It's not just Rees-Mogg or old-fashioned bosses - practically all the major multinational companies are moving toward requiring more onsite time. Identifying the reasons why may be more enlightening than fretting about council staff. Maybe all of them know less about labour productivity than PB comments, but doubt it.
Or alternatively, all of their managers are nervous about being seen to be no use.
I had a conversation with someone 'on high' this week was very much of the 'on site' persuasion. Quite an extrovert and had the total conviction that people in an office all 'bounced ideas off each other', draw amazing plans on whiteboards, 'generated energy' etc.
I was really curious as to whether that was their *actual* experience, or whether it was just a perception as an extrovert that an hour spent with people babbling over each other's conversations amounted to the same thing.
The last meeting I was at where people used a whiteboard - I let them dribble away for over an hour drawing flowcharts until they were sated - then pointed out that there was no way to 'escape' the loop from the first part of the flowchart, so the remaining 90% was entirely redundant.
Made myself very popular. Again.
Pity you didn't point it out in the first five minutes, instead of sneering at your dribbling colleagues.
It should be, first, if the ball touches the grass or ground, within ten seconds of the catcher's fingers first making contact: Not Out
Everything else is detail
Surely the very essence of a catch is that you prevent the ball from touching the ground. Starc didn't prevent it from touching the ground for the very simple reason that it did touch the ground. I can't see what there is to argue about.
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
The law does not say you stop moving, it says 'has complete control' over your movement. If you catch, land on your feet whilst moving, and throw the ball in the air immediately then you did have control, however immediately you threw the ball.
This seems a clear case of people just not knowing what the law says, and getting angry it does not say what they think it says. It doesn't seem that controversial to me, as for example we see all the time people catching a ball clearly, hitting the ground, and the ball popping out without it counting as a catch - because they did not have control.
Glemm McGrath can moan all he likes, but you can't just rub the ball on the ground after you catch - the moment is not dead.
Just watched it. Even without the law, you'd have to do some serious mental contortions to say that should be classed as catch - the balls being scraped along the ground for an eternity.
Just seen it myself. It's clearly not a catch, not even marginal.
It's very closely analagous to the situation where a fielder makes a diving catch and the ball pops out of his hands when he hits the ground. The ball might be under control but the body isn't. It's the same here. He's used the ball, which is plainly grounded, to stabilise himself as he falls.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/opinion/elena-kagan-dissent-supreme-court.html … I don’t want to discuss Roberts’s majority opinion as much as I do Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent. Kagan wrote something unusual. She didn’t just challenge the chief justice’s reasoning, she questioned whether the court’s decision was even constitutional.
“From the first page to the last, today’s opinion departs from the demands of judicial restraint,” Kagan wrote. “At the behest of a party that has suffered no injury, the majority decides a contested public policy issue properly belonging to the politically accountable branches and the people they represent.”
She continued: “That is a major problem not just for governance, but for democracy too. Congress is of course a democratic institution; it responds, even if imperfectly, to the preferences of American voters. And agency officials, though not themselves elected, serve a President with the broadest of all political constituencies. But this Court? It is, by design, as detached as possible from the body politic. That is why the Court is supposed to stick to its business — to decide only cases and controversies, and to stay away from making this Nation’s policy about subjects like student-loan relief.”
The court, Kagan concluded, “exercises authority it does not have. It violates the Constitution.”
It’s a remarkable statement. To say that the Supreme Court can violate the Constitution is to reject the idea that the court is somehow outside the constitutional system. It is to remind the public that the court is as bound by the Constitution as the other branches, which is to say that it is subject to the same “checks and balances” as the legislature and the executive.
Kagan’s dissent, in other words, is a call for accountability. For Congress, especially, to exercise its authority to discipline the court when it oversteps its bounds...
It's not just Rees-Mogg or old-fashioned bosses - practically all the major multinational companies are moving toward requiring more onsite time. Identifying the reasons why may be more enlightening than fretting about council staff. Maybe all of them know less about labour productivity than PB comments, but doubt it.
Or alternatively, all of their managers are nervous about being seen to be no use.
I had a conversation with someone 'on high' this week was very much of the 'on site' persuasion. Quite an extrovert and had the total conviction that people in an office all 'bounced ideas off each other', draw amazing plans on whiteboards, 'generated energy' etc.
I was really curious as to whether that was their *actual* experience, or whether it was just a perception as an extrovert that an hour spent with people babbling over each other's conversations amounted to the same thing.
The last meeting I was at where people used a whiteboard - I let them dribble away for over an hour drawing flowcharts until they were sated - then pointed out that there was no way to 'escape' the loop from the first part of the flowchart, so the remaining 90% was entirely redundant.
Made myself very popular. Again.
Pity you didn't point it out in the first five minutes, instead of sneering at your dribbling colleagues.
No, I think they’ll better remember the lesson that way.
It should be, first, if the ball touches the grass or ground, within ten seconds of the catcher's fingers first making contact: Not Out
Everything else is detail
Surely the very essence of a catch is that you prevent the ball from touching the ground. Starc didn't prevent it from touching the ground for the very simple reason that it did touch the ground. I can't see what there is to argue about.
Absolutely. It's absurd. It's like claiming you can score a goal without the ball actually crossing the goal line
It's a fecking nonsense. Change the law: simplify it
If they keep those limits in the longer term it’s going to have a massive effect on both general campaigning and the sudden spread of outrage-of-the-minute topics.
My mother was always, in retrospect, very strict about this. If the ball touched the floor, not out. She had no time at all for cricketers hurling the ball in celebration and if the ball then hit the ground as a result, not out. Considering I was an only child, and the standard of cricket played was never more serious than beach cricket, her attitude to this was, in retrospect, uncharacteristically hard line. Anyway, she definitely wouldn't have given Duckett out.
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
The law does not say you stop moving, it says 'has complete control' over your movement. If you catch, land on your feet whilst moving, and throw the ball in the air immediately then you did have control, however immediately you threw the ball.
This seems a clear case of people just not knowing what the law says, and getting angry it does not say what they think it says. It doesn't seem that controversial to me, as for example we see all the time people catching a ball clearly, hitting the ground, and the ball popping out without it counting as a catch - because they did not have control.
Glemm McGrath can moan all he likes, but you can't just rub the ball on the ground after you catch - the moment is not dead.
Just watched it. Even without the law, you'd have to do some serious mental contortions to say that should be classed as catch - the balls being scraped along the ground for an eternity.
