I knew he was British, I didn’t know he went to UCL: good man. A fellow Benthamite
Wikipedia says he is classed as one of the “top ten movie directors of all time”, I just can’t see that
Memento is clever. Inception is clever but weirdly forgettable. I’ve already forgotten Interstellar. Dunkirk IS great, but 1917 is superior. I can’t stand Batman movies: they are for kids
Hmm
I'm with you. He makes clever but not very memorable films. Too much head, not enough heart. But I am very middlebrow in my tastes.
I think I mentioned thevother day that I thought he was overrated.
I knew he was British, I didn’t know he went to UCL: good man. A fellow Benthamite
Wikipedia says he is classed as one of the “top ten movie directors of all time”, I just can’t see that
Memento is clever. Inception is clever but weirdly forgettable. I’ve already forgotten Interstellar. Dunkirk IS great, but 1917 is superior. I can’t stand Batman movies: they are for kids
Hmm
I'm with you. He makes clever but not very memorable films. Too much head, not enough heart. But I am very middlebrow in my tastes.
At least you eschew Batman
Except for Lego Batman, which is brilliant. But yes, I hate all comic book based films, as well as the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter etc. I actually fell asleep during the first Lord of the Rings film. Christ, it was boring.
I knew he was British, I didn’t know he went to UCL: good man. A fellow Benthamite
Wikipedia says he is classed as one of the “top ten movie directors of all time”, I just can’t see that
Memento is clever. Inception is clever but weirdly forgettable. I’ve already forgotten Interstellar. Dunkirk IS great, but 1917 is superior. I can’t stand Batman movies: they are for kids
Hmm
I'm with you. He makes clever but not very memorable films. Too much head, not enough heart. But I am very middlebrow in my tastes.
At least you eschew Batman
Except for Lego Batman, which is brilliant. But yes, I hate all comic book based films, as well as the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter etc. I actually fell asleep during the first Lord of the Rings film. Christ, it was boring.
I knew he was British, I didn’t know he went to UCL: good man. A fellow Benthamite
Wikipedia says he is classed as one of the “top ten movie directors of all time”, I just can’t see that
Memento is clever. Inception is clever but weirdly forgettable. I’ve already forgotten Interstellar. Dunkirk IS great, but 1917 is superior. I can’t stand Batman movies: they are for kids
Hmm
I'm with you. He makes clever but not very memorable films. Too much head, not enough heart. But I am very middlebrow in my tastes.
I think I mentioned thevother day that I thought he was overrated.
Good grief. I’ve just seen the London weather forecast
I think I’d rather be under drone attack in Odesa
Sat in Cornwall peering across a grey sea into the mist, with a gale howling around the chalet and rain lashing down the pane. First day of the summer holidays...
Good grief. I’ve just seen the London weather forecast
I think I’d rather be under drone attack in Odesa
Sat in Cornwall peering across a grey sea into the mist, with a gale howling around the chalet and rain lashing down the pane. First day of the summer holidays...
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Good grief. I’ve just seen the London weather forecast
I think I’d rather be under drone attack in Odesa
You see, it's not just Manchester.
You're not looking at the BBC forecast are you? They appear to have given up forecasting in favour of just saying rain all the time. The difference between the BBC forecast and either a) the Met Office forecast or b) reality is quite staggering.
Good grief. I’ve just seen the London weather forecast
I think I’d rather be under drone attack in Odesa
You see, it's not just Manchester.
You're not looking at the BBC forecast are you? They appear to have given up forecasting in favour of just saying rain all the time. The difference between the BBC forecast and either a) the Met Office forecast or b) reality is quite staggering. Its hotter than ever, cos of climate change
FIXED FOR YOU...
They even got it into an article about I can't believe the right wing are going to win in Spain, how awful, why is nobody talking about climate change.
If anyone's interested, it's not currently raining 3 miles south of Old Trafford. I'd be hard pushed to say 'brightening up', but Lancashire would play in this.
1 - Polls show that the silent majority are in *favour*of LTNs, and there is a small screechy minority opposing them. It's hardly a surprise, since every new housing development built since about 1965 is set up exclude rat-runners, and it is a core element of planning policy. Why should people who live in older housing areas be disadvantaged? Example from this week:
In London, a new poll has found that 58% of respondents support the introduction of LTNs, while only 17% oppose blocking residential streets to rat-running motorists.
Support for LTNs has been consistently high in most polling on LTNs since their introduction by the Tory government in 2020.
The newest poll was conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies, a 23-year-old London-based global polling and strategic consulting company.
In June this year, the firm asked a representative sample of 1,100 Londoners for their views on transport issues, including LTNs.
2 - Funding for cycling and mobility networks is best described as tiny, even before the current Govt cut it off at the ankles. In Central and Inner London - where very small but noticeable amounts of money have been spent, the modal share is now 10%. Perhaps that's where 10% of funding needs to go, since we all pay for public investment in our roads and streets from general taxation?
Realistically, it needs about £30-40 per year per pop of investment, compared to the current £1-2 per head spent in England.
That little? The Scottish figure, to pick somewhere else for comparison, is seemingly at least 45m - cycle route network is 10m alone, which would correspond to the total you give. However the 45m includes walking too (which is logical given much of the work is done for both bikes and feet). OTOH that is direct funding to LAs, alone.
I make the number I give at around £15-20m for Scotland (assuming population of £5m). And I very much agree that there is a huge overlap between walking, cycling and other non-motorised modes.
I think the rational principle is for good quality infrastructure which becomes the default for cycles, e-scooters and large mobility scooters - all of which needs to be as free as possible from motor vehicles. Large mobility scooters are an anomaly - at present they are forced onto the road and considered to be motor vehicles when doing more then 4mph; when doing 4mph or less they are pedestrians and go on pavements.
That setup would require some minor adjustment to our laws, so the current Govt won't do it.
Where mixing of peds, cycles and motor vehicles is required, it needs motor vehicle speeds to be less than 20mph, and properly by road design rather than creating a road design that says 30mph or 40mph, and a stuck on 20mph sign.
£30-40 per pop is a decent number by comparison with mainland European countries, and needs to be maintained for a generation. In terms of transport expenditure, it is almost a rounding error.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Sure, that too. I wasn't certain if IanB2's bunkers were the ammunition storage or the personnel accommodation in emergency, or something more permanent (as opposed to wooden huts in a nearby field).
Good grief. I’ve just seen the London weather forecast
I think I’d rather be under drone attack in Odesa
You see, it's not just Manchester.
You're not looking at the BBC forecast are you? They appear to have given up forecasting in favour of just saying rain all the time. The difference between the BBC forecast and either a) the Met Office forecast or b) reality is quite staggering. Its hotter than ever, cos of climate change
FIXED FOR YOU...
They even got it into an article about I can't believe the right wing are going to win in Spain, how awful, why is nobody talking about climate change.
When temperatures in the Antarctic are consistently well above freezing in midwinter, you don't have to be an ER nutcase to think we need to talk about climate change.
Good grief. I’ve just seen the London weather forecast
I think I’d rather be under drone attack in Odesa
You see, it's not just Manchester.
You're not looking at the BBC forecast are you? They appear to have given up forecasting in favour of just saying rain all the time. The difference between the BBC forecast and either a) the Met Office forecast or b) reality is quite staggering. Its hotter than ever, cos of climate change
FIXED FOR YOU...
They even got it into an article about I can't believe the right wing are going to win in Spain, how awful, why is nobody talking about climate change.
When temperatures in the Antarctic are consistently well above freezing in midwinter, you don't have to be an ER nutcase to think we need to talk about climate change.
Quite. It's the folk who think it's a trivial issue or worse still one to be ignored that we have to worry about. At least ER aren't standing for office, let alone in it.
Looks like that's it for the day. Good to get 1 wicket but we really needed 2 or 3 today. Top performance by Labuschange.
HOWEVER
It's 71 overs in. If we can get 2 or 3 more hours tomorrow, hopefully we can get 1 more before the new ball and then if it's light enough, Broad and Wood can wrap it up with the new ball!
Maybe even time to chase a small target, we could get 60 in 8 overs.
Good grief. I’ve just seen the London weather forecast
I think I’d rather be under drone attack in Odesa
You see, it's not just Manchester.
You're not looking at the BBC forecast are you? They appear to have given up forecasting in favour of just saying rain all the time. The difference between the BBC forecast and either a) the Met Office forecast or b) reality is quite staggering. Its hotter than ever, cos of climate change
FIXED FOR YOU...
