on basis of in both markets simultaneously being paradise on earth.
Plenty of things can be cycling without due care, including perhaps inappropriate speed, but that would bear no relation to a posted speed limit.
sadly as cyclists have moved onto pavement spaces whether dualled or unofficial a minority of cyclists have take that attitude to pedestrians.
I suspect their maybe an overlap between the two groups in that some car drivers also cycle and show equal contempt for other users
The Parthenon doesn’t exist anymore as it did when the marbles were there.
The people who built it don’t exist in the sense of culture anymore.
The state, the Athenian City State, doesn’t exist anymore.
So theoretically to return the marbles would not be returning them to where they were from except in a purely physical sense. And then you might have to consider if their physical origin is then the quarry where the marble came from.
Throughout the world there are works of art and objects that sit far away from their original home because someone with more means, money or power had the greed, desire, belief, or genuine love to buy them from whoever might have been their rightful owners or take them from a vanquished foe.
Whilst the above is slightly tongue in cheek it’s a thread that gets pulled for good reasons that unravels out of control.
In most cases, the item is either by its nature moveable, or the context in which it was displayed either gone or massively changed.
It's objectively ludicrous - even if one attaches no blame to Elgin personally and thinks it all legal etc - that the Marbles are in Bloomsbury rather than an ancient building which they were literally part of and which (I'll repeat) is still effing there.
Of course, it's likely to do less actual damage if it does go wahoonie shaped, because it's lighter.
So yes, they can absolutely take that view, and it is hardly a stretch.
But as I say, they don't bother. Mostly in my experience of Staffordshire and Gloucestershire because they're not interested in enforcing laws unless they can see a fat profit for minimal work.
Eat local. Eat seasonal.
But that wouldn't get past the Wokefinders these days.
The same would apply to the dangerous practice of cycling on and off the pavement intermittently. It is incredibly difficult for motorists to cope with bikes coming onto the road unexpectedly on their inside. It is commonplace in London, but I have never even heard of anyone being done for it.
Germany and its partners will continue to help Ukraine's Armed Forces with both weapons and training, he added - UkrInform
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1631409489650876416
To me they are all part of our world cultural heritage and best they circulate for appreciation rather than you can view them if you travel to one particular country
Did you know the local Police Force has been in special measures for some time now? If you have ever had any dealings with them it is easy to see why.
I believe the same applies to the Met, but that would surprise nobody.
I think the impact on others is perhaps the primary consideration. I think there are very good pareto reasons - dealing with the KSIs - why the FATAL4 safety priorities all relate to motor vehicles.
I think the difference between 'speeding' on a bike and a car is perhaps well-illustrated by *this* story:
So I wouldn’t be surprised if the talks broke down, and more strikes including A&E and intensive care was called straight away. Call me cynical. Call me Union hating if you want. But let’s see if this does happen.
I'm not sure what the situation is re indoor stone in London nowadays with Nox and Sox.
It is time to move to the next stage of a phased process whereby an independent (and UN mandated) NI has to do grown up politics like the rest of the western world and sort a constitutional settlement deal for itself.
The rational choices are: Independent NI making its own way; a United Ireland; a United Britain and Ireland. For myself I would be happy with any of them.
But they're all gonna die eventually. At least being flattened by a wastrel and then splashed across the Daily Mail is an interesting way out.
Which is in part purpose designed to house them. [edit] Individually, the lot, everything ready.
"But we can't give them back because you lot can't be relied on to look after them!" is a standard trope of the non-returner tendency.
Reply: "Please feel free to come and inspect it, look at the air treatment, UV levels, etc. etc. and tell us what is wrong with them."
Falange 0 Catalonia 1
Looting is the victorious soldiers’ prerogative.
So I go down with wifey staying in her office directly above the front door. I bang a few doors so we can work out which it is. And it's the inner hallway door. Which Ring cam shows was already properly shut on its latch. So we're hearing a door only installed 18 months back which the camera shows was and is properly closed being banged...
The fastest ever Tour de France was an average 26mph.
The efficiency of travelling on a cycle gains when you have the system set up properly so that people cycling do not need to stop, for example only once every N miles. That's
a major way NL gets its edge.
I think we will begin to get into that when some infra starts going into Generation 3, and we get more sophisticated management - Chiswick High Road or Victoria Embankment are what I would call Generation 2, and the painted Cycle Superhighways are Generation 1.
On the lifetime thing, afaik normally riding a bike adds 4-5 years - according to studies.
"The police pursued me, my lonely mother rotted in a care home: this Covid hell must never be repeated
From the moment the first ‘stay home’ order was issued, I had profound misgivings about lockdown – everything about it"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/02/rachel-johnson-police-pursued-lonely-mother-rotted-care-home/
Given the Greeks have a very modern facility for the marbles to go into and we have no reason to doubt they would be less well cared for and protected there than they are in Bloomsbury I can't really see any arguments (apart from my own personal one that it would be harder for me to see them) why the marbles should not go back.
But once they are back, don't keep moving them around.
I don't know what to suggest. I think everyone deserves to get a chance to view them not just those that can afford to travel and yes I accept your views on preservation so how do we fix that?
The BM should of course be able to keep and display replicas that neither you or I would could distinguish from the real thing.
The hydraulic disc brakes on my cargo e-bike (Tern GSD) are seriously good. I have no idea what model they are but they stop on a sixpence even with two kids on the back. I'm more confident doing an emergency stop in it than I would be with Mrs Capitano's car.
I think hydraulic discs are pretty common on cargo e-bikes like that, with the exception of the Radpower range which have mechanical discs... but then Radpowers are problematic for several reasons. Fortunately they're not really seen much in the UK.
I had to have a small benign lump removed from the top of my tongue 18 months ago, half a dozen stitches. God was that painful once the local anaesthetic wore off.