Just seen it myself. It's clearly not a catch, not even marginal.
It's very closely analagous to the situation where a fielder makes a diving catch and the ball pops out of his hands when he hits the ground. The ball might be under control but the body isn't. It's the same here. He's used the ball, which is plainly grounded, to stabilise himself as he falls.
Recant, Mr McGrath!
The catcher generally knows perfectly well if he has made a good catch. Just as the batsman knows if he has snicked. Time for some sportsmanship.
It should be, first, if the ball touches the grass or ground, within ten seconds of the catcher's fingers first making contact: Not Out
Everything else is detail
Surely the very essence of a catch is that you prevent the ball from touching the ground. Starc didn't prevent it from touching the ground for the very simple reason that it did touch the ground. I can't see what there is to argue about.
Absolutely. It's absurd. It's like claiming you can score a goal without the ball actually crossing the goal line
It's a fecking nonsense. Change the law: simplify it
Didn't the 1966 World Cup Final feature a goal that later VAR technology suggested was a false goal?
Latest suggestion is the Musk, following Mel Brook’s idea, has sold 500% of Twitter, and is now intentionally trying to bankrupt it before he has to deliver on the deal.
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
The law does not say you stop moving, it says 'has complete control' over your movement. If you catch, land on your feet whilst moving, and throw the ball in the air immediately then you did have control, however immediately you threSteviw the ball.
This seems a clear case of people just not knowing what the law says, and getting angry it does not say what they think it says. It doesn't seem that controversial to me, as for example we see all the time people catching a ball clearly, hitting the ground, and the ball popping out without it counting as a catch - because they did not have control.
Glemm McGrath can moan all he likes, but you can't just rub the ball on the ground after you catch - the moment is not dead.
Just watched it. Even without the law, you'd have to do some serious mental contortions to say that should be classed as catch - the balls being scraped along the ground for an eternity.
Just seen it myself. It's clearly not a catch, not even marginal.
It's very closely analagous to the situation where a fielder makes a diving catch and the ball pops out of his hands when he hits the ground. The ball might be under control but the body isn't. It's the same here. He's used the ball, which is plainly grounded, to stabilise himself as he falls.
Recant, Mr McGrath!
The catcher generally knows perfectly well if he has made a good catch. Just as the batsman knows if he has snicked. Time for some sportsmanship.
Steve Smith's recent "sort of" catch was more justifiable than this one. And Smith's was very iffy
The ball isn't just *grounded* in Starc's catch, he ploughs it through the turf. What more does he have to do for it to be a non-catch? Entomb it with recondite ceremonies? Bounce if off his chest so it goes three miles down a tin mine?
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
The law does not say you stop moving, it says 'has complete control' over your movement. If you catch, land on your feet whilst moving, and throw the ball in the air immediately then you did have control, however immediately you threw the ball.
This seems a clear case of people just not knowing what the law says, and getting angry it does not say what they think it says. It doesn't seem that controversial to me, as for example we see all the time people catching a ball clearly, hitting the ground, and the ball popping out without it counting as a catch - because they did not have control.
Glemm McGrath can moan all he likes, but you can't just rub the ball on the ground after you catch - the moment is not dead.
Just watched it. Even without the law, you'd have to do some serious mental contortions to say that should be classed as catch - the balls being scraped along the ground for an eternity.
Just seen it myself. It's clearly not a catch, not even marginal.
It's very closely analagous to the situation where a fielder makes a diving catch and the ball pops out of his hands when he hits the ground. The ball might be under control but the body isn't. It's the same here. He's used the ball, which is plainly grounded, to stabilise himself as he falls.
Recant, Mr McGrath!
The catcher generally knows perfectly well if he has made a good catch. Just as the batsman knows if he has snicked. Time for some sportsmanship.
You have to think Starc didn't know or properly understand the law, because he could easily have put the matter beyond doubt by rolling over and keeping the ball off the ground.
I don't think it was poor sportsmanship, just simply a player not fully knowing the laws of the game. That's common in most sports.
Twitter is a menace, of course, but also provides (provided?) the only way to access communities of expertise.
If it dies, a lot of value goes with it.
Something will appear and take its place - the problem is none of the options are there yet mastodon is user unfriendly while Bluesky is slowly ramping up...
I don’t know if this is amusing or disturbing, but Meta is developing a Twitter competitor service.
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
The law does not say you stop moving, it says 'has complete control' over your movement. If you catch, land on your feet whilst moving, and throw the ball in the air immediately then you did have control, however immediately you threw the ball.
This seems a clear case of people just not knowing what the law says, and getting angry it does not say what they think it says. It doesn't seem that controversial to me, as for example we see all the time people catching a ball clearly, hitting the ground, and the ball popping out without it counting as a catch - because they did not have control.
Glemm McGrath can moan all he likes, but you can't just rub the ball on the ground after you catch - the moment is not dead.
Just watched it. Even without the law, you'd have to do some serious mental contortions to say that should be classed as catch - the balls being scraped along the ground for an eternity.
Just seen it myself. It's clearly not a catch, not even marginal.
It's very closely analagous to the situation where a fielder makes a diving catch and the ball pops out of his hands when he hits the ground. The ball might be under control but the body isn't. It's the same here. He's used the ball, which is plainly grounded, to stabilise himself as he falls.
Recant, Mr McGrath!
The catcher generally knows perfectly well if he has made a good catch. Just as the batsman knows if he has snicked. Time for some sportsmanship.
You have to think Starc didn't know or properly understand the law, because he could easily have put the matter beyond doubt by rolling over and keeping the ball off the ground.
I don't think it was poor sportsmanship, just simply a player not fully knowing the laws of the game. That's common in most sports.
You're too generous. Looking at Starc's quietly smirking countenance, I reckon this was simple cheating
It should be, first, if the ball touches the grass or ground, within ten seconds of the catcher's fingers first making contact: Not Out
Everything else is detail
The law deliberately doesn't include a time limit because it's possible to juggle a ball for a long time without having control over it. Instead it's about having full control over the further disposal of it.
It should be, first, if the ball touches the grass or ground, within ten seconds of the catcher's fingers first making contact: Not Out
Everything else is detail
The law deliberately doesn't include a time limit because it's possible to juggle a ball for a long time without having control over it. Instead it's about having full control over the further disposal of it.