They even got it into an article about I can't believe the right wing are going to win in Spain, how awful, why is nobody talking about climate change.
When temperatures in the Antarctic are consistently well above freezing in midwinter, you don't have to be an ER nutcase to think we need to talk about climate change.
We do talk about climate change, constantly. And we're doing wonders for working to solve it too, which doesn't get talked about.
ER nutcases act as if we're doing nothing about climate change and its all terrible, when they aren't jetsetting around the planet to the next conflab/Thailand.
Meanwhile back in the real world we've in the past 13 years effectively ended centuries of coal use for making electricity, got the fundamentals going for switching from petrol/diesel to electric transportation and much, much more.
In the next 13 years we're going to get to a point where all new vehicles are electric, and our electricity is clean.
Sometimes the solution is actually that we're doing the right thing and we need to keep on doing that right thing. And if that's the case, lets have the opportunity to discuss other problems and not just solely concentrate on an increasingly already solved problem.
My local IMAX has pretty much sold out of Oppenheimer tickets for the whole week. Only a few odds and 2am screenings still available. Grr…
Not-local IMAX has also sold out of Oppenheimer tickets until next weekend. Bugger.
Those who have seen it, worth taking half a day off work to go to a morning screening?
Hell yes.
Brilliant apart from a two minute scene that made Harry S. Truman look like a snivelling little shit.
What’s wrong with historical accuracy?
Best president the US ever had.
Better than FDR or Lincoln?
Strong claim that.
For me yes.
Massive civil rights advances. The founding of the UN The founding of NATO The Marshall Plan The Berlin Airlift
And after it all he went home to his mother in laws old house and refused to take any position with any company be because he thought it would be profiting from the Presidency.
I promised polling on LTNs. This is a compilation by Cllr Emily Kerr. Since she is a Green and threfore has a view, but says it is all the ones she can find, I invite alternative lists if anyone has any data.
AFAICS the claim that "the silent majority oppose LTNs" is a fiction.
"Thanks to everyone who contributed: updated chart with new reports here.
First 6 on the list are from areas where an LTN has been implemented, others are all more broad / national."
Good grief. I’ve just seen the London weather forecast
I think I’d rather be under drone attack in Odesa
You see, it's not just Manchester.
You're not looking at the BBC forecast are you? They appear to have given up forecasting in favour of just saying rain all the time. The difference between the BBC forecast and either a) the Met Office forecast or b) reality is quite staggering. Its hotter than ever, cos of climate change
FIXED FOR YOU...
They even got it into an article about I can't believe the right wing are going to win in Spain, how awful, why is nobody talking about climate change.
When temperatures in the Antarctic are consistently well above freezing in midwinter, you don't have to be an ER nutcase to think we need to talk about climate change.
We do talk about climate change, constantly. And we're doing wonders for working to solve it too, which doesn't get talked about.
ER nutcases act as if we're doing nothing about climate change and its all terrible, when they aren't jetsetting around the planet to the next conflab/Thailand.
Meanwhile back in the real world we've in the past 13 years effectively ended centuries of coal use for making electricity, got the fundamentals going for switching from petrol/diesel to electric transportation and much, much more.
In the next 13 years we're going to get to a point where all new vehicles are electric, and our electricity is clean.
Sometimes the solution is actually that we're doing the right thing and we need to keep on doing that right thing. And if that's the case, lets have the opportunity to discuss other problems and not just solely concentrate on an increasingly already solved problem.
Well put. Arguably we should be getting to where we need to be faster. But even here I'd argue that there are thousands and thousands of people working directly to make this happen. It is a not inconsiderable part of my job. And there are millions of people who are not working directly for this but who, by working and being taxed, fund the not-inconsiderable amount that the government is spending on this. And there are also some people who like to throw orange powder at sporting events and cause traffic jams.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Sure, that too. I wasn't certain if IanB2's bunkers were the ammunition storage or the personnel accommodation in emergency, or something more permanent (as opposed to wooden huts in a nearby field).
Lots of bunkers here where I live - can see a naval range finding tower from where I’m sitting. Some have been restored for museum use and some are repurposed for bars and fun things in people’s’ gardens. It’s quite amazing when you look at them or walk around them. Bleak concrete and cold but if I was a German soldier in WW2 I would rather be here in a bit of damp than anywhere else in the world.
Was amazing as a kid having big bunker complexes in the land above the house to play in. They were large complexes of gun emplacements, range finding platforms, personnel dorms etc.
A real eye opener is on all the beaches you see the bunkers at either end and others dotted along depending on the size of beach, and massive curving concrete walls along the length of the bay, and you think that if the allies had ever tried to land it would have been an absolute bloodbath - worse than D-day as the bays are generally smaller and curved with bunkers built into headlands at each end so the crossfire would have been horrendous and very difficult to assault.
O/T The Stonehenge A303 tunnel was approved by Mark Harper last week.
I assume it is likely to be the subject of further legal challenges but can anyone explain to me what the downside is (apart from costing a lot of money the government doesn't have)?
As far as I can see the site will be much better without the 303 trundling past.
I promised polling on LTNs. This is a compilation by Cllr Emily Kerr. Since she is a Green and threfore has a view, but says it is all the ones she can find, I invite alternative lists if anyone has any data.
AFAICS the claim that "the silent majority oppose LTNs" is a fiction.
"Thanks to everyone who contributed: updated chart with new reports here.
First 6 on the list are from areas where an LTN has been implemented, others are all more broad / national."
Absolutely. My dad was laying our estates with LTNs (ie modal filters) in the 1960s for the District Council where I live, and I used to walk to school past new ones being created in older housing areas in Nottingham in the mid-1970s.
The mentality of the opponents is baffling to me, whether it's the accidental (or deliberate) untruths pushed by the likes of Susan Hall and Mark Harper, or the hysterics coming from other quarters.
I think that like progressive rebalancing away from motor-vehicle domination they know it will work very well, and are just scraping around for 'reasons' to defend their personal interests, and are cynical concerning the interests of those living in older housing areas.
O/T The Stonehenge A303 tunnel was approved by Mark Harper last week.
I assume it is likely to be the subject of further legal challenges but can anyone explain to me what the downside is (apart from costing a lot of money the government doesn't have)?
As far as I can see the site will be much better without the 303 trundling past.
The idea seems to be that, however ugly the road, it is a surface structure, which does not interfere with the site's archeology. A tunnel does.
O/T The Stonehenge A303 tunnel was approved by Mark Harper last week.
I assume it is likely to be the subject of further legal challenges but can anyone explain to me what the downside is (apart from costing a lot of money the government doesn't have)?
As far as I can see the site will be much better without the 303 trundling past.
There is some concern that digging a large tunnel through a World Heritage Site may cause considerable damage to it.
And of course there are always those who oppose roads on general principles.
Personally I think it unlikely more damage would be caused by digging a tunnel than by leaving the road where it is.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
My local IMAX has pretty much sold out of Oppenheimer tickets for the whole week. Only a few odds and 2am screenings still available. Grr…
Not-local IMAX has also sold out of Oppenheimer tickets until next weekend. Bugger.
Those who have seen it, worth taking half a day off work to go to a morning screening?
Hell yes.
Brilliant apart from a two minute scene that made Harry S. Truman look like a snivelling little shit.
What’s wrong with historical accuracy?
Best president the US ever had.
Better than FDR or Lincoln?
Strong claim that.
For me yes.
Massive civil rights advances. The founding of the UN The founding of NATO The Marshall Plan The Berlin Airlift
And after it all he went home to his mother in laws old house and refused to take any position with any company be because he thought it would be profiting from the Presidency.
And of course he had the balls to drop the bombs.
Harry Truman's personal finances post 1952 were major reason for federal legislation providing financial support for ex-POTUS.
Should be noted, that while HST did refuse corporate employment after leaving the White House, he DID accept significant "freebies" such as new cars.
As documented in an excellent, fun book, "Harry Truman's Excellent Adventure: The True Story of a Great American Road Trip" about drive that he and Bess took (in donated Chrysler) from Independence, Missoui to Washington, DC in 1953. Along a route familiar to both of them, from traveling back and forth when Harry was a US Senator.
My favorite story from the book, was this: as Harry and Bess were approaching Our Nation's Capital, he alerted the DC press corps that they could meet up with him, briefly, at a gas station in Frederick, Maryland. Where the owner was a staunch Democrat . . . and his mechanic was an equally staunch Republican.
It was a hot day, and as reporters asked the former President their questions, the station owner asked him if he was going to give the mechanic grief for being a GOPer.
"Naw," replied Harry (I paraphrase slightly) "it's too hot to give anyone hell - even a Republican."
Good grief. I’ve just seen the London weather forecast
I think I’d rather be under drone attack in Odesa
You see, it's not just Manchester.
You're not looking at the BBC forecast are you? They appear to have given up forecasting in favour of just saying rain all the time. The difference between the BBC forecast and either a) the Met Office forecast or b) reality is quite staggering.
Yep, this morning, the MO website predicted rain in east London around 1pm, the BBC website around 3pm. Guess which was more accurate.
O/T The Stonehenge A303 tunnel was approved by Mark Harper last week.
I assume it is likely to be the subject of further legal challenges but can anyone explain to me what the downside is (apart from costing a lot of money the government doesn't have)?
As far as I can see the site will be much better without the 303 trundling past.
There is some concern that digging a large tunnel through a World Heritage Site may cause considerable damage to it.
And of course there are always those who oppose roads on general principles.
Personally I think it unlikely more damage would be caused by digging a tunnel than by leaving the road where it is.
I would have thought that archeologists would be champing at the bit to have the tunnel built, after all it's the only chance they'll ever get to dig on that site.
I promised polling on LTNs. This is a compilation by Cllr Emily Kerr. Since she is a Green and threfore has a view, but says it is all the ones she can find, I invite alternative lists if anyone has any data.
AFAICS the claim that "the silent majority oppose LTNs" is a fiction.
"Thanks to everyone who contributed: updated chart with new reports here.
First 6 on the list are from areas where an LTN has been implemented, others are all more broad / national."
I find that the PREDICTED rainfall map is never very accurate. You can compare prediction with the actual OBSERVED rainfall after a 30 minute delay or so.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
O/T The Stonehenge A303 tunnel was approved by Mark Harper last week.
I assume it is likely to be the subject of further legal challenges but can anyone explain to me what the downside is (apart from costing a lot of money the government doesn't have)?
As far as I can see the site will be much better without the 303 trundling past.
I’ll believe it’s happening when the road opens, and not a minute earlier.
They’ve been talking about that tunnel since before I was living in Salisbury two decades ago, and there have been massive queues on the approach to Stonehenge for a couple of decades before that.
I find that the PREDICTED rainfall map is never very accurate. You can compare prediction with the actual OBSERVED rainfall after a 30 minute delay or so.
The predicted rainfall map for today was pretty accurate - clearish from 1ish, rainyish again from half-five-ish. But that was me looking at the forecast at 11. So you'd expect it to be accurate that far out. I don't know how much uncertainty another 20-odd hours brings.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Sure, that too. I wasn't certain if IanB2's bunkers were the ammunition storage or the personnel accommodation in emergency, or something more permanent (as opposed to wooden huts in a nearby field).
It just seemed a bit weird; of course we judge things by what we’ve seen in the movies, and you don’t see German shore battery crews sitting around in nice strip pine panelled bunkers in the films.
Equally weird was the idea of Norwegian enthusiasts ‘doing up’ the place, and installing all that wood in what was, even today at the height of summer, a pretty damp environment. Mind you, they were installing glass windows as well. The Norwegians are saying this has been a good summer, from which I deduce that the shores of the Norwegian Sea don’t get very much sun….I think we last saw it on Wednesday morning, briefly.
Anyhow, the dog and I are settled into our wooden cabin, and I shall go and have a poke around….
I promised polling on LTNs. This is a compilation by Cllr Emily Kerr. Since she is a Green and threfore has a view, but says it is all the ones she can find, I invite alternative lists if anyone has any data.
AFAICS the claim that "the silent majority oppose LTNs" is a fiction.
"Thanks to everyone who contributed: updated chart with new reports here.
First 6 on the list are from areas where an LTN has been implemented, others are all more broad / national."
Absolutely. My dad was laying our estates with LTNs (ie modal filters) in the 1960s for the District Council where I live, and I used to walk to school past new ones being created in older housing areas in Nottingham in the mid-1970s.
The mentality of the opponents is baffling to me, whether it's the accidental (or deliberate) untruths pushed by the likes of Susan Hall and Mark Harper, or the hysterics coming from other quarters.
I think that like progressive rebalancing away from motor-vehicle domination they know it will work very well, and are just scraping around for 'reasons' to defend their personal interests, and are cynical concerning the interests of those living in older housing areas.
The thing is there's a right way and a wrong way to proceed, as there is in most things.
If an estate is created not to be a main road for traffic with no through roads then that works with the through road handling the traffic.
If a pre-existing through road is blocked off with no alternative created, then you are just creating problems without any gain. And simply saying "get on a bike, who needs cars anyway" is just wilful blindness.
If an alternative road is built to replace a through road, then the through road becomes an LTN, then that works.
I've said before, this has been done very sensibly near where I live. The road my kids school is off was part of the A-road to Liverpool. It was a 30mph road with houses, shops, schools etc off it but was a major A road with 2 lanes heading to Liverpool and 1 lane heading away from it.
A new purpose-built dual carriageway has just been built nearby to take the traffic heading to Liverpool. This dual carriageway runs at 50mph (I feel it should be 70mph but c'est la vie).
And the old A-road is no longer marked as the A-road anymore and has now been turned to 20mph. One of the lanes to Liverpool has been removed and now instead there is a dedicated cycle path, with a concrete barrier with plants in it separating the road traffic from cyclists.
Everybody wins. People travelling to Liverpool get to go at 50 instead of 30, with a new dual carriageway there's now more space not less for cars, and with dedicated cycle paths etc people travelling locally can do so now safely whether in cars, bikes or pedestrians.
But to do this properly you need to build more roads to replace the through traffic and provide it an alternative route. An LTN that simply says "we're going to reduce traffic" rather than "traffic should go this way instead" is counterproductive.
For a great picture, taken of Harry Truman enjoying an ice-cold bottle of Coca-Cola at the Frederick, MD gas station, check out link; fellow wearing hat is the Democratic owner, the guy next to him is his Republican mechanic.
O/T The Stonehenge A303 tunnel was approved by Mark Harper last week.
I assume it is likely to be the subject of further legal challenges but can anyone explain to me what the downside is (apart from costing a lot of money the government doesn't have)?
As far as I can see the site will be much better without the 303 trundling past.
There is some concern that digging a large tunnel through a World Heritage Site may cause considerable damage to it.
And of course there are always those who oppose roads on general principles.
Personally I think it unlikely more damage would be caused by digging a tunnel than by leaving the road where it is.
I would have thought that archeologists would be champing at the bit to have the tunnel built, after all it's the only chance they'll ever get to dig on that site.
They probably are privately but the official line among archaeologists is that doing primary archaeology is a bad and damaging thing and the less of it the better. Even proper, by-the-rules archaeology, never mind Russian "academics" who do more damage in the near/middle east than outright grave robbers.
For a great picture, taken of Harry Truman enjoying an ice-cold bottle of Coca-Cola at the Frederick, MD gas station, check out link; fellow wearing hat is the Democratic owner, the guy next to him is his Republican mechanic.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Sure, that too. I wasn't certain if IanB2's bunkers were the ammunition storage or the personnel accommodation in emergency, or something more permanent (as opposed to wooden huts in a nearby field).
It just seemed a bit weird; of course we judge things by what we’ve seen in the movies, and you don’t see German shore battery crews sitting around in nice strip pine panelled bunkers in the films.
Equally weird was the idea of Norwegian enthusiasts ‘doing up’ the place, and installing all that wood in what was, even today at the height of summer, a pretty damp environment. Mind you, they were installing glass windows as well. The Norwegians are saying this has been a good summer, from which I deduce that the shores of the Norwegian Sea don’t get very much sun….I think we last saw it on Wednesday morning, briefly.
Anyhow, the dog and I are settled into our wooden cabin, and I shall go and have a poke around….
You have omitted a cheerful fluffy dog. I have no means of judging scale. Am sad.
A lot of traffic driving through towns, and even cities, is quite literally driving through that town or city because its the only route. EG to get from Liverpool to the Fylde Coast apart from the M6 you need to drive through Preston City Centre as that's where the bridge across the Ribble is. A bridge west of Preston would allow traffic from Liverpool or Southampton to reach Lytham or Blackpool without driving through Preston City Centre. And there's examples like that all over the country.
Very often a route from town A to town D will take you through B and C, because that's simply where the route is.
Bypasses, especially but not just motorways, are fantastic for reducing local traffic by freeing up local roads to serve the local community. If that's all the local roads are used for, then they very easily can become LTNs as they're no longer needing to handle the volume that has no need to be there anyway.