Well if you can't control it, and avoid it hitting the ground, within ten seconds: Not Out
Fairly simple
The essence of a catch is keeping it off the ground, everything else is trivial. My simple law would allow you to toss it to someone else. It's just not allowed to hit the ground, within ten seconds of initial contact
If they keep those limits in the longer term it’s going to have a massive effect on both general campaigning and the sudden spread of outrage-of-the-minute topics.
It should be, first, if the ball touches the grass or ground, within ten seconds of the catcher's fingers first making contact: Not Out
Everything else is detail
Surely the very essence of a catch is that you prevent the ball from touching the ground. Starc didn't prevent it from touching the ground for the very simple reason that it did touch the ground. I can't see what there is to argue about.
Absolutely. It's absurd. It's like claiming you can score a goal without the ball actually crossing the goal line
It's a fecking nonsense. Change the law: simplify it
Didn't the 1966 World Cup Final feature a goal that later VAR technology suggested was a false goal?
That was using VAR cameras that can peer back through time, presumably?
If they keep those limits in the longer term it’s going to have a massive effect on both general campaigning and the sudden spread of outrage-of-the-minute topics.
It should be, first, if the ball touches the grass or ground, within ten seconds of the catcher's fingers first making contact: Not Out
Everything else is detail
Surely the very essence of a catch is that you prevent the ball from touching the ground. Starc didn't prevent it from touching the ground for the very simple reason that it did touch the ground. I can't see what there is to argue about.
Absolutely. It's absurd. It's like claiming you can score a goal without the ball actually crossing the goal line
It's a fecking nonsense. Change the law: simplify it
Didn't the 1966 World Cup Final feature a goal that later VAR technology suggested was a false goal?
That was using VAR cameras that can peer back through time, presumably?
Using the original footage of the match and putting an early version of the tech on it.
Yes, I think it would have been as reliable as a Dominic Cummings blogpost too.
Latest suggestion is the Musk, following Mel Brook’s idea, has sold 500% of Twitter, and is now intentionally trying to bankrupt it before he has to deliver on the deal.
Anyone know how to watch Wimbledon abroad in Europe?
On TV? Tennis is quite a popular sport on the continent I understand, and I’m told that Wimbledon is one of the premier tournaments, so there may be enough interest for the local telly to show it. Just a hunch.
It's not just Rees-Mogg or old-fashioned bosses - practically all the major multinational companies are moving toward requiring more onsite time. Identifying the reasons why may be more enlightening than fretting about council staff. Maybe all of them know less about labour productivity than PB comments, but doubt it.
Or alternatively, all of their managers are nervous about being seen to be no use.
I had a conversation with someone 'on high' this week was very much of the 'on site' persuasion. Quite an extrovert and had the total conviction that people in an office all 'bounced ideas off each other', draw amazing plans on whiteboards, 'generated energy' etc.
I was really curious as to whether that was their *actual* experience, or whether it was just a perception as an extrovert that an hour spent with people babbling over each other's conversations amounted to the same thing.
The last meeting I was at where people used a whiteboard - I let them dribble away for over an hour drawing flowcharts until they were sated - then pointed out that there was no way to 'escape' the loop from the first part of the flowchart, so the remaining 90% was entirely redundant.
Made myself very popular. Again.
Pity you didn't point it out in the first five minutes, instead of sneering at your dribbling colleagues.
Somebody invites me to a one hour meeting I want it to last an hour so I can charge an hour to their project.
It should be, first, if the ball touches the grass or ground, within ten seconds of the catcher's fingers first making contact: Not Out
Everything else is detail
The law deliberately doesn't include a time limit because it's possible to juggle a ball for a long time without having control over it. Instead it's about having full control over the further disposal of it.
Well if you can't control it, and avoid it hitting the ground, within ten seconds: Not Out
Fairly simple
The essence of a catch is keeping it off the ground, everything else is trivial. My simple law would allow you to toss it to someone else. It's just not allowed to hit the ground, within ten seconds of initial contact
Any Aussies on here? If so, can you please advise whether all your countrymen are cheating convict bastards or just the ones you send over here to play cricket?
Anyone know how to watch Wimbledon abroad in Europe?
On TV? Tennis is quite a popular sport on the continent I understand, and I’m told that Wimbledon is one of the premier tournaments, so there may be enough interest for the local telly to show it. Just a hunch.
It's Finnish TV and they have never shown Wimbledon in my experience. I'm following up LostPassword's suggestion.
It's not just Rees-Mogg or old-fashioned bosses - practically all the major multinational companies are moving toward requiring more onsite time. Identifying the reasons why may be more enlightening than fretting about council staff. Maybe all of them know less about labour productivity than PB comments, but doubt it.
Or alternatively, all of their managers are nervous about being seen to be no use.
I had a conversation with someone 'on high' this week was very much of the 'on site' persuasion. Quite an extrovert and had the total conviction that people in an office all 'bounced ideas off each other', draw amazing plans on whiteboards, 'generated energy' etc.
I was really curious as to whether that was their *actual* experience, or whether it was just a perception as an extrovert that an hour spent with people babbling over each other's conversations amounted to the same thing.
The last meeting I was at where people used a whiteboard - I let them dribble away for over an hour drawing flowcharts until they were sated - then pointed out that there was no way to 'escape' the loop from the first part of the flowchart, so the remaining 90% was entirely redundant.
Made myself very popular. Again.
Pity you didn't point it out in the first five minutes, instead of sneering at your dribbling colleagues.
Somebody invites me to a one hour meeting I want it to last an hour so I can charge an hour to their project.
I'd be surprised if they couldn't find some other useless nonsense to talk about, if I'm honest.
It should be, first, if the ball touches the grass or ground, within ten seconds of the catcher's fingers first making contact: Not Out
Everything else is detail
The law deliberately doesn't include a time limit because it's possible to juggle a ball for a long time without having control over it. Instead it's about having full control over the further disposal of it.
Well if you can't control it, and avoid it hitting the ground, within ten seconds: Not Out
Fairly simple
The essence of a catch is keeping it off the ground, everything else is trivial. My simple law would allow you to toss it to someone else. It's just not allowed to hit the ground, within ten seconds of initial contact
Any Aussies on here? If so, can you please advise whether all your countrymen are cheating convict bastards or just the ones you send over here to play cricket?
The problem with Australians is not that so many of them are descended from convicts but that so many are descended from prison officers.
For the benefit of those of us outside of the twittersphere and no longer allowed to look in, what's going on?
I'm afraid from now on you will have to pay me, for direct Twitter relay
£3 per tweet. Them's the breaks. Blame Elon
Has anyone on here ever read a tweet worth £3?
Yes. The guy who used to do the Bang & Olufson tweet jokes. They were genuinely hilarious, and could sometimes make me laugh out loud for 30 seconds or so
Sounds like it should have been out to me. Players throw the ball up in the air all the time before they've finished moving, and the ball usually hits the ground rather than being caught by someone else.
The law does not say you stop moving, it says 'has complete control' over your movement. If you catch, land on your feet whilst moving, and throw the ball in the air immediately then you did have control, however immediately you threw the ball.
This seems a clear case of people just not knowing what the law says, and getting angry it does not say what they think it says. It doesn't seem that controversial to me, as for example we see all the time people catching a ball clearly, hitting the ground, and the ball popping out without it counting as a catch - because they did not have control.
Glemm McGrath can moan all he likes, but you can't just rub the ball on the ground after you catch - the moment is not dead.
Just watched it. Even without the law, you'd have to do some serious mental contortions to say that should be classed as catch - the balls being scraped along the ground for an eternity.
Just seen it myself. It's clearly not a catch, not even marginal.
It's very closely analagous to the situation where a fielder makes a diving catch and the ball pops out of his hands when he hits the ground. The ball might be under control but the body isn't. It's the same here. He's used the ball, which is plainly grounded, to stabilise himself as he falls.
Recant, Mr McGrath!
The catcher generally knows perfectly well if he has made a good catch. Just as the batsman knows if he has snicked. Time for some sportsmanship.
You have to think Starc didn't know or properly understand the law, because he could easily have put the matter beyond doubt by rolling over and keeping the ball off the ground.
I don't think it was poor sportsmanship, just simply a player not fully knowing the laws of the game. That's common in most sports.
You're too generous. Looking at Starc's quietly smirking countenance, I reckon this was simple cheating
Or "gamesmanship" if you want to be ultra-polite
Well, as you are going to the game tomorrow perhaps you can take the opportunity to tell Mr Starc that personally.
I'll avoid embedding tweets and just requote here...
Martin Lewis:
Quick note. I just saw BBC quoting new "typical use" price cap projections from October that seem quite a bit lower. Yet much of the reduction is because Ofgem has redefined typical use from then, as lower than it is now, rather than an actual reduction in what people pay.
Seriously. What on earth is OFGEM playing at redefining 'typical usage' at this point in time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/opinion/elena-kagan-dissent-supreme-court.html … I don’t want to discuss Roberts’s majority opinion as much as I do Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent. Kagan wrote something unusual. She didn’t just challenge the chief justice’s reasoning, she questioned whether the court’s decision was even constitutional.
“From the first page to the last, today’s opinion departs from the demands of judicial restraint,” Kagan wrote. “At the behest of a party that has suffered no injury, the majority decides a contested public policy issue properly belonging to the politically accountable branches and the people they represent.”
She continued: “That is a major problem not just for governance, but for democracy too. Congress is of course a democratic institution; it responds, even if imperfectly, to the preferences of American voters. And agency officials, though not themselves elected, serve a President with the broadest of all political constituencies. But this Court? It is, by design, as detached as possible from the body politic. That is why the Court is supposed to stick to its business — to decide only cases and controversies, and to stay away from making this Nation’s policy about subjects like student-loan relief.”
The court, Kagan concluded, “exercises authority it does not have. It violates the Constitution.”
It’s a remarkable statement. To say that the Supreme Court can violate the Constitution is to reject the idea that the court is somehow outside the constitutional system. It is to remind the public that the court is as bound by the Constitution as the other branches, which is to say that it is subject to the same “checks and balances” as the legislature and the executive.
Kagan’s dissent, in other words, is a call for accountability. For Congress, especially, to exercise its authority to discipline the court when it oversteps its bounds...
This is getting worse than the SC in the FDR new deal era. Something is going to have to be done.
I'll avoid embedding tweets and just requote here...
Martin Lewis:
Quick note. I just saw BBC quoting new "typical use" price cap projections from October that seem quite a bit lower. Yet much of the reduction is because Ofgem has redefined typical use from then, as lower than it is now, rather than an actual reduction in what people pay.
Seriously. What on earth is OFGEM playing at redefining 'typical usage'.
The whole price cap reporting is shambolic. I want to know what the cap is per unit and on the standing charge, so I can work out my own bill. All else is a nonsense.
In fairness, though, I gather it isn't arranged that way by Ofgem.
I'll avoid embedding tweets and just requote here...
Martin Lewis:
Quick note. I just saw BBC quoting new "typical use" price cap projections from October that seem quite a bit lower. Yet much of the reduction is because Ofgem has redefined typical use from then, as lower than it is now, rather than an actual reduction in what people pay.
Seriously. What on earth is OFGEM playing at redefining 'typical usage'.
The whole price cap reporting is shambolic. I want to know what the cap is per unit and on the standing charge, so I can work out my own bill. All else is a nonsense.
Though
Scharge(Gas + elec) + (Units of gas***)*Unit price gas + Units*Unit price Electricity is a bit complicated to get over on a tweet or headline or some such.
Units of gas*** - This is actually weirdly complicated for large business accounts as the calorific conversion is seemingly random from day to day, the variance it causes in domestic bills would be small though. But when you read your gas and if you have a smartmeter could well affect your bill by a few pence.
A "typical use" is a useful shorthand. But it's a total nonsense to adjust the typical usage from one year to the next. Or well if it needs to be done - which it probably does over long timescales then it should be reset every 5 years say NOT slap bang in the middle of a period of high inflation and changing gas/elec prices.
The very best of Twitter lives in your mind forever
It has an uncanny genius. The character limit is crucial. It's like a poetic formula, like the 14 line ABAB template of a sonnet. It forces you to work within severe constraints, and that discipline makes for hilarious exchanges, when it works
It also allows for a lot of tedious, staccato insults and slurs, but hey. No roses sans thorns etc
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
Remainery pessimistic FT bollocks. Crucially, Canary Wharf has incredible transport connections, now: it has the Tube AND the DLR AND now the Liz Line (offering a cheap direct 45 minute trip to LHR central). It has City Airport on its doorstep, and the Thames. It has 100,000 workers, and multiple hotels, restaurants, bars, the works
Has it been shaken by Covid? Yes. But much less than, say, many downtowns in America
If Canary Wharf is "doomed" then you might as well say London itself is "doomed". Some banks may move out due to WFH but at a certain price point moving back into Canary Wharf (with its amazing views, transport, the like) will become desirable for, say, tech companies or media or whatever
I'll avoid embedding tweets and just requote here...