But someone going from town A to town D won't ride a bike that distance. They need their car, and they need a road. So if you want local roads for local traffic, build more roads to handle the non-local traffic to bypass the towns.
I find that the PREDICTED rainfall map is never very accurate. You can compare prediction with the actual OBSERVED rainfall after a 30 minute delay or so.
It's going to struggle to be accurate in detail - there isn't the density of observations aloft for it to be otherwise - but it's mostly pretty accurate in terms of the general shape and character of the weather. This enables one to modify the forecast in reaction to how the weather develops in detail.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Sure, that too. I wasn't certain if IanB2's bunkers were the ammunition storage or the personnel accommodation in emergency, or something more permanent (as opposed to wooden huts in a nearby field).
It just seemed a bit weird; of course we judge things by what we’ve seen in the movies, and you don’t see German shore battery crews sitting around in nice strip pine panelled bunkers in the films.
Equally weird was the idea of Norwegian enthusiasts ‘doing up’ the place, and installing all that wood in what was, even today at the height of summer, a pretty damp environment. Mind you, they were installing glass windows as well. The Norwegians are saying this has been a good summer, from which I deduce that the shores of the Norwegian Sea don’t get very much sun….I think we last saw it on Wednesday morning, briefly.
Anyhow, the dog and I are settled into our wooden cabin, and I shall go and have a poke around….
You have omitted a cheerful fluffy dog. I have no means of judging scale. Am sad.
But would the cheerful fluffy dog be small, or far away?
O/T The Stonehenge A303 tunnel was approved by Mark Harper last week.
I assume it is likely to be the subject of further legal challenges but can anyone explain to me what the downside is (apart from costing a lot of money the government doesn't have)?
As far as I can see the site will be much better without the 303 trundling past.
There is some concern that digging a large tunnel through a World Heritage Site may cause considerable damage to it.
And of course there are always those who oppose roads on general principles.
Personally I think it unlikely more damage would be caused by digging a tunnel than by leaving the road where it is.
I would have thought that archeologists would be champing at the bit to have the tunnel built, after all it's the only chance they'll ever get to dig on that site.
The problem is that they are starting and ending the tunnel inside the World Heritage site. In doing so they are destroying known archaeological sites and diminishing the site itself as well as other unassociated but extremely important archaeology in the area.
There is the internationally important site of Blick Mead which has already been damaged by the preparatory works. These are sites that need decades of work to be properly understood and of course they won't get it when it is in advance of the tunnel construction.
This is similar to the HS2 situation. There is all the posturing over how many wonderful sites have been revealed and the fact that over 100 are being excavated and recorded. This is all a blind for the fact that number is less than 10% of the actual archaeological sites which have been identified and the other 90% will not even have the most cursory examination nor be recorded at all, just destroyed.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
The Brass hats living it up in chateaux are a bit of a myth. Casualty rates among British generals were high.
O/T The Stonehenge A303 tunnel was approved by Mark Harper last week.
I assume it is likely to be the subject of further legal challenges but can anyone explain to me what the downside is (apart from costing a lot of money the government doesn't have)?
As far as I can see the site will be much better without the 303 trundling past.
There is some concern that digging a large tunnel through a World Heritage Site may cause considerable damage to it.
And of course there are always those who oppose roads on general principles.
Personally I think it unlikely more damage would be caused by digging a tunnel than by leaving the road where it is.
I would have thought that archeologists would be champing at the bit to have the tunnel built, after all it's the only chance they'll ever get to dig on that site.
The problem is that they are starting and ending the tunnel inside the World Heritage site. In doing so they are destroying known archaeological sites and diminishing the site itself as well as other unassociated but extremely important archaeology in the area.
There is the internationally important site of Blick Mead which has already been damaged by the preparatory works. These are sites that need decades of work to be properly understood and of course they won't get it when it is in advance of the tunnel construction.
This is similar to the HS2 situation. There is all the posturing over how many wonderful sites have been revealed and the fact that over 100 are being excavated and recorded. This is all a blind for the fact that number is less than 10% of the actual archaeological sites which have been identified and the other 90% will not even have the most cursory examination nor be recorded at all, just destroyed.
Oh well. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
My local IMAX has pretty much sold out of Oppenheimer tickets for the whole week. Only a few odds and 2am screenings still available. Grr…
Not-local IMAX has also sold out of Oppenheimer tickets until next weekend. Bugger.
Those who have seen it, worth taking half a day off work to go to a morning screening?
Hell yes.
Brilliant apart from a two minute scene that made Harry S. Truman look like a snivelling little shit.
What’s wrong with historical accuracy?
Best president the US ever had.
Better than FDR or Lincoln?
Strong claim that.
For me yes.
Massive civil rights advances. The founding of the UN The founding of NATO The Marshall Plan The Berlin Airlift
And after it all he went home to his mother in laws old house and refused to take any position with any company be because he thought it would be profiting from the Presidency.
And of course he had the balls to drop the bombs.
I'd add, fighting in Korea.
I can't think of a single big decision that Truman got wrong.
Talking of unexpected restorations. This is the buffet lounge at Przemysl station. Austro-Hungarian?
Years ago when I was a lowly student of Eastern European history, we had a class discussion trying to figure out proper pronunciation of Przemyśl (note the thingy over the s).
We got an answer of sorts a week later, but frankly we couldn't really make much out of it, certainly did NOT make how we said the P-word any more intelligible, to us and (I'm sure) to a native Polish speaker.
Sadly, we lacked the 3rd-millennium wonder of Wiki.
I can't recall any proposals for "deposits" in the US. (Nor would I favor them here.) But -- correct me if I am wrong -- they are mostly uncontroversial in the UK, in spite of the small advantage they give to wealthier candidates.
Talking of unexpected restorations. This is the buffet lounge at Przemysl station. Austro-Hungarian?
Years ago when I was a lowly student of Eastern European history, we had a class discussion trying to figure out proper pronunciation of Przemyśl (note the thingy over the s).
We got an answer of sorts a week later, but frankly we couldn't really make much out of it, certainly did NOT make how we said the P-word any more intelligible, to us and (I'm sure) to a native Polish speaker.
Sadly, we lacked the 3rd-millennium wonder of Wiki.
My local IMAX has pretty much sold out of Oppenheimer tickets for the whole week. Only a few odds and 2am screenings still available. Grr…
Not-local IMAX has also sold out of Oppenheimer tickets until next weekend. Bugger.
Those who have seen it, worth taking half a day off work to go to a morning screening?
Hell yes.
Brilliant apart from a two minute scene that made Harry S. Truman look like a snivelling little shit.
What’s wrong with historical accuracy?
Best president the US ever had.
Better than FDR or Lincoln?
Strong claim that.
For me yes.
Massive civil rights advances. The founding of the UN The founding of NATO The Marshall Plan The Berlin Airlift
And after it all he went home to his mother in laws old house and refused to take any position with any company be because he thought it would be profiting from the Presidency.
And of course he had the balls to drop the bombs.
I'd add, fighting in Korea.
I can't think of a single big decision that Truman got wrong.
Requesting after VE-Day, that USSR declare war against Japan and invade Manchuria?
Which in retrospect seems unnecessary re: victory over Japan in 1945, and which gave communists (Russian, Chinese AND Korean) a huge boost.
On other hand, can be argued that the Soviet blitzkreig versus Japan's Kwantung Army in Manchuria, DID help a lot, in adjusting attitudes in ruling circles in Tokyo that long, hot summer of '45.
Talking of unexpected restorations. This is the buffet lounge at Przemysl station. Austro-Hungarian?
Years ago when I was a lowly student of Eastern European history, we had a class discussion trying to figure out proper pronunciation of Przemyśl (note the thingy over the s).
We got an answer of sorts a week later, but frankly we couldn't really make much out of it, certainly did NOT make how we said the P-word any more intelligible, to us and (I'm sure) to a native Polish speaker.
Sadly, we lacked the 3rd-millennium wonder of Wiki.
A lot of traffic driving through towns, and even cities, is quite literally driving through that town or city because its the only route. EG to get from Liverpool to the Fylde Coast apart from the M6 you need to drive through Preston City Centre as that's where the bridge across the Ribble is. A bridge west of Preston would allow traffic from Liverpool or Southampton to reach Lytham or Blackpool without driving through Preston City Centre. And there's examples like that all over the country.
Very often a route from town A to town D will take you through B and C, because that's simply where the route is.