Martin Lewis:
Quick note. I just saw BBC quoting new "typical use" price cap projections from October that seem quite a bit lower. Yet much of the reduction is because Ofgem has redefined typical use from then, as lower than it is now, rather than an actual reduction in what people pay.
Seriously. What on earth is OFGEM playing at redefining 'typical usage'.
The whole price cap reporting is shambolic. I want to know what the cap is per unit and on the standing charge, so I can work out my own bill. All else is a nonsense.
Though
Scharge(Gas + elec) + (Units of gas***)*Unit price gas + Units*Unit price Electricity is a bit complicated to get over on a tweet or headline or some such.
Units of gas*** - This is actually weirdly complicated for large business accounts as the calorific conversion is seemingly random from day to day, the variance it causes in domestic bills would be small though. But when you read your gas and if you have a smartmeter could well affect your bill by a few pence.
A "typical use" is a useful shorthand. But it's a total nonsense to adjust the typical usage from one year to the next. Or well if it needs to be done - which it probably does over long timescales then it should be reset every 5 years say NOT slap bang in the middle of a period of high inflation and changing gas/elec prices.
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
Remainery pessimistic FT bollocks. Crucially, Canary Wharf has incredible transport connections, now: it has the Tube AND the DLR AND now the Liz Line (offering a cheap direct 45 minute trip to LHR central). It has City Airport on its doorstep, and the Thames. It has 100,000 workers, and multiple hotels, restaurants, bars, the works
Has it been shaken by Covid? Yes. But much less than, say, many downtowns in America
If Canary Wharf is "doomed" then you might as well say London itself is "doomed". Some banks may move out due to WFH but at a certain price point moving back into Canary Wharf (with its amazing views, transport, the like) will become desirable for, say, tech companies or media or whatever
Pure clickbait. Ignore
Unfortunately, like the rest of the UK, it’s no longer part of Europe. Another brexit dividend.
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
Remainery pessimistic FT bollocks. Crucially, Canary Wharf has incredible transport connections, now: it has the Tube AND the DLR AND now the Liz Line (offering a cheap direct 45 minute trip to LHR central). It has City Airport on its doorstep, and the Thames. It has 100,000 workers, and multiple hotels, restaurants, bars, the works
Has it been shaken by Covid? Yes. But much less than, say, many downtowns in America
If Canary Wharf is "doomed" then you might as well say London itself is "doomed". Some banks may move out due to WFH but at a certain price point moving back into Canary Wharf (with its amazing views, transport, the like) will become desirable for, say, tech companies or media or whatever
Pure clickbait. Ignore
Unfortunately, like the rest of the UK, it’s no longer part of Europe. Another brexit dividend.
I was unaware that Brexit had physically moved us into the western Hemisphere and made us part of the Americas
There is actually a good article about this pernicious, mastubatory, Remainery pessimism in, yes, the FT
"Britain must break out of its doom loop Brexit, Covid and terrible governments have left their scars but our national despondency is becoming a trap"
Yes, Britain has its probems. Yes, Brexit hasn't helped in many cases. But is Britain actually spiralling into terminal decay? Get a grip. Until a few days ago you might have pointed at France, and said, Look, they are doing much better
Today? - that sounds ridiculous. Ditto everywhere else
All countries are facing headwinds. We can cope with ours. We are over-thinking ourselves into self-destructive despair. As the writer says in that piece, it takes an American to finally snap "FFS, I live in London, it's still one of the greatest cities in the world, stop whining"
The idea Canary Wharf (and London) is doomed and is going to become some sort of ghost town is as absurd as the most facile Leaver optimism in early 2016
The only "leading Tories" (sic) mentioned in the article is Jonathan Gullis, the MP for Stoke North. It's fair to say that not even you could regard Mr Gullis as a leading thinker, even in the current iteration of the Tory Party. He makes Lee Anderson look thoughtful. To put it as politely as I can, Gullis is as thick as pigshit and unpleasant to boot.
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
Remainery pessimistic FT bollocks. Crucially, Canary Wharf has incredible transport connections, now: it has the Tube AND the DLR AND now the Liz Line (offering a cheap direct 45 minute trip to LHR central). It has City Airport on its doorstep, and the Thames. It has 100,000 workers, and multiple hotels, restaurants, bars, the works
Has it been shaken by Covid? Yes. But much less than, say, many downtowns in America
If Canary Wharf is "doomed" then you might as well say London itself is "doomed". Some banks may move out due to WFH but at a certain price point moving back into Canary Wharf (with its amazing views, transport, the like) will become desirable for, say, tech companies or media or whatever
Pure clickbait. Ignore
Unfortunately, like the rest of the UK, it’s no longer part of Europe. Another brexit dividend.
I was unaware the Brexit had physically moved us into the western Hemisphere and made us part of the Americas
There is actually a good article about this pernicious, mastubatory, Remainery pessimism in, yes, the FT
"Britain must break out of its doom loop Brexit, Covid and terrible governments have left their scars but our national despondency is becoming a trap"
Yes, Britain has its probems. Yes, Brexit hasn't helped in many cases. But is Britain actually spiralling into terminal decay? Get a grip. Until a few days ago you might have pointed at France, and said, Look, they are doing much better?
Today? - that sounds ridiculous. Ditto everywhere else
All countries are facing headwinds. We can cope with ours. We are over-thinking ourselves into self-destructive despair. As the writer says in that piece, it takes an American to finally snap "FFS, I live in London, it's still one of the greatest cities in the world, stop whining"
The idea Canary Wharf (and London) is doomed and is going to become some sort of ghost town is as absurd as the most facile Leaver optimism in early 2016
Your nasty racist Brexit project has failed. Suck it up, loser.
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
Remainery pessimistic FT bollocks. Crucially, Canary Wharf has incredible transport connections, now: it has the Tube AND the DLR AND now the Liz Line (offering a cheap direct 45 minute trip to LHR central). It has City Airport on its doorstep, and the Thames. It has 100,000 workers, and multiple hotels, restaurants, bars, the works
Has it been shaken by Covid? Yes. But much less than, say, many downtowns in America
If Canary Wharf is "doomed" then you might as well say London itself is "doomed". Some banks may move out due to WFH but at a certain price point moving back into Canary Wharf (with its amazing views, transport, the like) will become desirable for, say, tech companies or media or whatever
Pure clickbait. Ignore
Unfortunately, like the rest of the UK, it’s no longer part of Europe. Another brexit dividend.