Bypasses, especially but not just motorways, are fantastic for reducing local traffic by freeing up local roads to serve the local community. If that's all the local roads are used for, then they very easily can become LTNs as they're no longer needing to handle the volume that has no need to be there anyway.
But someone going from town A to town D won't ride a bike that distance. They need their car, and they need a road. So if you want local roads for local traffic, build more roads to handle the non-local traffic to bypass the towns.
You talking nonsense about LTNs earlier btw.
Large relative falls in motor traffic inside the schemes themselves, particularly in Inner London.... Average motor traffic counts on monitored boundary roads changed relatively little
And here's a set of Bush claims about progress in cleaning the environment: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ceq/clean-air.html I think, by the way, that he is right in this general approach: "A blend of market-based approaches and investment in new technologies represents the best approach to reducing air pollution even further and faster."
A lot of traffic driving through towns, and even cities, is quite literally driving through that town or city because its the only route. EG to get from Liverpool to the Fylde Coast apart from the M6 you need to drive through Preston City Centre as that's where the bridge across the Ribble is. A bridge west of Preston would allow traffic from Liverpool or Southampton to reach Lytham or Blackpool without driving through Preston City Centre. And there's examples like that all over the country.
Very often a route from town A to town D will take you through B and C, because that's simply where the route is.
Bypasses, especially but not just motorways, are fantastic for reducing local traffic by freeing up local roads to serve the local community. If that's all the local roads are used for, then they very easily can become LTNs as they're no longer needing to handle the volume that has no need to be there anyway.
But someone going from town A to town D won't ride a bike that distance. They need their car, and they need a road. So if you want local roads for local traffic, build more roads to handle the non-local traffic to bypass the towns.
You talking nonsense about LTNs earlier btw.
Large relative falls in motor traffic inside the schemes themselves, particularly in Inner London.... Average motor traffic counts on monitored boundary roads changed relatively little
Talking of unexpected restorations. This is the buffet lounge at Przemysl station. Austro-Hungarian?
Years ago when I was a lowly student of Eastern European history, we had a class discussion trying to figure out proper pronunciation of Przemyśl (note the thingy over the s).
We got an answer of sorts a week later, but frankly we couldn't really make much out of it, certainly did NOT make how we said the P-word any more intelligible, to us and (I'm sure) to a native Polish speaker.
Sadly, we lacked the 3rd-millennium wonder of Wiki.
My local IMAX has pretty much sold out of Oppenheimer tickets for the whole week. Only a few odds and 2am screenings still available. Grr…
Not-local IMAX has also sold out of Oppenheimer tickets until next weekend. Bugger.
Those who have seen it, worth taking half a day off work to go to a morning screening?
Hell yes.
Brilliant apart from a two minute scene that made Harry S. Truman look like a snivelling little shit.
What’s wrong with historical accuracy?
Best president the US ever had.
Better than FDR or Lincoln?
Strong claim that.
For me yes.
Massive civil rights advances. The founding of the UN The founding of NATO The Marshall Plan The Berlin Airlift
And after it all he went home to his mother in laws old house and refused to take any position with any company be because he thought it would be profiting from the Presidency.
I promised polling on LTNs. This is a compilation by Cllr Emily Kerr. Since she is a Green and threfore has a view, but says it is all the ones she can find, I invite alternative lists if anyone has any data.
AFAICS the claim that "the silent majority oppose LTNs" is a fiction.
"Thanks to everyone who contributed: updated chart with new reports here.
First 6 on the list are from areas where an LTN has been implemented, others are all more broad / national."
They tried out LTNs in parts of Ilford North and Ilford South three years ago, but they only lasted around 6 weeks before being abolished.
I'd predict that they would reappear as and when the good people of Ilford discover how much more money will be paid by buyers for houses in quiet areas without rat-runners hooning through, placing the lives of themselves and their children at risk.
I promised polling on LTNs. This is a compilation by Cllr Emily Kerr. Since she is a Green and threfore has a view, but says it is all the ones she can find, I invite alternative lists if anyone has any data.
AFAICS the claim that "the silent majority oppose LTNs" is a fiction.
"Thanks to everyone who contributed: updated chart with new reports here.
First 6 on the list are from areas where an LTN has been implemented, others are all more broad / national."
They tried out LTNs in parts of Ilford North and Ilford South three years ago, but they only lasted around 6 weeks before being abolished.
I'd predict that they would reappear as and when the good people of Ilford discover how much more money will be paid by buyers for houses in quiet areas without ra-trunners hooning through.
I find it very strange that the anti-LTN brigade never complain about all the new developments that are going in, all of which are LTNs.
Talking of unexpected restorations. This is the buffet lounge at Przemysl station. Austro-Hungarian?
Years ago when I was a lowly student of Eastern European history, we had a class discussion trying to figure out proper pronunciation of Przemyśl (note the thingy over the s).
We got an answer of sorts a week later, but frankly we couldn't really make much out of it, certainly did NOT make how we said the P-word any more intelligible, to us and (I'm sure) to a native Polish speaker.
Sadly, we lacked the 3rd-millennium wonder of Wiki.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
The Brass hats living it up in chateaux are a bit of a myth. Casualty rates among British generals were high.
That proto-wokeist, Alan Clarke, clearly did NOT think it was mythical, when he wrote "The Donkeys".
Certainly plenty of push-back, both after WWI and especially by more modern revisionists. Personally reckon that truth lies somewhere in-between, depending on plenty of factors operational, chronological, geographical, etc.
Maybe worth noting that conditions in many of the "rest camps" behind the front where something less than ideal. Though claims of wide-spread mutiny by British troops at Paris-Plaige and etc. in 1917 have been rebutted, still plenty of evidence that men just pulled out of the trenches often got pretty shitty deal.
Poland is an optimistic place. It seems to entirely lack the pervasive pessimism of the West, despite many problems
The kind of growth they have experienced - it’s a bit like the “never had it so good” period in the U.K. after WWII. Only more so.
Poland is going from second world to first world in a generation or so.
Yes, it’s proof that all happiness is relative
Despite claims otherwise, the Poles really are quite poor, still, compared to Western Europe. A lot of them live in the most awful Stalinist housing, and in a pretty filthy climate (literally: there’s lots of pollution)
Yet GDP per capita has ten-tupled in 30 years. Everything must feel so much better, with each year that passes
And, they have virtually no crime. That’s gotta help. No wonder they like their illiberal government
It depends where you go. If you’re in the east, it would be like judging the UK from the Nirth East. The towns of western Poland are at living standards equivalent to Mediterranean countries already.
Przemyśl Fortress, and the fighting that occurred there & nearby during First World War, was reason my class knew about the burg, let alone wanted to figure out how to pronounce it.
Talking of unexpected restorations. This is the buffet lounge at Przemysl station. Austro-Hungarian?
Years ago when I was a lowly student of Eastern European history, we had a class discussion trying to figure out proper pronunciation of Przemyśl (note the thingy over the s).
We got an answer of sorts a week later, but frankly we couldn't really make much out of it, certainly did NOT make how we said the P-word any more intelligible, to us and (I'm sure) to a native Polish speaker.
Sadly, we lacked the 3rd-millennium wonder of Wiki.
SSI - seems to me, that the "romanized Yiddish" is perhaps most helpful for English-speakers?
Or maybe just American-speakers!
Since he's on the ground, what's Leon's take?
AND is getting ready to L'viv a little?
Yes, [ˈpʂɛmɨɕl] makes it as clear as daylight. Helpfully there's an .ogg file you can play
Most people here seem to say PIZHUMYZHLL
Where “zh” is the J in French “Jour”
It’s all quite confounding
I can however report that the soup is “zurek”, a classic polish smoked-sour sausage soup with an egg, and it’s DELISH
That's pretty close to what the guy on the ogg thingy is saying. Your observation re: French j=zh is helpful.
And the soup sounds great. Reminds me I need to re-visit the "Polish Dom" here in Seattle, they feature a weekly Polish dinner, which is excellent value and lots of fun.
O/T The Stonehenge A303 tunnel was approved by Mark Harper last week.
I assume it is likely to be the subject of further legal challenges but can anyone explain to me what the downside is (apart from costing a lot of money the government doesn't have)?
As far as I can see the site will be much better without the 303 trundling past.
There is some concern that digging a large tunnel through a World Heritage Site may cause considerable damage to it.
And of course there are always those who oppose roads on general principles.
Personally I think it unlikely more damage would be caused by digging a tunnel than by leaving the road where it is.