I was unaware that Brexit had physically moved us into the western Hemisphere and made us part of the Americas
There is actually a good article about this pernicious, mastubatory, Remainery pessimism in, yes, the FT
"Britain must break out of its doom loop Brexit, Covid and terrible governments have left their scars but our national despondency is becoming a trap"
Yes, Britain has its probems. Yes, Brexit hasn't helped in many cases. But is Britain actually spiralling into terminal decay? Get a grip. Until a few days ago you might have pointed at France, and said, Look, they are doing much better
Today? - that sounds ridiculous. Ditto everywhere else
All countries are facing headwinds. We can cope with ours. We are over-thinking ourselves into self-destructive despair. As the writer says in that piece, it takes an American to finally snap "FFS, I live in London, it's still one of the greatest cities in the world, stop whining"
The idea Canary Wharf (and London) is doomed and is going to become some sort of ghost town is as absurd as the most facile Leaver optimism in early 2016
Canary Wharf might actually be doomed, though. It is the nearest thing to the deserted Central Business Districts that you wandered around in the US.
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
Remainery pessimistic FT bollocks. Crucially, Canary Wharf has incredible transport connections, now: it has the Tube AND the DLR AND now the Liz Line (offering a cheap direct 45 minute trip to LHR central). It has City Airport on its doorstep, and the Thames. It has 100,000 workers, and multiple hotels, restaurants, bars, the works
Has it been shaken by Covid? Yes. But much less than, say, many downtowns in America
If Canary Wharf is "doomed" then you might as well say London itself is "doomed". Some banks may move out due to WFH but at a certain price point moving back into Canary Wharf (with its amazing views, transport, the like) will become desirable for, say, tech companies or media or whatever
Pure clickbait. Ignore
Unfortunately, like the rest of the UK, it’s no longer part of Europe. Another brexit dividend.
I was unaware that Brexit had physically moved us into the western Hemisphere and made us part of the Americas
There is actually a good article about this pernicious, mastubatory, Remainery pessimism in, yes, the FT
"Britain must break out of its doom loop Brexit, Covid and terrible governments have left their scars but our national despondency is becoming a trap"
Yes, Britain has its probems. Yes, Brexit hasn't helped in many cases. But is Britain actually spiralling into terminal decay? Get a grip. Until a few days ago you might have pointed at France, and said, Look, they are doing much better
Today? - that sounds ridiculous. Ditto everywhere else
All countries are facing headwinds. We can cope with ours. We are over-thinking ourselves into self-destructive despair. As the writer says in that piece, it takes an American to finally snap "FFS, I live in London, it's still one of the greatest cities in the world, stop whining"
The idea Canary Wharf (and London) is doomed and is going to become some sort of ghost town is as absurd as the most facile Leaver optimism in early 2016
As a pedant, it is my duty to point out that the vast majority of the UK always was in the Western Hemisphere.
The only "leading Tories" (sic) mentioned in the article is Jonathan Gullis, the MP for Stoke North. It's fair to say that not even you could regard Mr Gullis as a leading thinker, even in the current iteration of the Tory Party. He makes Lee Anderson look thoughtful. To put it as politely as I can, Gullis is as thick as pigshit and unpleasant to boot.
Hate to say it, but what is it with teachers who become Conservative MPs? Not just Gullis, but Lia Nici as well. (And not an MP, but just as politically prominent, Fr Calvin Robinson as well.)
Simply idiotic core vote nonsense which hopefully Sunak will resist
The self awareness of these people is bizarre, not least as a referendum would show them for what they are and gain little support
Such a referendum would cause a fundamental split in the Tory party between the remaining traditional Tories and the Kippers that seem to have infiltrated their membership.
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
Remainery pessimistic FT bollocks. Crucially, Canary Wharf has incredible transport connections, now: it has the Tube AND the DLR AND now the Liz Line (offering a cheap direct 45 minute trip to LHR central). It has City Airport on its doorstep, and the Thames. It has 100,000 workers, and multiple hotels, restaurants, bars, the works
Has it been shaken by Covid? Yes. But much less than, say, many downtowns in America
If Canary Wharf is "doomed" then you might as well say London itself is "doomed". Some banks may move out due to WFH but at a certain price point moving back into Canary Wharf (with its amazing views, transport, the like) will become desirable for, say, tech companies or media or whatever
Pure clickbait. Ignore
Unfortunately, like the rest of the UK, it’s no longer part of Europe. Another brexit dividend.
I was unaware that Brexit had physically moved us into the western Hemisphere and made us part of the Americas
There is actually a good article about this pernicious, mastubatory, Remainery pessimism in, yes, the FT
"Britain must break out of its doom loop Brexit, Covid and terrible governments have left their scars but our national despondency is becoming a trap"
Yes, Britain has its probems. Yes, Brexit hasn't helped in many cases. But is Britain actually spiralling into terminal decay? Get a grip. Until a few days ago you might have pointed at France, and said, Look, they are doing much better
Today? - that sounds ridiculous. Ditto everywhere else
All countries are facing headwinds. We can cope with ours. We are over-thinking ourselves into self-destructive despair. As the writer says in that piece, it takes an American to finally snap "FFS, I live in London, it's still one of the greatest cities in the world, stop whining"
The idea Canary Wharf (and London) is doomed and is going to become some sort of ghost town is as absurd as the most facile Leaver optimism in early 2016
As a pedant, it is my duty to point out that the vast majority of the UK always was in the Western Hemisphere.
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
Remainery pessimistic FT bollocks. Crucially, Canary Wharf has incredible transport connections, now: it has the Tube AND the DLR AND now the Liz Line (offering a cheap direct 45 minute trip to LHR central). It has City Airport on its doorstep, and the Thames. It has 100,000 workers, and multiple hotels, restaurants, bars, the works
Has it been shaken by Covid? Yes. But much less than, say, many downtowns in America
If Canary Wharf is "doomed" then you might as well say London itself is "doomed". Some banks may move out due to WFH but at a certain price point moving back into Canary Wharf (with its amazing views, transport, the like) will become desirable for, say, tech companies or media or whatever
Pure clickbait. Ignore
Unfortunately, like the rest of the UK, it’s no longer part of Europe. Another brexit dividend.
I was unaware that Brexit had physically moved us into the western Hemisphere and made us part of the Americas
There is actually a good article about this pernicious, mastubatory, Remainery pessimism in, yes, the FT
"Britain must break out of its doom loop Brexit, Covid and terrible governments have left their scars but our national despondency is becoming a trap"
Yes, Britain has its probems. Yes, Brexit hasn't helped in many cases. But is Britain actually spiralling into terminal decay? Get a grip. Until a few days ago you might have pointed at France, and said, Look, they are doing much better
Today? - that sounds ridiculous. Ditto everywhere else
All countries are facing headwinds. We can cope with ours. We are over-thinking ourselves into self-destructive despair. As the writer says in that piece, it takes an American to finally snap "FFS, I live in London, it's still one of the greatest cities in the world, stop whining"
The idea Canary Wharf (and London) is doomed and is going to become some sort of ghost town is as absurd as the most facile Leaver optimism in early 2016
As a pedant, it is my duty to point out that the vast majority of the UK always was in the Western Hemisphere.
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
Remainery pessimistic FT bollocks. Crucially, Canary Wharf has incredible transport connections, now: it has the Tube AND the DLR AND now the Liz Line (offering a cheap direct 45 minute trip to LHR central). It has City Airport on its doorstep, and the Thames. It has 100,000 workers, and multiple hotels, restaurants, bars, the works
Has it been shaken by Covid? Yes. But much less than, say, many downtowns in America
If Canary Wharf is "doomed" then you might as well say London itself is "doomed". Some banks may move out due to WFH but at a certain price point moving back into Canary Wharf (with its amazing views, transport, the like) will become desirable for, say, tech companies or media or whatever
Pure clickbait. Ignore
Unfortunately, like the rest of the UK, it’s no longer part of Europe. Another brexit dividend.
I was unaware that Brexit had physically moved us into the western Hemisphere and made us part of the Americas
There is actually a good article about this pernicious, mastubatory, Remainery pessimism in, yes, the FT
"Britain must break out of its doom loop Brexit, Covid and terrible governments have left their scars but our national despondency is becoming a trap"
Yes, Britain has its probems. Yes, Brexit hasn't helped in many cases. But is Britain actually spiralling into terminal decay? Get a grip. Until a few days ago you might have pointed at France, and said, Look, they are doing much better
Today? - that sounds ridiculous. Ditto everywhere else
All countries are facing headwinds. We can cope with ours. We are over-thinking ourselves into self-destructive despair. As the writer says in that piece, it takes an American to finally snap "FFS, I live in London, it's still one of the greatest cities in the world, stop whining"
The idea Canary Wharf (and London) is doomed and is going to become some sort of ghost town is as absurd as the most facile Leaver optimism in early 2016
As a pedant, it is my duty to point out that the vast majority of the UK always was in the Western Hemisphere.
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
Remainery pessimistic FT bollocks. Crucially, Canary Wharf has incredible transport connections, now: it has the Tube AND the DLR AND now the Liz Line (offering a cheap direct 45 minute trip to LHR central). It has City Airport on its doorstep, and the Thames. It has 100,000 workers, and multiple hotels, restaurants, bars, the works
Has it been shaken by Covid? Yes. But much less than, say, many downtowns in America
If Canary Wharf is "doomed" then you might as well say London itself is "doomed". Some banks may move out due to WFH but at a certain price point moving back into Canary Wharf (with its amazing views, transport, the like) will become desirable for, say, tech companies or media or whatever
Pure clickbait. Ignore
Not really - Leeds is a brilliant example of where over the past 30 years the centre of the town has moved backwards and forwards as a newer shopping centre shifts the centre of the city from one side of town to the other and then back again.
Canary Wharf is now full of buildings about to need refurbishing so I suspect we will see 10-15 years of firms moving back to the City (northern parts near the Metropolitan / Elizabeth lines) before Canary Wharf returns to be of interest...
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
Remainery pessimistic FT bollocks. Crucially, Canary Wharf has incredible transport connections, now: it has the Tube AND the DLR AND now the Liz Line (offering a cheap direct 45 minute trip to LHR central). It has City Airport on its doorstep, and the Thames. It has 100,000 workers, and multiple hotels, restaurants, bars, the works
Has it been shaken by Covid? Yes. But much less than, say, many downtowns in America
If Canary Wharf is "doomed" then you might as well say London itself is "doomed". Some banks may move out due to WFH but at a certain price point moving back into Canary Wharf (with its amazing views, transport, the like) will become desirable for, say, tech companies or media or whatever
Pure clickbait. Ignore
Unfortunately, like the rest of the UK, it’s no longer part of Europe. Another brexit dividend.
I was unaware that Brexit had physically moved us into the western Hemisphere and made us part of the Americas
There is actually a good article about this pernicious, mastubatory, Remainery pessimism in, yes, the FT
"Britain must break out of its doom loop Brexit, Covid and terrible governments have left their scars but our national despondency is becoming a trap"
Yes, Britain has its probems. Yes, Brexit hasn't helped in many cases. But is Britain actually spiralling into terminal decay? Get a grip. Until a few days ago you might have pointed at France, and said, Look, they are doing much better
Today? - that sounds ridiculous. Ditto everywhere else
All countries are facing headwinds. We can cope with ours. We are over-thinking ourselves into self-destructive despair. As the writer says in that piece, it takes an American to finally snap "FFS, I live in London, it's still one of the greatest cities in the world, stop whining"
The idea Canary Wharf (and London) is doomed and is going to become some sort of ghost town is as absurd as the most facile Leaver optimism in early 2016
As a pedant, it is my duty to point out that the vast majority of the UK always was in the Western Hemisphere.
Comments
It's very closely analagous to the situation where a fielder makes a diving catch and the ball pops out of his hands when he hits the ground. The ball might be under control but the body isn't. It's the same here. He's used the ball, which is plainly grounded, to stabilise himself as he falls.
Recant, Mr McGrath!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/opinion/elena-kagan-dissent-supreme-court.html
… I don’t want to discuss Roberts’s majority opinion as much as I do Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent. Kagan wrote something unusual. She didn’t just challenge the chief justice’s reasoning, she questioned whether the court’s decision was even constitutional.
“From the first page to the last, today’s opinion departs from the demands of judicial restraint,” Kagan wrote. “At the behest of a party that has suffered no injury, the majority decides a contested public policy issue properly belonging to the politically accountable branches and the people they represent.”