I would have thought that archeologists would be champing at the bit to have the tunnel built, after all it's the only chance they'll ever get to dig on that site.
The problem is that they are starting and ending the tunnel inside the World Heritage site. In doing so they are destroying known archaeological sites and diminishing the site itself as well as other unassociated but extremely important archaeology in the area.
There is the internationally important site of Blick Mead which has already been damaged by the preparatory works. These are sites that need decades of work to be properly understood and of course they won't get it when it is in advance of the tunnel construction.
This is similar to the HS2 situation. There is all the posturing over how many wonderful sites have been revealed and the fact that over 100 are being excavated and recorded. This is all a blind for the fact that number is less than 10% of the actual archaeological sites which have been identified and the other 90% will not even have the most cursory examination nor be recorded at all, just destroyed.
Oh well. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
They weren't getting excavated anyway.
One of the most stupid comments I have ever seen you make.
There are vast amounts you can learn about a site without digging it. And if it is still there it can be studied at a later date. Of course since it is being destroyed without ever being examined or recorded then all that knowledge is lost to us for good.
If they want to do developments then they should pay for all the archaeology to be done properly. That was the 'Polluter Pays' principle that Thatcher championed.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Sure, that too. I wasn't certain if IanB2's bunkers were the ammunition storage or the personnel accommodation in emergency, or something more permanent (as opposed to wooden huts in a nearby field).
It just seemed a bit weird; of course we judge things by what we’ve seen in the movies, and you don’t see German shore battery crews sitting around in nice strip pine panelled bunkers in the films.
Equally weird was the idea of Norwegian enthusiasts ‘doing up’ the place, and installing all that wood in what was, even today at the height of summer, a pretty damp environment. Mind you, they were installing glass windows as well. The Norwegians are saying this has been a good summer, from which I deduce that the shores of the Norwegian Sea don’t get very much sun….I think we last saw it on Wednesday morning, briefly.
Anyhow, the dog and I are settled into our wooden cabin, and I shall go and have a poke around….
You have omitted a cheerful fluffy dog. I have no means of judging scale. Am sad.
But would the cheerful fluffy dog be small, or far away?
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
Sure, that too. I wasn't certain if IanB2's bunkers were the ammunition storage or the personnel accommodation in emergency, or something more permanent (as opposed to wooden huts in a nearby field).
It just seemed a bit weird; of course we judge things by what we’ve seen in the movies, and you don’t see German shore battery crews sitting around in nice strip pine panelled bunkers in the films.
Equally weird was the idea of Norwegian enthusiasts ‘doing up’ the place, and installing all that wood in what was, even today at the height of summer, a pretty damp environment. Mind you, they were installing glass windows as well. The Norwegians are saying this has been a good summer, from which I deduce that the shores of the Norwegian Sea don’t get very much sun….I think we last saw it on Wednesday morning, briefly.
Anyhow, the dog and I are settled into our wooden cabin, and I shall go and have a poke around….
You have omitted a cheerful fluffy dog. I have no means of judging scale. Am sad.
But would the cheerful fluffy dog be small, or far away?
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
The Brass hats living it up in chateaux are a bit of a myth. Casualty rates among British generals were high.
In fact orders were given to stop high ranking officers leading attacks.
They were trying to understand conditions at the front.
The myth of chateaux generalship relates to the actual reason - needing to control armies beyond line of sight. Radio wasn’t mobile they, so telegraph and telephone systems were required. Which in turn required a large fixed location, with space for telegraph offices and telephone exchanges. And they’re operators.
A lot of people are surprised to learn that easy to use voice radio was a non universal thing in WW *2*
A major Lend-Lease thing for the Russians was American radios - for aircraft and tanks. Which were far better than anything the Russians or Germans had.
Talking of unexpected restorations. This is the buffet lounge at Przemysl station. Austro-Hungarian?
Isn't that better described as mock-Louis-Quatorze, or am I being too jaded?
Nice young lady you have central on your high-res camera !
Looks pretty Habsburg Empire to me, and probably what you say also.
AND when I visited Poland for a week decades ago, never saw so many good-looking woman in my life in similar span; helped that I was in Łódź ("Wudge" sorta rhymes with "fudge") the home of the National Film School made famous by Polish "New Wave" film directors.
Talking of unexpected restorations. This is the buffet lounge at Przemysl station. Austro-Hungarian?
Isn't that better described as mock-Louis-Quatorze, or am I being too jaded?
Nice young lady you have central on your high-res camera !
Looks pretty Habsburg Empire to me, and probably what you say also.
AND when I visited Poland for a week decades ago, never saw so many good-looking woman in my life in similar span; helped that I was in Łódź ("Wudge" sorta rhymes with "fudge") the home of the National Film School made famous by Polish "New Wave" film directors.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better).
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
Your last sentence is specifically ridiculous. I’m not trying to be insulting, but that sentence is just so very wrong.
First, the realisation elections are won and lost not on votes cast but on the numbers of bums on green benches. Getting 20% everywhere gets you nothing - parties need to be able to concentrate their vote - to maximise the efficiency of that vote - to obtain the maximum number of representatives for the minimum number of votes cast.
Second, to achieve the first requires ruthless concentration of resources on the areas where you have a chance of winning. That means telling activist sin nearby constituencies to stop working and go to the winnable seat - this phenomenon, known to the LDs as "targeting" optimises resources to make the vote more efficient.
To put it bluntly, winning 30% in constituency A and 25% in constituency B likely gets you nothing - winning 45% in constituency A and 10% in constituency B is the same number of votes but is much more likely to yield one victory.
Third, the electorate aren't stupid - if they are determined to give one party a kicking, they will find a way. To help them, it's much simpler for there to be a single obvious opponent. The Conservatives prevail when they face a divided opposition either through more than one party working the seat in opposition or no one working the seat in opposition.
The Conservatives don't so much fight a war on many fronts but fight a war against different opponents - in most areas it's Labour but it can also be the LDs, SNP, Greens or even a strong local independent (Martin Bell, Richard Taylor) against whom other opposition parties either don't stand or don't fight.
There will be no formal electoral pact across the Opposition parties - thet aren't that silly. You may see local "understandings" between LDs and Greens but what will happen is in absence of a pact one will be created by the electorate through what we call "tactical voting" but what is in fact the best method an angry electorate discover to defeat any given Conservative candidate.
Thus are opposition parties equivocal about losing deposits in by-elections if the net effect is to mobilise enough voters to defeat any Conservative candidate.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
If you have read much about the conflict you will surely know what you posted was risible. I’m not trying to be rude, just countering something I find intensely annoying.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
78 British generals were killed in the First World War.
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better).
Just part of what is left of a massive coastal battery (dog for scale); one of 350 Atlantic Wall fortifications built in Norway, this one not that far south of the Arctic Circle.
"Local enthusiasts" are apparently "restoring" the underground bunkers, which seems mainly to compromise fitting them out with nice new pine panelling. Which I doubt the German soldiers had?
Wood lining? I'd think you needed it to prevent condensation and stop it dripping on everything, especially the ammunition rounds.
Believe that German soldiers were quite adept at making their bunkers and the like reasonably habitable, even quasi-comfortable, in both WW1 and WW2.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
I think British and Empire troops were in permanent rotation between front line second echelon and rear areas so rarely were in the front trenches for long, unlike French and Germans. Hence tended to not spend a lot of time making themselves comfy in WW1.
Good point. However, note that more comfort also = less trench foot & etc. which would have increased combat efficiency.
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War, not just the Blackadder, Lions led by donkeys version. The British army cared intensely about their soldiers. The generals, so derided by revisionist historians in the sixties, were faced with a uniquely difficult command situation. Up till then, battles were on a scale that a general could see the battlefield and exert influence rapidly and effectively. In the first world war communications were poor (telephone cables cut etc), battlefields were now too large to be overseen. Add in the defensive power of barbed wire, machine guns and huge artilliary and every battle became a siege. After WW1 armies had radio commas plus airforce observation and armour.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
"Might be worth reading some proper history about the First World War"
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
Your last sentence is specifically ridiculous. I’m not trying to be insulting, but that sentence is just so very wrong.
You weren't trying to be insulting? Bull shit.
I most definitely WAS trying to be insulting in my "last sentence" in response to your "might be worth reading some proper history" crap.
Never even hear of "Black adder" until I was in my 40s or thereabouts. And had been reading "proper history" of WW One for some time before then.\
Like I said, truth likely is between "Lions led by Donkeys" and "Donkeys led by Lions" NOT in the conventional wisdom of 1920s, 1960s or 2000s on this subject.
Talking of unexpected restorations. This is the buffet lounge at Przemysl station. Austro-Hungarian?
It is uncannily reminiscent of the waiting room at Carlisle station. Can they by any chance be related? England is never outdone by the Austro Hungarians when it comes to public good taste.
Comments
The groundstaff are bringing on the big side covers now too.
Hitler being a significant exception, but then he WAS exceptional.
In contrast, during First World War anyway, Brits appear to have shunned such creature comforts On grounds that it would take the offensive edge off the front-line troops. At least that seems to have been the "line' endorsed by brass hats ensconced in chateau and the like.
You're not looking at the BBC forecast are you? They appear to have given up forecasting in favour of just saying rain all the time. The difference between the BBC forecast and either a) the Met Office forecast or b) reality is quite staggering.
They even got it into an article about I can't believe the right wing are going to win in Spain, how awful, why is nobody talking about climate change.
Play in the final session can continue to 19:30...which isn't going to happen because of the light.
But they had to stop at 18.45 yesterday.
I think the rational principle is for good quality infrastructure which becomes the default for cycles, e-scooters and large mobility scooters - all of which needs to be as free as possible from motor vehicles. Large mobility scooters are an anomaly - at present they are forced onto the road and considered to be motor vehicles when doing more then 4mph; when doing 4mph or less they are pedestrians and go on pavements.
That setup would require some minor adjustment to our laws, so the current Govt won't do it.
Where mixing of peds, cycles and motor vehicles is required, it needs motor vehicle speeds to be less than 20mph, and properly by road design rather than creating a road design that says 30mph or 40mph, and a
stuck on 20mph sign.
£30-40 per pop is a decent number by comparison with mainland European countries, and needs to be maintained for a generation. In terms of transport expenditure, it is almost a rounding error.
HOWEVER
It's 71 overs in. If we can get 2 or 3 more hours tomorrow, hopefully we can get 1 more before the new ball and then if it's light enough, Broad and Wood can wrap it up with the new ball!
Maybe even time to chase a small target, we could get 60 in 8 overs.
Here's hoping 👍
ER nutcases act as if we're doing nothing about climate change and its all terrible, when they aren't jetsetting around the planet to the next conflab/Thailand.
Meanwhile back in the real world we've in the past 13 years effectively ended centuries of coal use for making electricity, got the fundamentals going for switching from petrol/diesel to electric transportation and much, much more.
In the next 13 years we're going to get to a point where all new vehicles are electric, and our electricity is clean.
Sometimes the solution is actually that we're doing the right thing and we need to keep on doing that right thing. And if that's the case, lets have the opportunity to discuss other problems and not just solely concentrate on an increasingly already solved problem.
Massive civil rights advances.
The founding of the UN
The founding of NATO
The Marshall Plan
The Berlin Airlift
And after it all he went home to his mother in laws old house and refused to take any position with any company be because he thought it would be profiting from the Presidency.
And of course he had the balls to drop the bombs.
Arguably we should be getting to where we need to be faster.
But even here I'd argue that there are thousands and thousands of people working directly to make this happen. It is a not inconsiderable part of my job.
And there are millions of people who are not working directly for this but who, by working and being taxed, fund the not-inconsiderable amount that the government is spending on this.
And there are also some people who like to throw orange powder at sporting events and cause traffic jams.
Was amazing as a kid having big bunker complexes in the land above the house to play in. They were large complexes of gun emplacements, range finding platforms, personnel dorms etc.
A real eye opener is on all the beaches you see the bunkers at either end and others dotted along depending on the size of beach, and massive curving concrete walls along the length of the bay, and you think that if the allies had ever tried to land it would have been an absolute bloodbath - worse than D-day as the bays are generally smaller and curved with bunkers built into headlands at each end so the crossfire would have been horrendous and very difficult to assault.
I assume it is likely to be the subject of further legal challenges but can anyone explain to me what the downside is (apart from costing a lot of money the government doesn't have)?
As far as I can see the site will be much better without the 303 trundling past.
The mentality of the opponents is baffling to me, whether it's the accidental (or deliberate) untruths pushed by the likes of Susan Hall and Mark Harper, or the hysterics coming from other quarters.
I think that like progressive rebalancing away from motor-vehicle domination they know it will work very well, and are just scraping around for 'reasons' to defend their personal interests, and are cynical concerning the interests of those living in older housing areas.
I'd build it, though.
And of course there are always those who oppose roads on general principles.
Personally I think it unlikely more damage would be caused by digging a tunnel than by leaving the road where it is.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/forecast/gcw25uekz#?date=2023-07-22
Should be noted, that while HST did refuse corporate employment after leaving the White House, he DID accept significant "freebies" such as new cars.
As documented in an excellent, fun book, "Harry Truman's Excellent Adventure: The True Story of a Great American Road Trip" about drive that he and Bess took (in donated Chrysler) from Independence, Missoui to Washington, DC in 1953. Along a route familiar to both of them, from traveling back and forth when Harry was a US Senator.
My favorite story from the book, was this: as Harry and Bess were approaching Our Nation's Capital, he alerted the DC press corps that they could meet up with him, briefly, at a gas station in Frederick, Maryland. Where the owner was a staunch Democrat . . . and his mechanic was an equally staunch Republican.
It was a hot day, and as reporters asked the former President their questions, the station owner asked him if he was going to give the mechanic grief for being a GOPer.
"Naw," replied Harry (I paraphrase slightly) "it's too hot to give anyone hell - even a Republican."
A consideration that largely escaped the Donkey's in their chateau who thought the Lions ought to live in conditions they would NOT allow for their own stables.
They’ve been talking about that tunnel since before I was living in Salisbury two decades ago, and there have been massive queues on the approach to Stonehenge for a couple of decades before that.
Equally weird was the idea of Norwegian enthusiasts ‘doing up’ the place, and installing all that wood in what was, even today at the height of summer, a pretty damp environment. Mind you, they were installing glass windows as well. The Norwegians are saying this has been a good summer, from which I deduce that the shores of the Norwegian Sea don’t get very much sun….I think we last saw it on Wednesday morning, briefly.
Anyhow, the dog and I are settled into our wooden cabin, and I shall go and have a poke around….
If an estate is created not to be a main road for traffic with no through roads then that works with the through road handling the traffic.
If a pre-existing through road is blocked off with no alternative created, then you are just creating problems without any gain. And simply saying "get on a bike, who needs cars anyway" is just wilful blindness.
If an alternative road is built to replace a through road, then the through road becomes an LTN, then that works.
I've said before, this has been done very sensibly near where I live. The road my kids school is off was part of the A-road to Liverpool. It was a 30mph road with houses, shops, schools etc off it but was a major A road with 2 lanes heading to Liverpool and 1 lane heading away from it.
A new purpose-built dual carriageway has just been built nearby to take the traffic heading to Liverpool. This dual carriageway runs at 50mph (I feel it should be 70mph but c'est la vie).
And the old A-road is no longer marked as the A-road anymore and has now been turned to 20mph. One of the lanes to Liverpool has been removed and now instead there is a dedicated cycle path, with a concrete barrier with plants in it separating the road traffic from cyclists.
Everybody wins. People travelling to Liverpool get to go at 50 instead of 30, with a new dual carriageway there's now more space not less for cars, and with dedicated cycle paths etc people travelling locally can do so now safely whether in cars, bikes or pedestrians.
But to do this properly you need to build more roads to replace the through traffic and provide it an alternative route. An LTN that simply says "we're going to reduce traffic" rather than "traffic should go this way instead" is counterproductive.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/PT-AL400A_truma_G_20090417211944.jpg&tbnid=RpZIlYOiB4eLJM&vet=12ahUKEwjjtK-z56KAAxXFHjQIHUrICfcQMygmegUIARDbAQ..i&imgrefurl=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124001787126331153&docid=PPQ4Fr4cYdfaKM&w=553&h=369&q=picture harry truman coke bottle&ved=2ahUKEwjjtK-z56KAAxXFHjQIHUrICfcQMygmegUIARDbAQ
Believe that that Coke bottle is still on display in a local museum.
Very often a route from town A to town D will take you through B and C, because that's simply where the route is.
Bypasses, especially but not just motorways, are fantastic for reducing local traffic by freeing up local roads to serve the local community. If that's all the local roads are used for, then they very easily can become LTNs as they're no longer needing to handle the volume that has no need to be there anyway.