She continued: “That is a major problem not just for governance, but for democracy too. Congress is of course a democratic institution; it responds, even if imperfectly, to the preferences of American voters. And agency officials, though not themselves elected, serve a President with the broadest of all political constituencies. But this Court? It is, by design, as detached as possible from the body politic. That is why the Court is supposed to stick to its business — to decide only cases and controversies, and to stay away from making this Nation’s policy about subjects like student-loan relief.”
The court, Kagan concluded, “exercises authority it does not have. It violates the Constitution.”
It’s a remarkable statement. To say that the Supreme Court can violate the Constitution is to reject the idea that the court is somehow outside the constitutional system. It is to remind the public that the court is as bound by the Constitution as the other branches, which is to say that it is subject to the same “checks and balances” as the legislature and the executive.
Kagan’s dissent, in other words, is a call for accountability. For Congress, especially, to exercise its authority to discipline the court when it oversteps its bounds...
It's a fecking nonsense. Change the law: simplify it
She had no time at all for cricketers hurling the ball in celebration and if the ball then hit the ground as a result, not out.
Considering I was an only child, and the standard of cricket played was never more serious than beach cricket, her attitude to this was, in retrospect, uncharacteristically hard line.
Anyway, she definitely wouldn't have given Duckett out.
The ball isn't just *grounded* in Starc's catch, he ploughs it through the turf. What more does he have to do for it to be a non-catch? Entomb it with recondite ceremonies? Bounce if off his chest so it goes three miles down a tin mine?
I don't think it was poor sportsmanship, just simply a player not fully knowing the laws of the game. That's common in most sports.
Or "gamesmanship" if you want to be ultra-polite
https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1675233920323932160?s=20
Fairly simple
The essence of a catch is keeping it off the ground, everything else is trivial. My simple law would allow you to toss it to someone else. It's just not allowed to hit the ground, within ten seconds of initial contact
Has out friendly pet troll been about yet, or has he been sacked?
Yes, I think it would have been as reliable as a Dominic Cummings blogpost too.
£3 per tweet. Them's the breaks. Blame Elon
So said the late, great Clive James.
That's worth £3 for anyone
Enjoy.
Martin Lewis:
Quick note. I just saw BBC quoting new "typical use" price cap projections from October that seem quite a bit lower. Yet much of the reduction is because Ofgem has redefined typical use from then, as lower than it is now, rather than an actual reduction in what people pay.
Seriously. What on earth is OFGEM playing at redefining 'typical usage' at this point in time.
I'm just sad we're going to lose the cricket through carelessness.
In fairness, though, I gather it isn't arranged that way by Ofgem.
Gerry Adams
@GerryAdamsSF
Dec 22, 2016
This house is like Santa's Grotto. Takes half an hour 2 switch off fairy lights and assorted Yule illuminations. Feel like a grinch now.
Paul Mcleod
@paul_mcleod
surely you know someone who can fit a timer
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/tories-new-uk-referendum-migrants-rwanda-plan-appeal-court-2447225
And with honourable exceptions the fielding has been very ordinary.
Scharge(Gas + elec) + (Units of gas***)*Unit price gas + Units*Unit price Electricity is a bit complicated to get over on a tweet or headline or some such.
Units of gas*** - This is actually weirdly complicated for large business accounts as the calorific conversion is seemingly random from day to day, the variance it causes in domestic bills would be small though. But when you read your gas and if you have a smartmeter could well affect your bill by a few pence.
A "typical use" is a useful shorthand. But it's a total nonsense to adjust the typical usage from one year to the next. Or well if it needs to be done - which it probably does over long timescales then it should be reset every 5 years say NOT slap bang in the middle of a period of high inflation and changing gas/elec prices.
A referendum.
That's just what we need.
It has an uncanny genius. The character limit is crucial. It's like a poetic formula, like the 14 line ABAB template of a sonnet. It forces you to work within severe constraints, and that discipline makes for hilarious exchanges, when it works
It also allows for a lot of tedious, staccato insults and slurs, but hey. No roses sans thorns etc
"HSBC departure spells doom for isolated experiment of Canary Wharf
A moated, gated, privatised space divided from the rest of London may have had its day
EDWIN HEATHCOTE"
https://www.ft.com/content/40ff10b9-6e8e-4df6-8753-0e3af571b794
Why would that be an issue? Too shallow, I could understand.
Has it been shaken by Covid? Yes. But much less than, say, many downtowns in America
If Canary Wharf is "doomed" then you might as well say London itself is "doomed". Some banks may move out due to WFH but at a certain price point moving back into Canary Wharf (with its amazing views, transport, the like) will become desirable for, say, tech companies or media or whatever
Pure clickbait. Ignore
I can't find the highlights for today's play at Lords on the BBC iPlayer. They said it would be available at 7pm.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/group/m000kqyz
Which is an interesting definition of "leading".
Edit: Just checked, the ashes highlights are being broadcast at 23:50 on BBC2
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/guide/bbctwo/20230701
I suspect they are later than usual because of the Women's T20, which was live on BBC this evening.
There is actually a good article about this pernicious, mastubatory, Remainery pessimism in, yes, the FT
"Britain must break out of its doom loop
Brexit, Covid and terrible governments have left their scars but our national despondency is becoming a trap"
https://www.ft.com/content/aa3bb4ab-d0e4-4af3-9730-b99373e57d37
Yes, Britain has its probems. Yes, Brexit hasn't helped in many cases. But is Britain actually spiralling into terminal decay? Get a grip. Until a few days ago you might have pointed at France, and said, Look, they are doing much better
Today? - that sounds ridiculous. Ditto everywhere else
All countries are facing headwinds. We can cope with ours. We are over-thinking ourselves into self-destructive despair. As the writer says in that piece, it takes an American to finally snap "FFS, I live in London, it's still one of the greatest cities in the world, stop whining"
The idea Canary Wharf (and London) is doomed and is going to become some sort of ghost town is as absurd as the most facile Leaver optimism in early 2016
The self awareness of these people is bizarre, not least as a referendum would show them for what they are and gain little support
https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/airys-transit-circle-dawn-universal-day
Canary Wharf is now full of buildings about to need refurbishing so I suspect we will see 10-15 years of firms moving back to the City (northern parts near the Metropolitan / Elizabeth lines) before Canary Wharf returns to be of interest...