But someone going from town A to town D won't ride a bike that distance. They need their car, and they need a road. So if you want local roads for local traffic, build more roads to handle the non-local traffic to bypass the towns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwajb0Zgt_g
There is the internationally important site of Blick Mead which has already been damaged by the preparatory works. These are sites that need decades of work to be properly understood and of course they won't get it when it is in advance of the tunnel construction.
This is similar to the HS2 situation. There is all the posturing over how many wonderful sites have been revealed and the fact that over 100 are being excavated and recorded. This is all a blind for the fact that number is less than 10% of the actual archaeological sites which have been identified and the other 90% will not even have the most cursory examination nor be recorded at all, just destroyed.
They weren't getting excavated anyway.
I can't think of a single big decision that Truman got wrong.
We got an answer of sorts a week later, but frankly we couldn't really make much out of it, certainly did NOT make how we said the P-word any more intelligible, to us and (I'm sure) to a native Polish speaker.
Sadly, we lacked the 3rd-millennium wonder of Wiki.
Przemyśl (Polish: [ˈpʂɛmɨɕl]; Latin: Premislia; Yiddish: פשעמישל, romanized: Pshemishl; Ukrainian: Перемишль, romanized: Peremyshl; German: Premissel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przemyśl
SSI - seems to me, that the "romanized Yiddish" is perhaps most helpful for English-speakers?
Or maybe just American-speakers!
Since he's on the ground, what's Leon's take?
AND is getting ready to L'viv a little?
Which in retrospect seems unnecessary re: victory over Japan in 1945, and which gave communists (Russian, Chinese AND Korean) a huge boost.
On other hand, can be argued that the Soviet blitzkreig versus Japan's Kwantung Army in Manchuria, DID help a lot, in adjusting attitudes in ruling circles in Tokyo that long, hot summer of '45.
Large relative falls in motor traffic inside the schemes themselves, particularly in Inner London.... Average motor traffic counts on monitored boundary roads changed relatively little
https://smarttransportpub.blob.core.windows.net/web/1/root/changes-in-motor-traffic-inside-londons-ltns-and-on-boundary-roads.pdf
And here's a set of Bush claims about progress in cleaning the environment: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ceq/clean-air.html I think, by the way, that he is right in this general approach: "A blend of market-based approaches and investment in new technologies represents the best approach to reducing air pollution even further and faster."
In Odessa, Ukraine = temp 77F, 3% chance of rainfall, humidity 79%, wind 9 mph
As for Heerford boathouse, dingy
I categorise this kind of the thinking from the Right as similar to that from the Left on rent controls. Naive, in the extreme.
LA's approach to solving congestion is going superbly:
Was there anything similar in the UK?
Where “zh” is the J in French “Jour”
It’s all quite confounding
I can however report that the soup is “zurek”, a classic polish smoked-sour sausage soup with an egg, and it’s DELISH
Certainly plenty of push-back, both after WWI and especially by more modern revisionists. Personally reckon that truth lies somewhere in-between, depending on plenty of factors operational, chronological, geographical, etc.
Maybe worth noting that conditions in many of the "rest camps" behind the front where something less than ideal. Though claims of wide-spread mutiny by British troops at Paris-Plaige and etc. in 1917 have been rebutted, still plenty of evidence that men just pulled out of the trenches often got pretty shitty deal.
Nice young lady you have central on your high-res camera !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przemyśl_Fortress
Przemyśl Fortress, and the fighting that occurred there & nearby during First World War, was reason my class knew about the burg, let alone wanted to figure out how to pronounce it.
Addendum
http://visit.przemysl.pl/en/481-przemysl-the-fortress-of-przemysl
And the soup sounds great. Reminds me I need to re-visit the "Polish Dom" here in Seattle, they feature a weekly Polish dinner, which is excellent value and lots of fun.
And WHY are YOU still weighing yourself in rocks, or whatever it is?
There are vast amounts you can learn about a site without digging it. And if it is still there it can be studied at a later date. Of course since it is being destroyed without ever being examined or recorded then all that knowledge is lost to us for good.
If they want to do developments then they should pay for all the archaeology to be done properly. That was the 'Polluter Pays' principle that Thatcher championed.
OR canine could do it other way around? For our benefit AND to show who is REALLY top dog of the outfit!
They were trying to understand conditions at the front.
The myth of chateaux generalship relates to the actual reason - needing to control armies beyond line of sight. Radio wasn’t mobile they, so telegraph and telephone systems were required. Which in turn required a large fixed location, with space for telegraph offices and telephone exchanges. And they’re operators.
A lot of people are surprised to learn that easy to use voice radio was a non universal thing in WW *2*
A major Lend-Lease thing for the Russians was American radios - for aircraft and tanks. Which were far better than anything the Russians or Germans had.
AND when I visited Poland for a week decades ago, never saw so many good-looking woman in my life in similar span; helped that I was in Łódź ("Wudge" sorta rhymes with "fudge") the home of the National Film School made famous by Polish "New Wave" film directors.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). The troops were mainly kitcheners men, and untested. Hence orders to advance slowly, to avoid chaos. Sadly in the face of strong opposition, small groups of soldiers infiltrating worked far better than lines of advance, as was shown later on 1st of July.
The generals evolved tactics throughout the war. By 1918 the British Army was the strongest left in the field, and after the hundred days stood on the brink of marching into Germany.
When Haig died, his troops saw him as a hero. Too many modern day folk get their history from Blackadder and the reactionary historians of the sixties. The generals were an endangered species - many died in combat. The idea that they had no knowledge of conditions at the front is risible. The idea that one said, after seeing the mud at Paschendale, “my god, did we really send me to fight in that” is an outrageous myth.
#rantover
Having done just that, perhaps more than you.
Kindly get off your high-horse, quit your sneering, and stop looking down your nose . . . at your own balls.
EDIT - it IS possible after all, to make the points you are making, without being insulting.
The generals tried so hard to not kill their troops. The Somme is a classic example. The huge, lengthy bombardment was meant to destroy the Germans. Sadly it failed for a variety of reasons ( although the French to the south did far better). Your last sentence is specifically ridiculous. I’m not trying to be insulting, but that sentence is just so very wrong.
On topic - this is about a number of things.
First, the realisation elections are won and lost not on votes cast but on the numbers of bums on green benches. Getting 20% everywhere gets you nothing - parties need to be able to concentrate their vote - to maximise the efficiency of that vote - to obtain the maximum number of representatives for the minimum number of votes cast.
Second, to achieve the first requires ruthless concentration of resources on the areas where you have a chance of winning. That means telling activist sin nearby constituencies to stop working and go to the winnable seat - this phenomenon, known to the LDs as "targeting" optimises resources to make the vote more efficient.
To put it bluntly, winning 30% in constituency A and 25% in constituency B likely gets you nothing - winning 45% in constituency A and 10% in constituency B is the same number of votes but is much more likely to yield one victory.
Third, the electorate aren't stupid - if they are determined to give one party a kicking, they will find a way. To help them, it's much simpler for there to be a single obvious opponent. The Conservatives prevail when they face a divided opposition either through more than one party working the seat in opposition or no one working the seat in opposition.
The Conservatives don't so much fight a war on many fronts but fight a war against different opponents - in most areas it's Labour but it can also be the LDs, SNP, Greens or even a strong local independent (Martin Bell, Richard Taylor) against whom other opposition parties either don't stand or don't fight.
There will be no formal electoral pact across the Opposition parties - thet aren't that silly. You may see local "understandings" between LDs and Greens but what will happen is in absence of a pact one will be created by the electorate through what we call "tactical voting" but what is in fact the best method an angry electorate discover to defeat any given Conservative candidate.
Thus are opposition parties equivocal about losing deposits in by-elections if the net effect is to mobilise enough voters to defeat any Conservative candidate.
https://www.cwgc.org/our-work/blog/in-the-line-of-duty-remembering-the-great-wars-fallen-generals/
That was slightly lower than the death rate among subalterns but slightly higher than that of ordinary soldiers.
Edit - although there were I think more generals in WWII, about four times as many generals died in WWI compared to WWII. Largely because by then radios were sufficiently advanced for senior officers to be rather further from the fighting.
I most definitely WAS trying to be insulting in my "last sentence" in response to your "might be worth reading some proper history" crap.
Never even hear of "Black adder" until I was in my 40s or thereabouts. And had been reading "proper history" of WW One for some time before then.\
Like I said, truth likely is between "Lions led by Donkeys" and "Donkeys led by Lions" NOT in the conventional wisdom of 1920s, 1960s or 2000s on this subject.
https://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1711-Carlisle-sets-example